Dataset Information

The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this study was to test the data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability of the Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I).

Methods

13 incident questions were included in a national patient-experience survey in Norway during the spring of 2011. All questions and a composite incident index were assessed by calculating missing-item rates, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability. A multivariate linear regression on a global item regarding incorrect treatment was used to assess the main sources of variation in patient-perceived incorrect treatment at hospitals.

Results

Five of the 13 patient-incident questions had a missing-item rate of >20%. Only one item met the criterion of 0.7 for test-retest reliability (wrong or delayed diagnosis), seven items had a score of >0.5, while the remainder had a reliability score of <0.5. However, the reliability was >0.7 for six of 10 items tested at the hospital level, and >0.6 for the remaining four items. A patient-incident index based on 12 of the incident items had no missing data, the test-retest reliability was 0.6 and the hospital-level reliability was 0.85.

Conclusions

The PRIH-I comprises 13 questions about patient-perceived incidents in hospitals, and can be easily and cost-effectively included in national patient-experience surveys with an acceptable increase in respondent burden. Although the missing-item rate and test-retest reliability were poor for several items, the hospital-level reliability was satisfactory for most of the items. The incident items contribute to a patient-reported incident index, with excellent data quality and hospital-level reliability.

SUBMITTER: Bjertnaes O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3756465 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.

Bjertnaes Oyvind O Skudal Kjersti Eeg KE Iversen Hilde Hestad HH Lindahl Anne Karin AK

BMJ quality & safety 20130514 9

<h4>Background</h4>The objective of this study was to test the data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability of the Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I).<h4>Methods</h4>13 incident questions were included in a national patient-experience survey in Norway during the spring of 2011. All questions and a composite incident index were assessed by calculating missing-item rates, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability. A multivariate linear re ...[more]

PMID: 23674692

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) is widely used to assess global cognitive function in patients with dementia. It contains nine cognitive domains, namely long-term memory, short-term memory, attention, mental manipulation, orientation, abstraction and judgment, language, visual construction, and list-generating fluency. However, test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the CASI are largely unknown in patients with dementia, which limits its utility and the explanation of a score change.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and calculate MDC of the CASI in patients with dementia.MethodsFifty-two patients with dementia completed the CASI twice with a two-week interval. The frequencies of the scores in the Clinical Dementia Rating (0.5, 1, and ≥ 2) were 38.5, 36.5, and 25.0, respectively. Test-retest reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the total score and nine domains of the CASI. The MDC was calculated based on standard error of measurement.ResultsThe ICC value of the CASI total score was 0.97 while the ICC value for the nine domains were 0.65-0.92. The MDC values (MDC%) were 11.6 (12.9%), 2.8 (23.2%), 4.5 (41.2%), 3.4 (42.1%), 4.9 (49.2%), 5.3 (29.2%), 3.4 (28.8%), 2.2 (22.3%), 3.2 (32.1%), and 3.1 (30.7%) for CASI total score, long-term memory, short-term memory, attention, mental manipulation, orientation, abstraction and judgment, language, visual construction, and list-generating fluency, respectively.ConclusionOur results revealed that the CASI has sufficient test-retest reliability. The MDC values are useful in determining a real change (i.e., improvement or deterioration) between two assessments of an individual patient. However, four domains (i.e., short-term memory, attention, mental manipulation, and list-generating fluency) demonstrated lower ICC values and substantial random measurement errors. Clinicians and researchers should be cautious while using these four domains to explain score changes between repeated assessments of patients with dementia.

Project description:BackgroundNeurocognitive testing is an important concussion evaluation tool, but for neurocognitive tests to be useful, their psychometric properties must be well established. Test-retest reliability of computerized neurocognitive tests can influence their clinical utility. The reliability for a commonly used computerized neurocognitive test, CNS Vital Signs, is not well established. The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability and reliable change indices for CNS Vital Signs in a healthy, physically active college population.HypothesisCNS Vital Signs yields acceptable test-retest reliability, with greater reliability between the second and third test administration compared with between the first and second administration.Study designCohort study.Level of evidenceLevel 3.MethodsForty healthy, active volunteers (16 men, 24 women; mean age, 21.05 ± 2.17 years) reported to a clinical laboratory for 3 sessions, 1 week apart. At each session, participants were administered CNS Vital Signs. Outcomes included standard scores for the following CNS Vital Signs domains: verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, complex attention, processing speed, reaction time, executive functioning, and reasoning.ResultsParticipants performed significantly better on the second session and/or third session than they did on the first testing session on 6 of 9 neurocognitive domains. Pearson r test-retest correlations between sessions ranged from 0.11 to 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.10 to 0.86.ConclusionClinicians should consider using reliable change indices to account for practice effects, identify meaningful score changes due to pathology, and inform clinical decisions.Clinical relevanceThis study highlights the importance of clinicians understanding the psychometric properties of computerized neurocognitive tests when using them in the management of sport-related concussion. If CNS Vital Signs is administered twice within a small time frame (such as 1 week), athletes should be expected to improve between the first and second administration.

Dataset Information

The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets