ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019
Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying a co-designed medication plan for safer medication treatment in older persons: a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the psychometric performance of the Spanish and Catalan versions of the patient reported experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC)-Compact questionnaire.The European journal of general practice · 2024Article
- Promoting a Patient-Centered Understanding of Safety in Acute Mental Health Wards: A User-Centered Design Approach to Develop a Real-Time Digital Monitoring Tool.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluating the content and face validity of Arabic-translated Patient Measures of Safety survey PMOS-30.PloS one · 2024Article
- Developing the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS): A Delphi and Think Aloud Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Translation and psychometric testing of the simplified version of the health-related diet and exercise self-efficacy scale in China.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Translation and validation of the Chinese version of Patient-completed Asthma Knowledge Questionnaire and its implementation in patient education.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- [Patient safety incidents reported before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Primary Care in Tarragona].Atencion primaria · 2021Article
- Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of New Tools to Define an Up-to-Date Patient Safety Risk Map: A Primary Care Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England.BMJ open · 2021Article
- The Patient Safety Culture Scale for Chinese Primary Health Care Institutions: Development, Validity and Reliability.Journal of patient safety · 2021Article
- ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Patient safety in chiropractic teaching programs: a mixed methods study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2020Article
- Patient feedback for safety improvement in primary care: results from a feasibility study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) is designed to capture patient feedback about the contributing factors to patient safety incidents in primary care. It required further reliability and validity testing to produce a robust tool intended to improve safety in practice.
method490 adult patients in nine primary care practices in Greater Manchester, UK, completed the PC PMOS. Practice staff (n = 81) completed a survey on patient safety culture to assess convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed the construct validity and internal reliability of the PC PMOS domains and items. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to assess discriminant validity, and Spearman correlation was conducted to establish test-retest reliability.
resultsInitial CFA results showed data did not fit the model well (a chi-square to df ratio (CMIN/DF) = 5.68; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.61, CFI = 0.57, SRMR = 0.13 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.10). On the basis of large modification indices (>10), standardised residuals >± 2.58 and assessment of item content; 22 items were removed. This revised nine-factor model (28 items) was found to fit the data satisfactorily (CMIN/DF = 2.51; GFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.04 and RMSEA = 0.05). New factors demonstrated good internal reliability with average inter-item correlations ranging from 0.20 to 0.70. The PC PMOS demonstrated good discriminant validity between primary care practices (F = 2.64, df = 72, p < 0.001) and showed some association with practice staff safety score (convergent validity) but failed to reach statistical significance (r = -0.64, k = 9, p = 0.06).
conclusionThis study led to a reliable and valid 28-item PC PMOS. It could enhance or complement current data collection methods used in primary care to identify and prevent error.
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.