Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation.
Inter-professional
Nurse practitioner
Patient-reported experience measure
Patient-reported outcome
Perceptions of team effectiveness
Process
Questionnaire development
Reliability
Team functioning
Validity
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2019
06 Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
19
10
2018
accepted:
11
12
2018
entrez:
8
1
2019
pubmed:
8
1
2019
medline:
13
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a lack of validated instruments examining dimensions of team functioning from the perspective of patients and families consistent with a conceptual framework. The study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in three studies. Data were collected from May-October 2016 for Study 1, April 2018-ongoing for Study 2, and October 2016 to June 2017 for Study 3. Online and paper versions of the self-administered questionnaire were available in English and in French. The initial questionnaire included 41 items. Study 1 included 320 respondents. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Face validity (n = 250) was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Content validity was examined using subject matter experts and Spearman's item-total correlations. Construct validity was examined using known group comparisons (i.e., clinical specialty, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation). Content analysis was used for open-ended questions. The questionnaire took 10 to 15 min to complete. Positive assessments were noted for instructions, formatting, font size and logical ordering of questions. In Study 1, reliability indices for the PTE-Overall, Team Processes and Outcomes subscales ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.551 to 0.794 (p < 0.001). Differences were noted between clinical specialties, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation, low and high functioning teams. No differences were noted between English and French language respondents. Psychometric properties were re-assessed in Study 2 and 3 after unclear questions were reworked. Reliability indices for the subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and differences remained significant between low and high functioning teams. The final 43-item instrument is easy to administer to patients and families. The studies provide evidence of validity to support the propositions in the conceptual framework. The patient-level measures can be aggregated to the team, organizational or system level. The information can be used to assess healthcare team functioning in acute and primary care and determine the role patients and families are playing in teams. Further testing is needed with patients and families who are hospitalized or receiving care from teams in rural areas.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of validated instruments examining dimensions of team functioning from the perspective of patients and families consistent with a conceptual framework. The study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in three studies. Data were collected from May-October 2016 for Study 1, April 2018-ongoing for Study 2, and October 2016 to June 2017 for Study 3. Online and paper versions of the self-administered questionnaire were available in English and in French. The initial questionnaire included 41 items. Study 1 included 320 respondents. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Face validity (n = 250) was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Content validity was examined using subject matter experts and Spearman's item-total correlations. Construct validity was examined using known group comparisons (i.e., clinical specialty, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation). Content analysis was used for open-ended questions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The questionnaire took 10 to 15 min to complete. Positive assessments were noted for instructions, formatting, font size and logical ordering of questions. In Study 1, reliability indices for the PTE-Overall, Team Processes and Outcomes subscales ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.551 to 0.794 (p < 0.001). Differences were noted between clinical specialties, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation, low and high functioning teams. No differences were noted between English and French language respondents. Psychometric properties were re-assessed in Study 2 and 3 after unclear questions were reworked. Reliability indices for the subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and differences remained significant between low and high functioning teams.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The final 43-item instrument is easy to administer to patients and families. The studies provide evidence of validity to support the propositions in the conceptual framework. The patient-level measures can be aggregated to the team, organizational or system level. The information can be used to assess healthcare team functioning in acute and primary care and determine the role patients and families are playing in teams. Further testing is needed with patients and families who are hospitalized or receiving care from teams in rural areas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30612571
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3808-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-018-3808-0
pmc: PMC6322340
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9Subventions
Organisme : Québec Network on Nursing Intervention Research
ID : 1013255
Organisme : Canadian Institutes of Health Research
ID : 363528
Pays : Canada
Références
Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92
pubmed: 12719681
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):261-6
pubmed: 12803354
Emerg Nurse. 2006 Mar;13(10):26-31
pubmed: 16566315
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2007;20(2):50-68
pubmed: 17619596
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Jul;3(4):1066-76
pubmed: 18417745
J Crit Care. 2008 Jun;23(2):188-96
pubmed: 18538211
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Int J Equity Health. 2009 May 06;8:14
pubmed: 19419579
Ann Fam Med. 2009 May-Jun;7(3):245-8
pubmed: 19433842
J Nurs Care Qual. 2010 Jan-Mar;25(1):31-8
pubmed: 19593213
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):282-93
pubmed: 20826416
Can Fam Physician. 2010 Dec;56(12):1375-6
pubmed: 21156900
J Adv Nurs. 2012 Jul;68(7):1504-15
pubmed: 22117596
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2012 Jul;13(3):219-36
pubmed: 22336106
Int J Nurs Stud. 2012 Jul;49(7):850-62
pubmed: 22424700
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Jan;69(1):205-17
pubmed: 22632289
J Clin Nurs. 2013 Jan;22(1-2):168-79
pubmed: 22672715
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Dec;24(6):445-52
pubmed: 23108287
Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2012:905934
pubmed: 23213497
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 May;22(5):405-13
pubmed: 23349386
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):223-31
pubmed: 23381514
J Clin Nurs. 2013 Sep;22(17-18):2636-47
pubmed: 23534828
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Nov;50(11):1524-36
pubmed: 23548169
CMAJ. 2013 Sep 3;185(12):E590-6
pubmed: 23877669
Clin Nurse Spec. 2013 Nov-Dec;27(6):291-7
pubmed: 24107752
Health Expect. 2016 Jun;19(3):702-15
pubmed: 24118891
Med Care. 2015 Apr;53(4):e16-30
pubmed: 24189550
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jul;29 Suppl 2:S667-74
pubmed: 24715398
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 May 06;15:88
pubmed: 24884544
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Nov;95(11):2220-3
pubmed: 25007707
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Oct;71(5):522-54
pubmed: 25027409
J Interprof Care. 2015 Jan;29(1):55-61
pubmed: 25051086
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2014 Jun;27(2):42-55
pubmed: 25073056
Fam Process. 2015 Mar;54(1):173-84
pubmed: 25264114
Surg Neurol Int. 2014 Aug 28;5(Suppl 7):S295-303
pubmed: 25289149
Med Care. 2014 Nov;52(11 Suppl 4):S11-7
pubmed: 25310632
Medicine (Baltimore). 2014 Nov;93(22):e120
pubmed: 25396331
J Trauma Nurs. 2014 Nov-Dec;21(6):291-9
pubmed: 25397338
Health Serv Res. 2015 Jun;50(3):897-921
pubmed: 25423886
Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Jan;52(1):436-51
pubmed: 25443307
Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Dec;64(629):647-8
pubmed: 25452535
Healthc Policy. 2014 Nov;10(2):38-51
pubmed: 25617514
Health Soc Care Community. 2016 May;24(3):309-20
pubmed: 25711121
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016 Jul;33(6):585-93
pubmed: 25794871
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 09;10(4):e0122499
pubmed: 25856569
Am J Med Qual. 2016 Sep;31(5):408-14
pubmed: 25888549
Nurs Hist Rev. 2016;24:69-75
pubmed: 26297590
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Sep;25(9):680-7
pubmed: 26453636
Health Care Manage Rev. 2017 Jan/Mar;42(1):28-41
pubmed: 26545206
Semin Dial. 2016 Mar-Apr;29(2):135-43
pubmed: 26858008
J Clin Nurs. 2016 Mar;25(5-6):619-30
pubmed: 26875841
Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):11-23
pubmed: 26889874
J Nurs Adm. 2016 Mar;46(3 Suppl):S19-26
pubmed: 26906688
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Dec;99(12):1923-1939
pubmed: 27450481
Clin Nurse Spec. 2016 Sep-Oct;30(5):284-91
pubmed: 27509565
Med Care. 2017 Jan;55(1):19-30
pubmed: 27547942
J Healthc Qual. 2017 Mar/Apr;39(2):95-106
pubmed: 27984357
Anaesthesia. 2017 Jan;72 Suppl 1:84-94
pubmed: 28044332
J Interprof Care. 2017 May;31(3):277-281
pubmed: 28276849
Front Health Serv Manage. 2017 Spring;33(3):17-29
pubmed: 28319979
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Mar 20;17(1):218
pubmed: 28320372
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Jun 1;29(3):314-326
pubmed: 28339923
Eur J Dent. 2017 Jul-Sep;11(3):411-416
pubmed: 28932157
Res Nurs Health. 1995 Feb;18(1):77-80
pubmed: 7831498
J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32
pubmed: 8263569
J Adv Nurs. 1993 Jun;18(6):918-25
pubmed: 8320386