Patient Measure Of Safety Research Articles

Safety climate, leadership and patient views associated with hip fracture care quality and clinician perceptions of hip fracture care performance.

Hip fracture is a major public health concern for older adults, requiring surgical treatment for patients presenting at hospitals across Australia. Although guidelines have been developed to drive appropriate care of hip fracture patients in hospitals, data on health outcomes suggest these are not well-followed. This study aims to examine whether clinician measures of safety, teamwork and leadership, and patient perceptions of care are associated with key indicators of hip fracture care and the extent to which there is agreement between clinician perceptions of hip fracture care performance and actual hospital performance of hip fracture care. Retrospective analysis was performed on a series of questionnaires used to assess hospital department- and patient-level measures from the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia study. Data were analysed from 32 public hospitals that encompassed 23 leading hip fracture clinicians, 716 patient medical records and 857 patients from orthopaedic public hospital wards. Aggregated across all hospitals, only 5 of 12 of the key hip fracture indicators had ≥50% adherence. Adherence to indicators requiring actions to be performed within a recommended time period was poor (7.2-25.6%). No Patient Measure of Safety or clinician-based measures of teamwork, safety climate or leadership were associated with adherence to key indicators of hip fracture care. Simple proportionate agreement between clinician perceptions and actual hospital performance was generally strong, but few agreement coefficients were compelling. The development of strong quality management processes requires ongoing effort. The findings of this study provide important insights into the relationship between hospital care and outcomes for hip fracture patients and could drive the design of targeted interventions for improved quality assurance of hip fracture care.

Development and validation of an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire at hospital level

Abstract Background An important challenge for health systems worldwide is to ensure that health professionals can carry out their mission to treat, rehabilitate and prevent diseases safely. The Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) questionnaire is an instrument that allows the systematic collection of patients' feedback about their care to understand and assess the level of safety in hospital. The PMOS-30 questionnaire was recently developed as shorter version of the 44-item PMOS. The objectives of this study are to develop and validate an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire so that this instrument can be utilised in hospital routine for the continuous improvement of patient safety. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out on patients in a hospital in Italy. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted after the development of an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire. Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation was used to perform CFA. The quality of the model fit was evaluated on the basis of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Results A total of 435 patients filled in the Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire. The CFI did not achieve the fit value (CFI= 0.802). But RMSEA suggests a reasonably good fit value (RMSEA=0.076). Internal consistency analysis showed that the Cronbach's alpha value was more than 0.6 in all domains except for the domain “organisation and care planning” that had a value of 0.525. Conclusions Patients feedback about their safety in hospital is an important source of information for the routine hospital life. Since patient safety is an intrinsic part of patient care, it deserves every possible new approach in the continuous improvement of care. The PMOS-30 questionnaire is a validated instrument for hospital settings and future research in other Italian hospitals may increase the routine use of this instrument to improve patient safety. Key messages The use of the Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire can support the identification of vulnerable areas in the hospital through patient feedback and therefore improve patient safety. The PMOS-30 questionnaire offers the opportunity to enable Italian hospital managers to track changes in safety over time through repeated assessments in the wards and avoid future patient incidents.

Improving hospital safety for patients with chronic kidney disease: a mixed methods study

BackgroundPeople living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) require complex medical management and may be frequently hospitalized. Patient safety incidents during hospitalization can result in serious complications which may negatively affect health outcomes. There has been limited examination of how these patients perceive their own safety.ObjectivesThis study compared the safety perceptions of patients hospitalized with CKD using two approaches: (a) the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) questionnaire and (b) qualitative interviews. The study objectives were to: (1) assess concordance between qualitative and quantitative data on safety perceptions and (2) better understand safety as perceived by study participants.MethodsA cross-sectional convergent mixed methods design was used. Integration at the reporting level occurred by weaving together patient narratives and survey domains through the use of a joint display. Interview data were merged with results of the PMOS on a case-by-case basis for analysis to assess for concordance or discordance between these approaches to safety data collection.ResultsOf the 30 inpatients with CKD, almost one quarter (23.3 %) of participants reported low levels of perceived safety in hospitals. Four major themes emerged from the interviews: receiving safe care; expecting to be taken care of; expecting to be cared for; and reporting safety concerns. Suboptimal communication, delays in care and concerns about technical aspects of care were common to both forms of data collection. Concordance was noted between qualitative and quantitative data with respect to communication/teamwork, respect and dignity, staff roles, and ward type/lay-out. While interviews allowed for participants to share specific concerns related to safety about quality of interpersonal interactions, use of the questionnaire alone did not capture this concern.ConclusionsSafety issues are a concern for in-patients with CKD. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches provided important and complementary insights into these issues. Narratives were mostly concordant with questionnaire scores. Findings from this mixed methods study suggest that communication, interpersonal interactions, and delays in care were more concerning for participants than technical aspects of care. Eliciting the concerns of people with CKD in a systematic fashion, either through interviews or a survey, ensures that hospital safety improvement efforts focus on issues important to patients.

Validation of the patient measure of safety (PMOS) questionnaire in Australian public hospitals.

Patients can provide a unique perspective on the safety of care in hospitals. Understanding that the extent to which the way hospitals are organized for quality and safety is associated with patient perceptions of care is becoming increasingly valued and necessary for the direction of targeted interventions across healthcare systems. The UK-developed patient measure of safety (PMOS) assesses eight domains of ward safety from the patient point of view and has recently been adapted and piloted in Australia. The aim of this study is to test the psychometric properties of PMOS-Australia (PMOS-A) amongst a large cohort of hospitalized patients. Cross-sectional questionnaire validation assessment. As part of the DUQuA project, the PMOS-A survey was distributed within acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture and stroke departments across 32 large public hospitals in Australia. Patients could complete the PMOS-A independently, or request the assistance of a family member/guardian, or staff on the wards-space was included to record mode of completion. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken on a calibration sample to generate the model, and a validation sample was used to cross-validate the model. A subset of only those participants who received assistance for PMOS-A completion was also tested using CFA on a calibration and validation sample. Model fit indices (chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio [Chi-square:DF], root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA], comparative fit indices [CFI], standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR]), Cronbach's α, average inter-item correlations, construct reliability and cross-loadings were examined with reference to recommended thresholds to establish the extent of convergent validity and discriminant validity. A marker of criterion validity was assessed through testing associations between the PMOS-A and adherence to clinical guidelines. Across the calibration and validation samples of the full (N=911) and assisted completers only subset (N=490), three (Chi-square:DF, SRMR, RMSEA) of the four indices consistently or almost always met thresholds for acceptable model fit. CFI indices did not meet the recommended limits (0.72-0.78, against a target > 0.9). Positive relationships were found for all tests between PMOS-A and adherence to clinical guidelines, and these were significant when assessed in the calibration datasets for the full and assisted completion samples. A sufficiently reliable and valid measure of patient perceptions of safety has been developed. These findings should provide adequate support to justify the use of this measure to assess patient perceptions of safety in Australian hospitals and can be modified for use elsewhere.

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

ObjectivesThere 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...

Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)

Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)

Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS).

Background: Patient safety practice reduces the adverse events that may occur in the health care system during procedures, diseases, and diagnoses. Failure and negligence in identifying and resolving health care system errors may result in financial and physical harm. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Patient Measure of Safety in Hospitals (PMOS). Methods: This study was conducted on 264 patients in 4 hospitals. The patient measure of safety questionnaire has 44 items and 9 domains. To translate the PMOS questionnaire, standardized forward-backward procedure was used, and a panel of experts assessed the face and content validity of the Persian version. Internal consistency, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and test-retest method were used to test the validity and reliability of the instrument. Also, AMOS (version 23) and SPSS (version 16) software were used for data analysis and modeling. Results: The average CVI score was 0.85, indicating well results in the Persian context. CVR score was 0.65. The indices of goodness of fit were acceptable for Iranian sample (CFI=0.91, TLI=0.89, RMSEA=0.063, relative/normal Chi-Square Statistic (X2/df)=2.85). All items were significantly loaded on the domains, except the 33rd and 38th items that were related to the eighth domain. Thus, the final Persian version was developed with 8 domains and 42 items. Internal consistency was acceptable for these domains, and test-retest method showed a good reliability (r=0.984). Conclusions: The Persian version of PMOS is an appropriate instrument to assess the safety of patients in Persian language communities. Also, PMOS is an optimal tool to identify and avoid preventable errors.

Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire

BackgroundThe Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire was developed to collect patient feedback on 15 latent conditions in the primary care environment that influence safety incidents. It provides a way for primary care organisations to learn about safety from the patient perspective, and to then make service improvements with the aim of reducing harm in this setting.AimTo undertake validation testing PC PMOS questionnaire.Method490 adult patients from nine general practices completed the PC PMOS, and 81 practice staff completed the AHRQ medical office survey on patient safety culture. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken to assess the reliability and validity of the 10 factor PC PMOS.ResultsCFA demonstrated data did not fit the model well (CMIN/DF = 5.68; GFI = 0.61, CFI = 0.57, SRMR = 0.13 and RMSEA = 0.10), thus post hoc model fitting was conducted. This resulted in the removal of 22 items on the basis of large MIs (above 10), and SRs > ±2.58, and assessment of item content. The resulting 9 factor model consisting of 28 items was found to fit the data satisfactorily (CMIN/DF = 2.51; GFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.04 and RMSEA = 0.05). The new factors demonstrated good internal reliability. The PC PMOS did not demonstrate good convergent validity with the correlation between total PC PMOS score and practice staff patient safety score failing to reach statistical significance (r = −0.64, k = 9, P = 0.06). It demonstrated good discriminant validity between primary care practices (F = 2.64, df = 72, P<0.001).ConclusionValidation of the PC PMOS has led to a reliable and valid 28 item patient measure of patient safety in primary care. It could enhance or complement current data collection methods used in primary care to identify and prevent error, and is also a practical response to the growing need to find appropriate and effective ways of involving patients in improving patient safety.

Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention.DesignA multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingClusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK.ParticipantsAll...

ISQUA16-2578CAN PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IMPROVE PATIENT SAFETY? A CLUSTER RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL OF THE PATIENT REPORTING AND ACTION FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT (PRASE) INTERVENTION: Table 1

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. DESIGN: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition. INTERVENTION: The ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS). RESULTS: Intervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Adherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

BackgroundEstimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.AimOur aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.Methods and resultsWe developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.ConclusionThis research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Older, vulnerable patient view: a pilot and feasibility study of the patient measure of safety (PMOS) with patients in Australia

ObjectivesThe UK-developed patient measure of safety (PMOS) is a validated tool which captures patient perceptions of safety in hospitals. We aimed (1) to investigate the extent to which the PMOS...

Developing a patient measure of safety (PMOS)

BackgroundTools that proactively identify factors that contribute to accidents have been developed within high-risk industries. Although patients provide feedback on their experience of care in hospitals, there is no existing...