Purpose To provide guidance regarding the desirable size of pre-tests of psychometric questionnaires, when the purpose of the pre-test is to detect misunderstandings, ambiguities, or other difficulties participants may encounter with instrument items (called «problems»).Methods We computed (a) the power to detect a problem for various levels of prevalence and various sample sizes, (b) the required sample size to detect problems for various levels of prevalence, and (c) upper confidence limits for problem prevalence in situations where no problems were detected. Results As expected, power increased with problem prevalence and with sample size. If problem prevalence was 0.05, a sample of 10 participants had only a power of 40 % to detect the problem, and a sample of 20 achieved a power of 64 %. To achieve a power of 80 %, 32 participants were necessary if the prevalence of the problem was 0.05, 16 participants if prevalence was 0.10, and 8 if prevalence was 0.20. If no problems were observed in a given sample, the upper limit of a two-sided 90 % confidence interval reached 0.26 for a sample size of 10, 0.14 for a sample size of 20, and 0.10 for a sample of 30 participants.Conclusions Small samples (5-15 participants) that are common in pre-tests of questionaires may fail to uncover even common problems. A default sample size of 30 participants is recommended.

No abstract

Simply making professional interpreter services available to healthcare professionals does not appear to guarantee their use for limited French proficiency (LFP) patients. Future efforts should focus on developing procedures for systematically identifying patients needing linguistic assistance, linguistic assistance strategies that are responsive to provider and institutional contexts and constraints, and institutional directives to ensure use of qualified interpreters for all medically important communication with LFP patients.

No abstract

Interpreters described three domains where physicians and patients were likely to differ, and where mutual lack of awareness of those differences could lead to misunderstandings. These were: (1) ideas about the patient's health problem; (2) expectations of the clinical encounter; and (3) verbal and non-verbal communication styles. Interpreters recommended that cultural competence training for physicians focus on raising awareness about potential sources of misunderstanding and about the difficulties inherent in medical translation; providing basic background knowledge of patients' countries of origin; and adapting to patients' communication styles. While physicians' own perceptions of communication difficulties are important for developing learner-centered training activities, interpreters' bilingual and bicultural position allows for the identification of communication barriers that may be difficult for physicians to recognize.

Background: Use of available interpreter services by hospital clincial staff is often suboptimal, despite evidence that trained interpreters contribute to quality of care and patient safety. Examination of intrahospital variations in attitudes and practices regarding interpreter use can contribute to identifying factors that facilitate good practice.

Objectives To explore professionals' experiences and perceptions of whether, how, and what types of conflicts affected the quality of patient care. Patients and Methods We conducted 82 semistructured interviews with randomly selected health care professionals in a Swiss teaching hospital (October 2014 and March 2016). Participants related stories of team conflicts (intra-/interprofessional, among protagonists at the same or different hierarchical levels) and the perceived consequences for patient care. We analyzed quality of care using the dimensions of care proposed by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity). Results Seventy-seven of 130 conflicts had no perceived consequences for patient care. Of the 53 conflicts (41%) with potential perceived consequences, the most common were care not provided in a timely manner to patients (delays, longer hospitalization), care not being patient-centered, and less efficient care. Intraprofessional conflicts were linked with less patient-centered care, whereas interprofessional conflicts were linked with less timely care. Conflicts among protagonists at the same hierarchical level were linked with less timely care and less patient-centered care. In some situations, perceived unsatisfactory quality of care generated team conflicts. Conclusion Based on participants' assessments, 4 of 10 conflict stories had potential consequences for the quality of patient care. The most common consequences were failure to provide timely, patient-centered, and efficient care. Management of hospitals should consider team conflicts as a potential threat to quality of care and support conflict management programs.

BackgroundEffective interprofessional collaboration requires that team members share common perceptions and expectations of each other's roles.ObjectiveDescribe and compare residents’ and nurses’ perceptions and expectations of their own and each other’s professional roles in the context of an Internal Medicine ward.MethodsA convenience sample of 14 residents and 14 nurses volunteers from the General Internal Medicine Division at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were interviewed to explore their perceptions and expectations of residents’ and nurses’ professional roles, for their own and the other profession. Interviews were analysed using thematic content analysis. The same respondents also filled a questionnaire asking their own intended actions and the expected actions from the other professional in response to 11 clinical scenarios.ResultsThree main themes emerged from the interviews: patient management, clinical reasoning and decision-making processes, and roles in the team. Nurses and residents shared general perceptions about patient management. However, there was a lack of shared perceptions and expectations regarding nurses’ autonomy in patient management, nurses’ participation in the decision-making process, professional interdependence, and residents’ implication in teamwork. Results from the clinical scenarios showed that nurses’ intended actions differed from residents’ expectations mainly regarding autonomy in patient management. Correlation between residents’ expectations and nurses’ intended actions was 0.56 (p = 0.08), while correlation between nurses’ expectations and residents’ intended actions was 0.80 (p<0.001).ConclusionsThere are discordant perceptions and unmet expectations among nurses and residents about each other’s roles, including several aspects related to the decision-making process. Interprofessional education should foster a shared vision of each other’s roles and clarify the boundaries of autonomy of each profession.