Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Measurement properties of the short form QTAC-PREM acute care measure

From: Short form version of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SF QTAC-PREM)

Subscales Item numbers and descriptionsa Sub-scale factor loadings (n = 154)b Subscale Cronbach’s alpha and corrected item-subscale correlations, (n = 400)c Item/subscale to global rating item correlationsd, (n = 400)c Reliability coefficient (95% CI), (n = 78)e
Information and communication 0.55 0.50g  
1. All injuries explained (10) 0.83 0.50 0.34g 0.51 (0.13–0.88)h
2. Explained self-care (12) 0.75 0.43 0.29g 0.64 (0.41–0.86)h
3. Explained recovery timeline (13) 0.96 0.43 0.19g 0.69 (0.45–0.94)h
4. Consistent information (14) 0.35 0.50 0.47g 0.78 (0.68–0.85)
Clinical and ancillary care 0.85 0.67g  
5. Pain well-controlled (18) 0.68 0.84 0.50g 0.72 (0.59–0.81)
6. Helped with agitation (21) 0.75 0.81 0.57g 0.71 (0.55–0.82)
7. Handled carefully (22) 0.83 0.83 0.44g 0.64 (0.48–0.76)
8. Helped with hygiene (23) 0.60 0.84 0.40g 0.68 (0.52–0.79)
9. Providers explained their roles (24) 0.61 0.83 0.44g 0.78 (0.67–0.85)
10. Addressed concerns (25) 0.70 0.82 0.55g 0.68 (0.52–0.80)
11. Dignity considered (27) 0.77 0.82 0.44g 0.57 (0.39–0.70)
12. Offered to discuss emotional needs (26)f
13. Perceived safety of care (28) 0.76 0.85 0.34g 0.88 (0.82–0.92)
14. Treated unfairly (30) 0.80 0.85 0.28g 0.44 (0.24–0.61)
Stand-alone items    
15. Global rating (34)   0.85 (0.77–0.90)
  1. aCorresponding long form item number in (brackets)
  2. bn = 154 complete cases available out of total sample of 400 completed surveys
  3. cSample size varied depending on the number of complete cases in each sub-scale: clinical and ancillary care (n = 225) and information and communication (n = 273)
  4. dSpearman’s correlations, including Bonferroni correction to account for multiple testing
  5. eIntraclass correlation coefficient unless otherwise indicated
  6. fThis item underwent major revision for inclusion on the short form and, therefore, could not be assessed using data from the long form validation study. However, we have included it within the clinical and ancillary care subscale as it conceptually fits within this construct
  7. gSignificant at the p < 0.01 level
  8. hCohen’s Kappa coefficient