ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of reporting of clinical adverse events scale (C-RoCAES).
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship between Clinical Environment and Adverse Events Reporting: Evidence from Lithuania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Attitudes of Internal Medicine Nurses, Surgical Nurses and Midwives towards Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- German translation and validation of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale (RoCAES-D).BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse event is a crucial issue affecting patient's safety of healthcare services. To assess nurses' attitude of reporting adverse events is important to establish a safe environment for patients. However, no relevant instrument has been validated and used in China. This study was to examine validity and reliability of Chinese version of Reporting of Clinical adverse Event Scale (C-RoCAES). MATERIAL AND
methodsChinese version of 25-item RoCAES was used in a sample of 1557 nurses. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were selected for construct validity test. Internal consistency was also examined.
resultsAfter CFA and EFA, two items were removed and two items loaded on different factors in our sample. Five factors were generated, including perceived blame, perceived criteria for identifying events that should be reported, perceptions of colleagues' expectations, perceived benefits of reporting and perceived clarity of reporting procedures. Cronbach's alpha for the total scale and subscales ranged from 0.70 to 0.85.
conclusionC-RoCAES is applicable to healthcare services of China. The instrument provide information for the providers of healthcare services to develop staff education regarding patient safety, and also help them to evaluate strategies of preventing adverse events in clinical practice in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25419395PMC4238501What 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.