Article Text
Abstract
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.
- patient feedback
- patient safety
- patient involvement
- acute care
- psychometrics
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/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @Gemma_Louch, @LawtonRebecca
Collaborators Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group
Contributors GL led on the development of PMOS-30, carried out the related analyses and drafted the manuscript. JH carried out the PMOS-10 shortening statistical analyses. CR led on the PMOS-10 data collection, and GL, AA and CR carried out the related analyses. SM and CM supported the studies at all stages, in particular the patient and public involvement and engagement element of this work. RL provided guidance and input at all stages. All authors provided comments and approved the final version.
Funding The research was supported by The Health Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR YH PSTRC) and NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber www.clahrc-yh.nihr.ac.uk. The PMOS-30 and PMOS-10 shortening exercises utilised data from a wider study funded by the NIHR under its programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (‘Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients’, RP-PG-0108-10049). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of The Health Foundation, the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval Ethical approvals were obtained from the University of Bradford, Humanities, Social and Health Sciences Research Ethics Panel, and from the East Midlands - Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, GL, upon reasonable request. PMOS-44, PMOS-30, PMOS-10 and ‘easy read’ versions which have subsequently been produced can be requested via https://www.improvementacademy.org/tools-and-resources/patient-reporting-and-action-for-a-safe-environment.html (freely available).