ArticleBMJ quality & safety2013
The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test-retest reliability and hospital-level reliability.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards a Quality Care Climate Perspective: A Systematic Review of Associations Among Patient Experience, Patient Outcomes, and Organisational Climate Factors in Hospitals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Public and Private Healthcare Service Quality in Trujillo, Peru: Evidence from a SERVQUAL Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Adverse events and perceived abandonment: learning from patients' accounts of medical mishaps.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Interdisciplinary Treatment for Substance Dependence - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PEQ-ITSD - CEM).BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Impact of hospital readiness on patient safety incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: health worker perceptions.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Family Input for Quality and Safety (FIQS): Using mobile technology for in-hospital reporting from families and patients.Journal of hospital medicine · 2022Article
- The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Article
- Effects of a fall prevention program in elderly: a pragmatic observational study in two orthopedic departments.Clinical interventions in aging · 2019Observational
- Exploring similarities and differences in hospital adverse event rates between Norway and Sweden using Global Trigger Tool.BMJ open · 2017Article
- A framework to assess patient-reported adverse outcomes arising during hospitalization.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n =33,919).SAGE open medicine · 2016Article
- PIPEQ-OS--an instrument for on-site measurements of the experiences of inpatients at psychiatric institutions.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
- Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.BMJ open · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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).
methods13 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.
resultsFive 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.