Cargando…

Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10

OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study ai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Louch, Gemma, Reynolds, Caroline, Moore, Sally, Marsh, Claire, Heyhoe, Jane, Albutt, Abigail, Lawton, Rebecca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31784438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355
_version_ 1783481770148102144
author Louch, Gemma
Reynolds, Caroline
Moore, Sally
Marsh, Claire
Heyhoe, Jane
Albutt, Abigail
Lawton, Rebecca
author_facet Louch, Gemma
Reynolds, Caroline
Moore, Sally
Marsh, Claire
Heyhoe, Jane
Albutt, Abigail
Lawton, Rebecca
author_sort Louch, Gemma
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study aimed to produce revised, shortened versions of PMOS (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10), which retained the psychometric properties of the longer version. PARTICIPANTS: To produce a shortened diagnostic measure, we analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and examined the reliability of the revised measure (PMOS-30) in a sample of 751 patients. To produce a brief standalone measure, we again analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and tested the reliability and validity of the brief standalone measure (PMOS-10) in a sample of 165 patients. METHODS: The process of shortening the questionnaire involved a combination of secondary data analysis (eg, Standard Deviation and inter-item correlations) and a consensus group exercise to produce PMOS-30 and examine face validity. Analysis of PMOS-30 data examined reliability (eg, Cronbach’s alpha). Further secondary data analysis (ie, corrected item-total correlations) produced PMOS-10, and primary data collection assessed its reliability and validity (eg, Cronbach’s alpha, analysis of variance). RESULTS: Fourteen items were removed to produce PMOS-30 and the percentage of negatively worded items was reduced from 57% to 33%. PMOS-30 demonstrated good internal reliability (α=0.89). The 10 items with the highest corrected item-total correlations across both PMOS-44 and PMOS-30 composed PMOS-10. PMOS-10 had good internal reliability (α=0.79), demonstrated convergent validity; however, discriminant validity was not established. CONCLUSIONS: Two revised, shortened versions of the original PMOS-44 (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10) were produced to capture patient feedback about safety in hospital. The measures demonstrated good reliability and validity, and preserved the psychometric properties of the original measure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6924707
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69247072020-01-02 Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 Louch, Gemma Reynolds, Caroline Moore, Sally Marsh, Claire Heyhoe, Jane Albutt, Abigail Lawton, Rebecca BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence that patients can provide feedback on the safety of their care. The 44-item Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) was developed for this purpose. While valid and reliable, the length of this questionnaire makes it potentially challenging for routine use. Our study aimed to produce revised, shortened versions of PMOS (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10), which retained the psychometric properties of the longer version. PARTICIPANTS: To produce a shortened diagnostic measure, we analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and examined the reliability of the revised measure (PMOS-30) in a sample of 751 patients. To produce a brief standalone measure, we again analysed data from 2002 patients who completed PMOS-44, and tested the reliability and validity of the brief standalone measure (PMOS-10) in a sample of 165 patients. METHODS: The process of shortening the questionnaire involved a combination of secondary data analysis (eg, Standard Deviation and inter-item correlations) and a consensus group exercise to produce PMOS-30 and examine face validity. Analysis of PMOS-30 data examined reliability (eg, Cronbach’s alpha). Further secondary data analysis (ie, corrected item-total correlations) produced PMOS-10, and primary data collection assessed its reliability and validity (eg, Cronbach’s alpha, analysis of variance). RESULTS: Fourteen items were removed to produce PMOS-30 and the percentage of negatively worded items was reduced from 57% to 33%. PMOS-30 demonstrated good internal reliability (α=0.89). The 10 items with the highest corrected item-total correlations across both PMOS-44 and PMOS-30 composed PMOS-10. PMOS-10 had good internal reliability (α=0.79), demonstrated convergent validity; however, discriminant validity was not established. CONCLUSIONS: Two revised, shortened versions of the original PMOS-44 (PMOS-30 and PMOS-10) were produced to capture patient feedback about safety in hospital. The measures demonstrated good reliability and validity, and preserved the psychometric properties of the original measure. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6924707/ /pubmed/31784438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Louch, Gemma
Reynolds, Caroline
Moore, Sally
Marsh, Claire
Heyhoe, Jane
Albutt, Abigail
Lawton, Rebecca
Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title_full Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title_fullStr Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title_full_unstemmed Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title_short Validation of revised patient measures of safety: PMOS-30 and PMOS-10
title_sort validation of revised patient measures of safety: pmos-30 and pmos-10
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6924707/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31784438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031355
work_keys_str_mv AT louchgemma validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT reynoldscaroline validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT mooresally validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT marshclaire validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT heyhoejane validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT albuttabigail validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10
AT lawtonrebecca validationofrevisedpatientmeasuresofsafetypmos30andpmos10