The Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I): assessments of data quality, test–retest reliability and hospital-level reliability

Abstract

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to test the data quality, test–retest reliability and hospital-level reliability of the Patient-Reported Incident in Hospital Instrument (PRIH-I).Methods13 incident questions were included in a national patient-experience survey in Norway during the spring of 2011. All questions and a composite incident index were assessed by calculating missing-item rates, test–retest reliability and hospital-level reliability. A multivariate linear regression on a global item regarding incorrect treatment was used to assess the main sources of variation in patient-perceived incorrect treatment at hospitals.ResultsFive of the 13 patient-incident questions had a missing-item rate of >20%. Only one item met the criterion of 0.7 for test–retest reliability (wrong or delayed diagnosis), seven items had a score of >0.5, while the remainder had a reliability score of <0.5. However, the reliability was >0.7 for six of 10 items tested at the hospital level, and >0.6 for the remaining four items. A patient-incident index based on 12 of the incident items had no missing data, the test–retest reliability was 0.6 and the hospital-level reliability was 0.85.ConclusionsThe PRIH-I comprises 13 questions about patient-perceived incidents in hospitals, and can be easily and cost-effectively included in national patient-experience surveys with an acceptable increase in respondent burden. Although the missing-item rate and test–retest reliability were poor for several items, the hospital-level reliability was satisfactory for most of the items. The incident items contribute to a patient-reported incident index, with excellent data quality and hospital-level reliability.

Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey

“…Patient evaluation of hospitals is common, and includes the assessment of patient-reported experiences,1 patient-reported outcomes2 and patient-reported safety 3. These concepts might be combined in the same questionnaire or applied individually, and can be represented by single-item or multi-item scales.…”

What is Good Quality of Health Care?

“…The more technical components of quality can be measured by a range of methods and indicators (Smith, 2009) but also by the patient perspective through patient-reported outcome measures (Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones, 1998) and patient-reported safety measures (Bjertnaes, Skudal, Iversen, & Lindahl, 2013;McEachan et al, 2013). However, as Donabedian has stressed, the collected information about structures, processes and outcomes are not attributes of quality, but can be used to infer whether quality is good or not (Donabedian & Bashshur, 2003).…”

The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway

“…The questionnaire comprised 62 closed-ended items,17 including patient experience questions, patient incident questions18 and background questions. Patient experience questions relate to aspects of structure and process, whereas patient incident questions concern the occurrence of specific safety incidents during the hospital stay.…”

“…Furthermore, the available case-mix variables for PREMs perform poorly for this indicator (low explained variance), indicating less need to adjust for these variables. The incident indicator (PRIH-I) is conceptually different from the PREMs, measuring patient safety from the patient perspective 18. Currently, the indicator is not compared across hospitals in the reports from the surveys, and thus lack a validated case-mix model.…”