Development of validated, context-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) tools to enhance quality and patient safety in India.

IF 1.6 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lallu Joseph, Rahul Deshmukh, Malathi Murugesan, Neesha Ajit Nair, Ebinesh Antony, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Reka Karuppusami, Pratheesh Ravindran
{"title":"Development of validated, context-specific patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) tools to enhance quality and patient safety in India.","authors":"Lallu Joseph, Rahul Deshmukh, Malathi Murugesan, Neesha Ajit Nair, Ebinesh Antony, Premkumar Ramasubramani, Reka Karuppusami, Pratheesh Ravindran","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) offer unique insights into patient perceptions of care. However, their implementation at the micro level with regards to patient safety remains limited. This study aimed to repurpose PREMs to co-produce validated, context-specific PREMs tools aimed at improving patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective mixed method approach was used to design PREMs-based tools. This multiphase study was conducted from September 2023 to April 2024. In phase 1, a core group identified 17 key processes to devise the PREMs tools. In phase 2, focus group discussions were conducted by the multidisciplinary principal teams to finalise the standard operating procedures for each key process and prepare the respective PREMs questionnaires. Patient safety was the primary construct. Relevant stakeholders, including patients, participated in the face and content validation of each PREMs tool during phase 3. Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated using three indices, namely, item level CVI (I-CVI), scale-level CVI (S-CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). The reliability of the questionnaires was checked using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) values with pilot tests on patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>17 checklist format PREMs tools were developed. The I-CVI values for all the items in the questionnaires ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 and the CVR values ranged from 0.46 to 1.00. The S-CVI/AVG ranged from 0.89 to 1.00. These indicated strong content validity for all items and questionnaires. The reliability analysis for the 17 studies, based on the KR-20 values, ranged from 0.4324 to 0.9455. Except for 'fall prevention', all tools showed good internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We offer a battery of patient safety oriented PREMs tools. Co-production of PREMs tools across an extensive range of patient care processes offers significant potential in patient safety implementation in addition to patient engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12336604/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003345","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) offer unique insights into patient perceptions of care. However, their implementation at the micro level with regards to patient safety remains limited. This study aimed to repurpose PREMs to co-produce validated, context-specific PREMs tools aimed at improving patient safety.

Methods: A prospective mixed method approach was used to design PREMs-based tools. This multiphase study was conducted from September 2023 to April 2024. In phase 1, a core group identified 17 key processes to devise the PREMs tools. In phase 2, focus group discussions were conducted by the multidisciplinary principal teams to finalise the standard operating procedures for each key process and prepare the respective PREMs questionnaires. Patient safety was the primary construct. Relevant stakeholders, including patients, participated in the face and content validation of each PREMs tool during phase 3. Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated using three indices, namely, item level CVI (I-CVI), scale-level CVI (S-CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR). The reliability of the questionnaires was checked using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) values with pilot tests on patients.

Results: 17 checklist format PREMs tools were developed. The I-CVI values for all the items in the questionnaires ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 and the CVR values ranged from 0.46 to 1.00. The S-CVI/AVG ranged from 0.89 to 1.00. These indicated strong content validity for all items and questionnaires. The reliability analysis for the 17 studies, based on the KR-20 values, ranged from 0.4324 to 0.9455. Except for 'fall prevention', all tools showed good internal consistency.

Conclusions: We offer a battery of patient safety oriented PREMs tools. Co-production of PREMs tools across an extensive range of patient care processes offers significant potential in patient safety implementation in addition to patient engagement.

开发经过验证的、针对具体情况的患者报告经验措施(PREMs)工具,以提高印度的质量和患者安全。
目的:患者报告的经验措施(PREMs)提供独特的见解,病人的看法护理。然而,在患者安全方面,它们在微观层面的实施仍然有限。本研究旨在重新利用PREMs,共同生产经过验证的、针对具体情况的PREMs工具,以提高患者的安全性。方法:采用前瞻性混合方法设计基于prems的工具。这项多阶段研究于2023年9月至2024年4月进行。在第一阶段,一个核心小组确定了17个关键流程来设计PREMs工具。在第二阶段,多学科主要小组进行了焦点小组讨论,为每个关键过程定出标准作业程序,并编制各自的经济效益管理方案问卷。患者安全是首要考虑因素。在第3阶段,包括患者在内的相关利益相关者参与了每个PREMs工具的外观和内容验证。内容效度指数(CVI)采用项目级CVI (I-CVI)、量表级CVI (S-CVI)和内容效度比(CVR)三个指标进行计算。问卷的信度采用库德-理查德森公式20 (KR-20)值进行检验,并对患者进行先导检验。结果:共开发了17种检查表格式的PREMs工具。问卷各条目的I-CVI值在0.73 ~ 1.00之间,CVR值在0.46 ~ 1.00之间。S-CVI/AVG在0.89 ~ 1.00之间。这表明所有项目和问卷的内容效度都很强。17项研究的信度分析基于KR-20值,范围为0.4324 ~ 0.9455。除“防跌倒”外,所有工具均表现出良好的内部一致性。结论:我们提供了一系列以患者安全为导向的PREMs工具。在广泛的患者护理流程中共同生产PREMs工具,除了患者参与之外,还为患者安全实施提供了巨大的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信