The ecometric properties of a measurement instrument for prospective risk analysis in hospital departments

BMC Health Services Research

Cordula Wagner⁴  Jop Groeneweg¹  Peter P Groenewegen²  Martine C de Bruijne⁴  Peter Spreeuwenberg³  Rebecca J Baines⁴  Steffie M van Schoten³ 

[1] TNO, Hoofddorp, Netherlands;Department of Sociology, Department of Human Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands;NIVEL – Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Otterstraat 118-124, PO Box 1568, Utrecht 3500 BN, Netherlands;Department of Public and Occupational Health & EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Hospitals;    Adverse event;    Patient safety;    Ecometric;    Risk factors;    Prospective risk analysis;    Prospective risk;   

Others  :  1133938
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-103

 received in 2013-06-24, accepted in 2014-02-07,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Safety management systems have been set up in healthcare institutions to reduce the number of adverse events. Safety management systems use a combination of activities, such as identifying and assessing safety risks in the organizational processes through retrospective and prospective risk assessments. A complementary method to already existing prospective risk analysis methods is Tripod, which measures latent risk factors in organizations through staff questionnaires. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals and whether it can assess differences in risk factors between hospital departments.

Methods

Tripod measures risk factors in five organizational domains: (1) Procedures, (2) Training, (3) Communication, (4) Incompatible Goals and (5) Organization. Each domain is covered by 15 items in the questionnaire. A total of thirteen departments from two hospitals participated in this study. All healthcare staff working in the participating departments were approached. The multilevel method ecometrics was used to evaluate the validity and reliability of Tripod. Ecometrics was needed to ensure that the differences between departments were attributable to differences in risk at the departmental level and not to differences between individual perceptions of the healthcare staff.

Results

A total of 626 healthcare staff completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 61.7%. Reliability coefficients were calculated for the individual level and department level. At the individual level, reliability coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.87, at the departmental level they ranged from 0.55 to 0.73. Intraclass correlations at the departmental level ranged from 3.7% to 8.5%, which indicate sufficient clustering of answers within departments. At both levels the domains from the questionnaire were positively interrelated and all significant.

Conclusions

The results of this study show that Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals. Results of the questionnaire provide information about latent risk factors in hospital departments. However, this study also shows that there are indications that the method is not sensitive enough to detect differences between hospital departments. Therefore, it is important to be careful when interpreting differences in potential risks between departments when using Tripod.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 van Schoten et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH: Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 1991, 324:370-376.
• [2]Zegers M, De Bruijne MC, Wagner C, Hoonhout LHF, Waaijman R, Smits M, Hout FA, Zwaan L, Christiaans-Dingelhoff I, Timmermans DR, Groenewegen PP, van der Wal G: Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study. Qual Saf Health Care 2009, 18:297-302.
• [3]De Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA: The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2008, 17:216-223.
• [4]van der Schaaf TW: Medical applications of industrial safety science. Qual Saf in Health Care 2002, 11:205-206.
• [5]Vincent C: Patient safety. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
• [6]Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS: To err is human: building a safer health system. 627th edition. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
• [7]Smith A, Boult M, Woods I, Johnson S: Promoting patient safety through prospective risk identification: example from peri-operative care. Qual Saf Health Care 2010, 19:69-73.
• [8]Nicolini D, Waring J, Mengis J: The challenges of undertaking root cause analysis in health care: a qualitative study. J Health Ser Res Policy 2011, 16:34-41.
• [9]Habraken MMP, Van der Schaaf TW, Leistikow IP, Reijnders-Thijssen PMJ: Prospective risk analysis of health care processes: A systematic evaluation of the use of HFMEA in Dutch health care. Ergonomics 2009, 52:809-819.
• [10]Wierenga PC, Lie A, Huen L, De Rooij SE, Klazinga NS, Guchelaar HJ, Smorenburg SM: Application of the bow-tie model in medication safety risk analysis consecutive experience in two hospitals in the Netherlands. Drug Saf 2009, 32:663-673.
• [11]Bonnabry P, Cingria L, Ackermann M, Sadeghipour F, Bigler L, Mach N: Use of a prospective risk analysis method to improve the safety of the cancer chemotherapy process. Int J Qual Health Care 2006, 18:9-16.
• [12]Joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Health Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Ref Type: Report; 2005.
• [13]Institute for healthcare improvement: Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Ref Type: Online Source; 2013.
• [14]Reason JT: Managing the risks of organizational accidents. 6th edition. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997.
• [15]Groeneweg J: Controlling the controllable: preventing business upsets. Leiden, The Netherlands: Global Safety Group; 2002.
• [16]Reason J: Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
• [17]Parker D, Lawton R: Managing medical mishaps: learning lessons from industry. London: Greenwich Medical Media; 2003:209-222. [Recent Advances in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care]
• [18]Croskerry P, Cosby KS, Schenkel SM, Wears RL: Patient safety in emergency medicine. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
• [19]Van Beuzekom M, Boer F, Akerboom S, Hudson P: Patient safety: latent risk factors. Br j anaesth 2010, 105:52-59.
• [20]Armitage G: Human error theory: relevance to nurse management. J Nurs Manag 2009, 17:193-202.
• [21]Carayon P: Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. Boca Raton, CA: CRC PressI Llc; 2011.
• [22]Cambon J, Guarnieri F, Groeneweg J: Towards a new tool for measuring Safety Management Systems performance. 2006, 53. [Learning from Diversity: Model-Based Evaluation of Opportunities for Process (Re)-Design and Increasing Company Resilience]
• [23]Sujan MA: A novel tool for organisational learning and its impact on safety culture in a hospital dispensary. Reliab Eng System Safety 2012, 101:21-34.
• [24]Raudenbush SW: The quantitative assessment of neighborhood social environments. In Neighborhoods and Health. Edited by Kawachi I, Berkman L. Oxford University Press; 2003:112-131.
• [25]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [26]Twisk JW: Applied multilevel analysis: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
• [27]Colla JB, Bracken AC, Kinney LM, Week WB: Measuring patient safety climate: a review of surveys. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:364-366.
• [28]Smits M, Christiaans-Dingelhoff I, Wagner C, Van der Wal G, Groenewegen PP: The psychometric properties of the 'Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture' in Dutch hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 2008, 8:230. BioMed Central Full Text