Male Leanne, Noble Adam, Atkinson Jessica, Marson Tony
University of Liverpool, Room 2.29, Clinical Sciences Centre, Aintree University Hospital, Fazakerley L9 7LJ, UK.
The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Lower Lane, Liverpool L9 7LJ, UK.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Jun 1;29(3):314-326. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx027.
Knowledge about patient experience within emergency departments (EDs) allows services to develop and improve in line with patient needs. There is no standardized instrument to measure patient experience. The aim of this study is to identify patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for EDs, examine the rigour by which they were developed and their psychometric properties when judged against standard criteria.
Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2015.
Studies were identified using specific search terms and inclusion criteria. A total of eight articles, reporting on four PREMs, were included.
Data on the development and performance of the four PREMs were extracted from the articles. The measures were critiqued according to quality criteria previously described by Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, et al. (The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:663-74.).
There was significant variation in the quality of development and reporting of psychometric properties. For all four PREMs, initial development work included the ascertainment of patient experiences using qualitative interviews. However, instrument performance was poorly assessed. Validity and reliability were measured in some studies; however responsiveness, an important aspect on survey development, was not measured in any of the included studies.
PREMS currently available for use in the ED have uncertain validity, reliability and responsiveness. Further validation work is required to assess their acceptability to patients and their usefulness in clinical practice.
了解急诊科患者的就医体验有助于服务部门根据患者需求进行发展和改进。目前尚无用于衡量患者体验的标准化工具。本研究旨在确定急诊科患者报告体验指标（PREMs），考察其开发过程的严谨性以及对照标准准则评判时的心理测量特性。
检索了从创刊至2015年5月的Medline、Scopus、CINAHL、PsycINFO、PubMed和科学网。
使用特定检索词和纳入标准确定研究。共纳入8篇报道4个PREMs的文章。
从文章中提取4个PREMs的开发和性能数据。根据Pesudovs K、Burr JM、Harley C等人先前描述的质量标准（问卷的开发、评估和选择。《验光与视觉科学》2007年；84:663 - 74）对这些指标进行评判。
心理测量特性的开发质量和报告存在显著差异。对于所有4个PREMs，初始开发工作包括通过定性访谈确定患者体验。然而，对工具性能的评估较差。一些研究测量了效度和信度；然而，作为调查开发重要方面的反应度，在所纳入的任何研究中均未测量。
目前可用于急诊科的PREMs的效度、信度和反应度尚不确定。需要进一步的验证工作来评估其对患者的可接受性及其在临床实践中的实用性。
