Related Experiment Videos
Adaptation and Initial Psychometric Validation of the Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI) for
Amy R Deipolyi1, Michael V Korona2, Ashraf Ahmad3
1West Virginia School of Medicine, Charleston Division, 3200 MacCorkle Ave SE, Charleston, WV, 25304; Interventional Radiology, Department of Surgery, Charleston Area Medical Center, 3200 MacCorkle Ave SE, Charleston, WV, 25304.
Purpose:
To adapt and psychometrically validate the Clinician Satisfaction with Sedation Instrument (CSSI) for use in interventional radiology (IR), including assessment of reliability and validity.
Materials And Methods:
In this prospective observational study, clinician responses were collected following adult IR procedures performed with IR-administered procedural sedation. The original 21-item CSSI was adapted for IR using face validity assessment and pilot testing, resulting in a 13-item instrument. Internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis, inter-rater reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, and convergent validity were evaluated. A secondary cohort assessed physician-physician agreement.
Results:
One hundred one procedures generated 272 completed surveys from 12 clinicians (10 nurses, 2 physicians). The adapted CSSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.968) and a unidimensional factor structure accounting for 73.1% of variance. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between physicians and nurses (ICC = 0.547) and good among nurses (ICC = 0.763). Physician-physician reliability demonstrated good consistency (ICC = 0.688). CSSI scores increased with patient vocalization severity (P < .001), patient movement (P = .041), sedation-related complications (P < .001), multiple procedures (P < .001), and differed across procedure types (P = .030) and sedation regimens (P < .001). CSSI scores also correlated with deepest procedural sedation level (Spearman r = 0.491, P = .028).
Conclusion:
The adapted 13-item CSSI demonstrated excellent internal consistency and initial evidence of reliability and validity for measuring clinician satisfaction with procedural sedation in interventional radiology. The instrument shows potential as a standardized clinician-reported outcome measure for future comparative sedation studies.