ArticleJournal of patient safety2021
Psychometric Testing of Errors of Care Omission Survey: A New Tool on Patient Safety in Primary Care.
Article in Journal of patient safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a newly developed survey tool measuring omissions in primary care.
methodsThe Errors of Care Omission Survey (ECOS) is the only known tool to measure critical omissions ("errors") in primary care from the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs), both physicians and nurse practitioners. The tool has 31 items grouped into the following four subscales: Self-Management Support, Follow-up, Emotional Health Support, and Care Integration. A cross-sectional survey design was used to mail the tool to PCPs and 582 PCPs in one state in the U.S. completed and returned the survey. Exploratory factor analysis with target rotation was carried out. Internal consistency reliability of identified subscales was investigated.
resultsFour factors emerged representing domains of omissions in primary care. The original Follow-up and Care Integration subscales were retained. The items on Self-Management Support and Emotional Health Support subscales loaded differently on two factors, which were labeled Patient Self-Management and Family Engagement subscales, suggesting that conceptually PCPs separate patient and family involvement in patient care. Seven poorly performing or redundant items were removed. The remaining 24 items measure patient self-management, family engagement, follow-up, and care integration domains of omissions in primary care. The ECOS subscales have acceptable internal consistency reliability with Cronbach's α ranging from 0.90 to 0.97.
conclusionsThe ECOS can be used in primary care to identify critical omissions, so actions can be taken by clinicians and administrators to prevent them before they result in patient harm. Further testing of the ECOS is recommended with diverse samples.
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.