Interrater reliability and agreement of the NEUMOBACT checklist about infection-prevention performance of intensive care nurses in simulation-based scenarios
2024

Reliability of the NEUMOBACT Checklist for ICU Nurses

Sample size: 190 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Raurell-Torredà Marta, Zaragoza-García Ignacio, Arrogante Oscar, Aliberch-Raurell Anna María, Sánchez-Chillón Francisco Javier, Torralba-Melero Martín, Rojo-Rojo Andrés, Muriel-García Alfonso, Amaya Arias Ana Carolina, Roldán-Merino Juan, Farrés-Tarafa Mariona

Primary Institution: Hospitalet del Llobregat, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain

Hypothesis

The NEUMOBACT checklist will demonstrate substantial interrater reliability among ICU nurses.

Conclusion

The NEUMOBACT checklist is validated for assessing ICU nurses' performance in infection prevention.

Supporting Evidence

  • The NEUMOBACT checklist shows substantial agreement between raters.
  • Interrater reliability was assessed using Gwet’s AC1.
  • 95 pairs of valid checklists were analyzed.
  • High agreement was found in most checklist items.
  • The checklist can be used for training and assessment in infection prevention.
  • Results indicate the checklist's effectiveness in clinical practice.
  • Training improved compliance with infection prevention measures.
  • Study supports the use of simulation in nursing education.

Takeaway

This study shows that nurses can agree on how well infection prevention measures are followed using a specific checklist.

Methodology

A validation study with a cross-sectional design among ICU nurses using the NEUMOBACT checklist during a simulation course.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to convenience sampling from a single conference.

Limitations

The sample included a high percentage of nurses with postgraduate education, which may affect generalizability.

Participant Demographics

Median age of 29 years, 93.7% female, with 5 years of nursing experience.

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

95% CI [0.919–0.949]

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0313175

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication