开展调查,支持对安全学习系统进行评估。

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hassan Assem Mahmoud, Sunita Mulpuru, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel McIsaac, Alan J Forster
{"title":"开展调查,支持对安全学习系统进行评估。","authors":"Hassan Assem Mahmoud, Sunita Mulpuru, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel McIsaac, Alan J Forster","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety learning systems play a critical role in supporting safety culture in healthcare organisations. A lack of explicit standards leads to inconsistent implementation across organisations, causing uncertainty about their roles and impact. Organisations can address inconsistent implementation by using a self-assessment tool based on agreed-on best practices. Therefore, we aimed to create a survey instrument to assess an organisation's approach to learning from safety events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The foundation for this work was a recent systematic review that defined features associated with the performance of a safety learning system. We organised features into themes and rephrased them into questions (items). Face validity was checked, which included independent pre-testing to ensure comprehensibility and parsimony. It also included clinical sensibility testing in which a representative sample of leaders in quality at a large teaching hospital (The Ottawa Hospital) answered two questions to judge each item for clarity and necessity. If more than 20% of respondents judged a question unclear or unnecessary, we modified or removed that question accordingly. Finally, we checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We initially developed a 47-item questionnaire based on a prior systematic review. Pre-testing resulted in the modification of 15 of the questions, 2 were removed and 2 questions were added to ensure comprehensiveness and relevance. Face validity was assessed through yes/no responses, with over 80% of respondents confirming the clarity and 85% the necessity of each question, leading to the retention of all 47 questions. Data collected from the five-point responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each question were used to assess the questionnaire's internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, indicating a high internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This self-assessment questionnaire is evidence-based and on preliminary testing is deemed valid, comprehensible and reliable. Future work should assess the range of survey responses in a large sample of respondents from different hospitals.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11216063/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a survey to support assessment of safety learning systems.\",\"authors\":\"Hassan Assem Mahmoud, Sunita Mulpuru, Kednapa Thavorn, Daniel McIsaac, Alan J Forster\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety learning systems play a critical role in supporting safety culture in healthcare organisations. A lack of explicit standards leads to inconsistent implementation across organisations, causing uncertainty about their roles and impact. Organisations can address inconsistent implementation by using a self-assessment tool based on agreed-on best practices. Therefore, we aimed to create a survey instrument to assess an organisation's approach to learning from safety events.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The foundation for this work was a recent systematic review that defined features associated with the performance of a safety learning system. We organised features into themes and rephrased them into questions (items). Face validity was checked, which included independent pre-testing to ensure comprehensibility and parsimony. It also included clinical sensibility testing in which a representative sample of leaders in quality at a large teaching hospital (The Ottawa Hospital) answered two questions to judge each item for clarity and necessity. If more than 20% of respondents judged a question unclear or unnecessary, we modified or removed that question accordingly. Finally, we checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We initially developed a 47-item questionnaire based on a prior systematic review. Pre-testing resulted in the modification of 15 of the questions, 2 were removed and 2 questions were added to ensure comprehensiveness and relevance. Face validity was assessed through yes/no responses, with over 80% of respondents confirming the clarity and 85% the necessity of each question, leading to the retention of all 47 questions. Data collected from the five-point responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each question were used to assess the questionnaire's internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, indicating a high internal consistency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This self-assessment questionnaire is evidence-based and on preliminary testing is deemed valid, comprehensible and reliable. Future work should assess the range of survey responses in a large sample of respondents from different hospitals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11216063/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002738","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

摘要

背景:患者安全学习系统在支持医疗机构安全文化方面发挥着至关重要的作用。由于缺乏明确的标准,导致各组织的实施情况不一致,从而对其作用和影响产生了不确定性。各组织可以通过使用基于公认最佳实践的自我评估工具来解决实施不一致的问题。因此,我们的目标是创建一个调查工具,以评估组织从安全事件中学习的方法:这项工作的基础是最近的一篇系统综述,该综述定义了与安全学习系统性能相关的特征。我们将这些特征归纳为主题,并将其重新表述为问题(项目)。对表面有效性进行了检查,包括独立的预测试,以确保可理解性和简洁性。此外,还进行了临床敏感性测试,由一家大型教学医院(渥太华医院)的质量负责人回答两个问题,对每个项目的清晰度和必要性进行判断。如果超过 20% 的受访者认为某个问题不清楚或没有必要,我们就会相应地修改或删除该问题。最后,我们使用 Cronbach's alpha 检验了问卷的内部一致性:我们最初根据之前的系统综述编制了 47 个项目的问卷。通过预测试,我们修改了 15 个问题,删除了 2 个问题,增加了 2 个问题,以确保问题的全面性和相关性。通过 "是"/"否 "回答对表面效度进行了评估,超过 80% 的受访者确认每个问题都很清晰,85% 的受访者确认每个问题都很必要,因此保留了所有 47 个问题。从每个问题的五点回答(非常不同意到非常同意)中收集的数据用于评估问卷的内部一致性。Cronbach's alpha 为 0.94,表明内部一致性较高:结论:这一自我评估问卷以证据为基础,经初步测试被认为是有效、易懂和可靠的。今后的工作应评估来自不同医院的大样本受访者的调查回答范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a survey to support assessment of safety learning systems.

Background: Patient safety learning systems play a critical role in supporting safety culture in healthcare organisations. A lack of explicit standards leads to inconsistent implementation across organisations, causing uncertainty about their roles and impact. Organisations can address inconsistent implementation by using a self-assessment tool based on agreed-on best practices. Therefore, we aimed to create a survey instrument to assess an organisation's approach to learning from safety events.

Methods: The foundation for this work was a recent systematic review that defined features associated with the performance of a safety learning system. We organised features into themes and rephrased them into questions (items). Face validity was checked, which included independent pre-testing to ensure comprehensibility and parsimony. It also included clinical sensibility testing in which a representative sample of leaders in quality at a large teaching hospital (The Ottawa Hospital) answered two questions to judge each item for clarity and necessity. If more than 20% of respondents judged a question unclear or unnecessary, we modified or removed that question accordingly. Finally, we checked the internal consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha.

Results: We initially developed a 47-item questionnaire based on a prior systematic review. Pre-testing resulted in the modification of 15 of the questions, 2 were removed and 2 questions were added to ensure comprehensiveness and relevance. Face validity was assessed through yes/no responses, with over 80% of respondents confirming the clarity and 85% the necessity of each question, leading to the retention of all 47 questions. Data collected from the five-point responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree) for each question were used to assess the questionnaire's internal consistency. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, indicating a high internal consistency.

Conclusion: This self-assessment questionnaire is evidence-based and on preliminary testing is deemed valid, comprehensible and reliable. Future work should assess the range of survey responses in a large sample of respondents from different hospitals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信