Psychometric validation of a patient-reported experience measure for older adults attending the emergency department: the PREM-ED 65 study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2023-213521
Blair Graham, Jason E Smith, Yinghui Wei, Pamela Nelmes, Jos M Latour
{"title":"Psychometric validation of a patient-reported experience measure for older adults attending the emergency department: the PREM-ED 65 study.","authors":"Blair Graham, Jason E Smith, Yinghui Wei, Pamela Nelmes, Jos M Latour","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Optimising emergency department (ED) patient experience is vital to ensure care quality. However, there are few validated instruments to measure the experiences of specific patient groups, including older adults. We previously developed a draft 82-item Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM-ED 65) for adults ≥65 attending the ED. This study aimed to derive a final item list and provide initial validation of the PREM-ED 65 survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study involving patients in 18 EDs in England. Adults aged 65 years or over, deemed eligible for ED discharge, were recruited between May and August 2021 and asked to complete the 82-item PREM at the end of the ED visit and 7-10 days post discharge. Test-retest reliability was assessed 7-10 days following initial attendance. Analysis included descriptive statistics, including per-item proportions of responses, hierarchical item reduction, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability testing and assessment of criterion validity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five hundred and ten initial surveys and 52 retest surveys were completed. The median respondent age was 76. A similar gender mix (men 47.5% vs women 50.7%) and reason for attendance (40.3% injury vs 49.0% illness) was observed. Most participants self-reported their ethnicity as white (88.6%).Hierarchical item reduction identified 53/82 (64.6%) items for exclusion, due to inadequate engagement (n=33), ceiling effects (n=5), excessive inter-item correlation (n=12) or significant differential validity (n=3). Twenty-nine items were retained.EFA revealed 25 out of the 29 items demonstrating high factor loadings (>0.4) across four scales with an Eigenvalue >1. These scales were interpreted as measuring 'relational care', 'the ED environment', 'staying informed' and 'pain assessment'. Cronbach alpha for the scales ranged from 0.786 to 0.944, indicating good internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.67). Criterion validity was fair (r=0.397) when measured against the Friends and Families Test question.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Psychometric testing demonstrates that the 25-item PREM-ED 65 is suitable for administration to adults ≥65 years old up to 10 days following ED discharge.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"645-653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213521","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Optimising emergency department (ED) patient experience is vital to ensure care quality. However, there are few validated instruments to measure the experiences of specific patient groups, including older adults. We previously developed a draft 82-item Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM-ED 65) for adults ≥65 attending the ED. This study aimed to derive a final item list and provide initial validation of the PREM-ED 65 survey.

Methods: A cross-sectional study involving patients in 18 EDs in England. Adults aged 65 years or over, deemed eligible for ED discharge, were recruited between May and August 2021 and asked to complete the 82-item PREM at the end of the ED visit and 7-10 days post discharge. Test-retest reliability was assessed 7-10 days following initial attendance. Analysis included descriptive statistics, including per-item proportions of responses, hierarchical item reduction, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability testing and assessment of criterion validity.

Results: Five hundred and ten initial surveys and 52 retest surveys were completed. The median respondent age was 76. A similar gender mix (men 47.5% vs women 50.7%) and reason for attendance (40.3% injury vs 49.0% illness) was observed. Most participants self-reported their ethnicity as white (88.6%).Hierarchical item reduction identified 53/82 (64.6%) items for exclusion, due to inadequate engagement (n=33), ceiling effects (n=5), excessive inter-item correlation (n=12) or significant differential validity (n=3). Twenty-nine items were retained.EFA revealed 25 out of the 29 items demonstrating high factor loadings (>0.4) across four scales with an Eigenvalue >1. These scales were interpreted as measuring 'relational care', 'the ED environment', 'staying informed' and 'pain assessment'. Cronbach alpha for the scales ranged from 0.786 to 0.944, indicating good internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.67). Criterion validity was fair (r=0.397) when measured against the Friends and Families Test question.

Conclusions: Psychometric testing demonstrates that the 25-item PREM-ED 65 is suitable for administration to adults ≥65 years old up to 10 days following ED discharge.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对急诊科就诊老年人的患者报告体验测量方法的心理计量验证:PREM-ED 65 研究。
简介优化急诊科(ED)患者的就医体验对于确保医疗质量至关重要。然而,目前很少有经过验证的工具来测量特定患者群体(包括老年人)的就医体验。此前,我们针对急诊科就诊的≥65 岁的成年人开发了一个包含 82 个项目的 "患者报告体验测量"(PREM-ED 65)草案。本研究旨在得出最终项目清单,并对 PREM-ED 65 调查进行初步验证:这项横断面研究涉及英格兰 18 家急诊室的患者。在 2021 年 5 月至 8 月期间招募了被认为符合急诊室出院条件的 65 岁或以上的成年人,要求他们在急诊室就诊结束后和出院后 7-10 天内完成 82 个项目的 PREM。在首次就诊后 7-10 天评估重测可靠性。分析包括描述性统计(包括每个项目的回答比例)、分层项目缩减、探索性因子分析(EFA)、可靠性测试和标准有效性评估:共完成了 510 份初次调查和 52 份复测调查。受访者年龄中位数为 76 岁。性别比例(男性 47.5% 对女性 50.7%)和出席原因(受伤 40.3% 对生病 49.0%)相似。由于参与度不足(33 人)、天花板效应(5 人)、项目间相关性过高(12 人)或显著差异有效性(3 人)等原因,通过层次化项目缩减法确定了 53/82 个项目(64.6%)需要排除。EFA显示,29个项目中有25个项目在4个特征值大于1的量表中显示出较高的因子载荷(大于0.4),这些量表被解释为测量 "关系护理"、"急诊室环境"、"保持知情 "和 "疼痛评估"。这些量表的 Cronbach alpha 值介于 0.786 到 0.944 之间,显示出良好的内部一致性。测试-重测信度适当(类内相关系数为 0.67)。根据 "亲友测试 "的问题来衡量,标准效度尚可(r=0.397):心理测试表明,25 个项目的 PREM-ED 65 适合在急诊室出院后 10 天内对年龄≥65 岁的成年人进行测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
期刊最新文献
Best evidence topic report: can intradermal sterile water injections provide effective pain relief in patients with renal colic? Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Correspondence on 'Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate versus andexanet alfa for the reversal of traumatic brain injuries' by Sadek et al. Is it time to reframe resuscitation in trauma? Are there differences in low-acuity emergency department visits between culturally and linguistically diverse migrants and people with English-speaking background: a population-based linkage study of adults over 45.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1