Dataset Information

Comparing NICU teamwork and safety climate across two commonly used survey instruments.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Measurement and our understanding of safety culture are still evolving. The objectives of this study were to assess variation in safety and teamwork climate and in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting, and compare measurement of safety culture scales using two different instruments (Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) and Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC)).

Methods

Cross-sectional survey study of a voluntary sample of 2073 (response rate 62.9%) health professionals in 44 NICUs. To compare survey instruments, we used Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. We also compared similar scales and items across the instruments using t tests and changes in quartile-level performance.

Results

We found significant variation across NICUs in safety and teamwork climate scales of SAQ and HSOPSC (p<0.001). Safety scales (safety climate and overall perception of safety) and teamwork scales (teamwork climate and teamwork within units) of the two instruments correlated strongly (safety r=0.72, p<0.001; teamwork r=0.67, p<0.001). However, the means and per cent agreements for all scale scores and even seemingly similar item scores were significantly different. In addition, comparisons of scale score quartiles between the two instruments revealed that half of the NICUs fell into different quartiles when translating between the instruments.

Conclusions

Large variation and opportunities for improvement in patient safety culture exist across NICUs. Important systematic differences exist between SAQ and HSOPSC such that these instruments should not be used interchangeably.

SUBMITTER: Profit J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5256236 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing NICU teamwork and safety climate across two commonly used survey instruments.

Profit Jochen J Lee Henry C HC Sharek Paul J PJ Kan Peggy P Nisbet Courtney C CC Thomas Eric J EJ Etchegaray Jason M JM Sexton Bryan B

BMJ quality & safety 20151223 12

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Measurement and our understanding of safety culture are still evolving. The objectives of this study were to assess variation in safety and teamwork climate and in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) setting, and compare measurement of safety culture scales using two different instruments (Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) and Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC)).<h4>Methods</h4>Cross-sectional survey study of a voluntary sample of 2073 (re ...[more]

PMID: 26700545

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become widely adopted in the care of patients with prostate cancer, but there is no validated crosswalk between two commonly used instruments, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) instrument, which consists of the International Index of Erectile Function-6 (IIEF-6) questionnaire and the MSK radical prostatectomy urinary outcome scale. OBJECTIVE:To develop and validate bidirectional crosswalks between the sexual and urinary domains (single domain in MSK, separate incontinence and irritative/obstructive domains in EPIC-26) of the MSK and EPIC-26 instruments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Radical prostatectomy (RP) patients completing instruments at MSK and Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) between January and May of 2017 were invited to enroll. Stratified random sampling (by institution, MSK urinary function score, and MSK erectile function score) was used to divide patient data into training and test sets. Models were developed to predict the domain score for each instrument using the other's item responses and domain scores. Performance was evaluated using capped root-mean-squared error and accuracy at established thresholds. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS:We received 517 instruments at MSK and 1033 within MUSIC, which were assigned to training (825), post-RP test (412), and pre-RP test (313) sets. We found the crosswalks to have low error and high accuracy. Although the crosswalks are more accurate if responses to each item are known, it is possible to convert between instruments on the basis of a total domain score. CONCLUSIONS:The crosswalks are a valid way to convert between sexual and urinary domains of the MSK and EPIC-26 instruments. PATIENT SUMMARY:We developed and validated a set of formulas that allow conversion of sexual and urinary function scores between the Memorial Sloan Kettering and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form patient-reported outcome questionnaires. These crosswalks allow seamless transition between the two questionnaires.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty exposes older people to an elevated risk of a range of negative outcomes. Emerging evidence that frailty can be effectively treated within community settings has stimulated calls for more proactive screening within primary care. Assessing feasibility is a critical preliminary step in assessing the efficacy of interventions such as screening. However, few studies have explored the feasibility and acceptability of administering frailty screening instruments within general practice, and even fewer have incorporated patient perspectives. Our study had three objectives: To 1) assess overall feasibility of the instruments (completion time and rate); 2) assess patient acceptability towards the instruments; and 3) assess the feasibility and acceptability of the instruments to administering nurses. METHODS:The feasibility and acceptability of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, Edmonton Frail Scale, FRAIL Scale Questionnaire, Gait Speed, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) was explored within the context of a larger diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study. Completion time and rate was collected for all participants (N =?243). A sub-sample of patients (n =?30) rated each instrument for ease of completion and provided comment on perceived acceptability. Lastly, five of six administering nurses involved in the DTA study participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, rating the instruments against several feasibility and acceptability criteria (time, space, equipment, skill required to implement, acceptability to patients and nurses, ease of scoring) and providing comment on their responses. RESULTS:The PRISMA-7 returned the highest overall feasibility and acceptability, requiring minimal space, equipment, skills and time to implement, and returning the fastest completion rate and highest patient and nurse acceptability rating. All screening instruments were faster to implement than the two reference standards (Fried's Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index). Self-administered instruments were subject to lower rates of completion than nurse-administered instruments. CONCLUSIONS:This study has demonstrated that a number of commonly used frailty screening instruments are potentially feasible for implementation within general practice. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine how contextual factors, such as differences in individual patient and clinician preferences, setting and system factors, impact on the feasibility of screening in practice.

Project description:The study aimed to test and compare the reliability and validity, including sensitivity and specificity of the two self-care-related instruments, the Self-care Ability Scale for the Elderly (SASE), and the Appraisal of Self-care Agency Scale-Revised (ASAS-R), among older adults in the Chinese context.A cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study. The sample consisted of 1152 older adults. Data were collected by a questionnaire including the Chinese version of SASE (SASE-CHI), the Chinese version of ASAS-R (ASAS-R-CHI) and the Exercise of Self-Care Agency scale (ESCA). Homogeneity and stability, content, construct and concurrent validity, and sensitivity and specificity were assessed.The Cronbach's alpha (α) of SASE-CHI was 0.89, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.15 to r = 0.81, and the test-retest correlation coefficient (intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P<0.001). The Cronbach's α of ASAS-R-CHI was 0.78, the item-to-total correlations ranged from r = 0.20 to r = 0.65, and the test-retest ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96; P<0.001). The content validity index (CVI) of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI was 0.96 and 0.97, respectively. The findings of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) confirmed a good construct validity of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI. The Pearson's rank correlation coefficients, as a measure of concurrent validity, between total score of SASE-CHI and ESCA and ASAS-R-CHI and ESCA were assessed to 0.65 (P<0.001) and 0.62 (P<0.001), respectively. Regarding ESCA as the criterion, the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the cut-point of SASE-CHI and ASAS-R-CHI were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.94) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.80-0.86), respectively.There is no significant difference between the two instruments. Each has its own characteristics, but SASE-CHI is more suitable for older adults. The key point is that the users can choose the most appropriate scale according to the specific situation.

Dataset Information

Comparing NICU teamwork and safety climate across two commonly used survey instruments.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing NICU teamwork and safety climate across two commonly used survey instruments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets