Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Development process of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC).
Tables
- Table 1
Structure of the Trial Version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC 0.2)
Domain Quantitative Summary Open-Ended Questions Constructs Items in Scalea Practice activation Practice activation 11 1 Patient activation Patient activation 2 1 Experiences of safety problems Types of patient safety problems experienced 12 3 Most recent experience: type of patient safety problem, location, people involved and degrees of responsibility (including patient), preventability [12]b Outcomes of patient safety (harm) Harm specific to health domain 5 2 Health care, personal care, and financial needs 3 Time to recover from harm (type specific) 4 Time to recover from harm (overall) 1 Amount of harm experienced (overall) 1c Impact on overall health 1 General perceptions of patient safety Trustworthiness 1 0 Overall rating of patient safety 1c Total 12 constructs 11 scales (54 items) 7 Characteristic N (%) Sexa Male 497 (41.11) Female 712 (58.89) Ageb 18–34 140 (12.03) 35–64 570 (48.97) ≥65 454 (39.00) Ethnicityc White 1,082 (91.15) Other ethnic group 105 (8.85) Educational level Degree, degree equivalent, and above 411 (35.16) Other qualifications 532 (45.51) No qualifications 226 (19.33) Health status Very good or good 892 (73.54) Fair, bad, or very bad 321 (26.46) Number of long-term conditions 0 330 (27.99) 1 329 (27.91) 2–3 366 (31.04) >3 154 (13.06) Number of medications taken 0 344 (30.10) 1–2 311 (27.21) 3–4 222 (19.42) >4 266 (23.27) ↵a Mean (SD) proportion of females registered in the 45 practices that participated in the study: 0.51 (0.05).
↵b Mean (SD) proportion of eligible patients aged >65 years registered in the 45 practices that participated in the study: 0.20 (0.01).
↵c Mean (SD) proportion of patients from nonwhite ethnicity registered in the 45 practices that participated in the study: 0.18 (0.04).
- Table 3
Distribution of Scores and Reliability of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) Scales
Domain Construct N Score Respondents With Lowest Possible Score, % Respondents With Highest Possible Score, % Internal Consistency Test-Retest Reliabilitya ICCb (95% CI) Practice Mean Scores Min Max Mean (SD) Cronbach’s α, mean (min, max) Inter-Item Correlation, mean (max, min) Precision (standard error) Intra-Cluster Correlation Coefficient (95%CI) Reliability Number of Responses Needed for 0.7 Reliability Practice activation 1,132 9.09 100 83.69 (18.01) 0 20.56 0.89 (0.86; 0.90) 0.41 (0.39; 0.43) 0.72 (0.55–0.83)c 3.44 0.07 (0.03–0.11)c 0.66 31 Patient activation 966 0 100 25.1 (30.8) 47.0 5.58 0.80 0.67 0.55 (0.25–0.75)c 6.57 0.022 (0.001–0.050)c 0.33 104 Experiences of safety problems 1,171 0 72.72 4.8 (9.4) 63.19 0 0.75 (0.71; 0.76) 0.22 (0.20; 0.24) 0.57 (0.37–0.72) 1.83 0.02 (0.00–0.05) 0.36 109 Outcomes of patient safety (harm) Harm specific to the health domain 1,053 0 100 4.7 (14.1) 81.8 0.29 0.96 (0.95; 0.96) 0.83 (0.82; 0.85) 0.72 (0.55–0.83)c 2.88 0.025 (0.001–0.053)c 0.38 90 Health care, personal care, and financial needs 1,043 0 91.66 2.4 (10.8) 92.6 0 0.88 (0.78; 0.89) 0.72 (0.63; 0.80) −0.02 (−0.29 to 0.26) 2.23 0.019 (0.001–0.046)c 0.31 118 Time to recover from harm (type specific) 157 0 75 24.7 (26.7) 37.7 0 0.81 (0.71; 0.86) 0.52 (0.45; 0.67) Not estimatedd 13.59 0.057 (0.001–0.21) 0.18 309e Time to recover from harm (overall) 162 0 100 56.4 (41.6) 27.6 32.27 N/A N/A Not estimatedd 19.50 0.17 (0.001–0.34)c 0.45 85e Amount of harm experienced (overall) 169 0 100 35.3 (26.3) 3.0 0.60 N/A N/A Not estimatedd 13.57 0.000 (0.000–0.126) – – Impact on overall health 168 0 100 25.4 (32.5) 54.2 7.74 N/A N/A Not estimatedd 15.55 0.11 (0.001–0.256)c 0.32 148e General perceptions of patient safety Trustworthiness 1,133 0 100 87.5 (16.1) 0.3 56.78 N/A N/A 0.26 (−0.02 to 0.50)c 3.16 0.032 (0.002–0.061)c 0.45 71 Overall rating of patient safety 1,139 0 100 86.0 (16.8) 0.2 19.79 N/A N/A 0.24 (−0.03 to 0.48)c 3.29 0.029 (0.001–0.058)c 0.43 78 N/A = not applicable (single item scales).
↵a Based on data from 64 patients who completed the questionnaire again after 2 weeks.
↵b One-way random effects intra-class correlation coefficients.
↵c P <.05.
↵d Not enough data to conduct the analyses (fewer than 10 of the respondents who completed the retest questionnaires reported harm experiences).
↵e Responses needed to have sufficient cases reporting harm.
Practice Activationa Experiences of Safety Problemsb Impact on Health (Health Domain Specific)b Impact on Health Care, Personal Care, and Financial Needsb Overall Rating of Patient Safetya Patient characteristics, β (95%CI)c Number of long-term conditions 0.49 (0.53–0.93) 1.58 (0.82–2.35) 0.88 (0.36–1.40) 0.11 (−0.42 to 0.64) Number of medications 0.03 (−0.34 to 0.39) 0.14 (−0.6 to 0.33) 0.65 (0.13–1.16) 0.49 (0.19–0.80) 0.17 (−0.17 to 0.53) English as a second language Yes (n = 87) 1 1 1 1 1 No (n = 1,118) 5.71 (0.57–10.86) −4.37 (−8.30 to −0.44) −2.83 (−7.65 to 1.98) 7.87 (2.95–12.80) −4.67(−10.36 to 1.02) Born in the UK Yes (n = 1,093) 1 1 1 1 1 No (n = 112) −2.46 (−6.95 to 2.03) 2.83 (−0.02 to 5.68) 1.48 (−2.38 to 5.34) −5.13 (−8.64 to −1.63) 3.13 (−0.19 to 6.47) Practice characteristics, r (95%CI)d Practice size 0.24 (−0.06 to 0.50) −0.27 (−0.52 to 0.03) −0.11 (−0.40 to 0.19) −0.02 (−0.31 to 0.28) 0.01 (−0.20 to 0.39) Proportion of patients aged >65 years 0.06 (−0.25 to 0.35) −0.08 (−0.37 to 0.22) −0.07 (−0.36 to 0.24) −0.04 (−0.34 to 0.26) 0.14 (−0.16 to 0.42) Deprivation scoree −0.32 (−0.56 to −0.02) 0.30 (0.00–0.55) 0.20 (−0.10 to 0.47) 0.18 (−0.13 to 0.45) −0.36 (−0.60 to −0.07) Safety Climatef −0.09 (−0.45 to 0.29) 0.06 (−0.32 to 0.42) 0.10 (−0.28 to 0.46) 0.15 (−0.50 to 0.25) 0.07 (−0.31 to 0.43) ↵a Higher scores indicate perception of safer practices.
↵b Higher scores indicate more severe/frequent access problems or more severe harm.
↵c Bivariate linear regression.
↵d Correlation coefficient.
↵e Deprivation measured using the Index of Multiple Deprivation; higher scores indicate higher deprivation levels.
↵f Safety climate measured using the instrument “PC-SafeQuest” (information available only from 31 practices).
Supplemental Appendixes
Supplemental Appendix 1. Characteristics of the participating practices; Supplemental Appendix 2. Comparison of patient characteristics and scale scores between respondents to the first invitation vs the respondents to the reminders; Supplemental appendix 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the evaluation of construct validity; Supplemental Appendix 4. Correlation between scales; Supplemental appendix 5. Record of the modifications introduced during the development of PREOS-PC; Supplemental appendix 6. Patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC).
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care
- Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire
- How do patients respond to safety problems in ambulatory care? Results of a retrospective cross-sectional telephone survey
- Patient safety in ambulatory care from the patient's perspective: a retrospective, representative telephone survey
- Development and evaluation of an intervention based on the provision of patient feedback to improve patient safety in Spanish primary healthcare centres: study protocol
- Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis
- Investigating the feasibility of a patient feedback tool to improve safety in Australian primary care: a study protocol
- Validation of the Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety (PC PMOS) questionnaire
- Frequency and nature of potentially harmful preventable problems in primary care from the patients perspective with clinician review: a population-level survey in Great Britain
- Development and piloting of a survey to estimate the frequency and nature of potentially harmful preventable problems in primary care from a UK patients perspective
- Identifying patient and practice characteristics associated with patient-reported experiences of safety problems and harm: a cross-sectional study using a multilevel modelling approach
- Patients evaluations of patient safety in English general practices: a cross-sectional study
- Patient-reported safety incidents in older patients with long-term conditions: a large cross-sectional study
- In This Issue: Decisions, Decisions