Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30337498›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire.

Sally J Giles, Sahdia Parveen, Andrea L Hernan

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Reported in an Electronic Registry Application.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. 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 · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sally J GilesNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK sally.giles@manchester.ac.uk.
Sahdia ParveenFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Andrea L HernanDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4542-1186

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPatient SafetyPrimary Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdompatient safetyprimary carequality improvementsurveysvalidation

Identifiers

PMID30337498
PMCPMC6560461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.