Sara C Handley1,2, Molly Passarella3, Ashley E Martin3, Scott A Lorch1,2, Sindhu K Srinivas2,4, Ingrid M Nembhard2,5. 1. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Perelman School of Medicine-University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine-University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a measure of patient-centered care (PCC) culture in hospital-based perinatal care. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from US perinatal hospitals: one provided survey development data and 14 contributed data for survey testing. STUDY DESIGN: We used qualitative and quantitative methods to develop the mother-infant centered care (MICC) culture survey. Qualitative methods included observation, focus group, interviews, and expert consultations to adapt items from other settings and create new items capturing dimensions of PCC articulated by The Commonwealth Fund. We quantitatively assessed survey psychometric properties using reliability (Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients) and validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) statistics, and refined the survey. After confirming aggregation suitability (ICCs), we calculated "MICC culture scores" at the individual, unit, and hospital level and assessed associations between scores and survey-collected, staff-reported outcomes to evaluate concurrent validity. DATA COLLECTION: Survey development included 12 site-visit observations, one semi-structured focus group (five participants), two semi-structured interviews, five cognitive interviews, and three expert consultations. Survey testing used online surveys administered to obstetric and neonatal unit staff (N = 316). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using responses from 10 hospitals with ≥4 responses from both units (n = 240), the 20-item MICC culture survey demonstrated reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.95) while capturing all PCC dimensions (subscale Cronbach's α = 0.72-0.87). CFA showed validity through goodness-of-fit (overall chi-square = 214 [p-value = 0.012], SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.041, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.96). Aggregation statistics (ICCs < 0.05) justify unit- and hospital-level aggregation. Demonstrating preliminary validity, individual-, unit-, and hospital-level MICC culture scores were associated with all outcomes (satisfaction with care provided, within-unit team effectiveness, and relational coordination [RC] between units) (p-values < 0.05), except for neonatal unit scores and RC (p-value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: The MICC culture survey is a psychometrically sound measure of PCC culture for hospital-based perinatal care. Survey scores are associated with staff-reported outcomes. Future studies with patient outcomes will aid identification of improvement opportunities in perinatal care.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a measure of patient-centered care (PCC) culture in hospital-based perinatal care. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from US perinatal hospitals: one provided survey development data and 14 contributed data for survey testing. STUDY DESIGN: We used qualitative and quantitative methods to develop the mother-infant centered care (MICC) culture survey. Qualitative methods included observation, focus group, interviews, and expert consultations to adapt items from other settings and create new items capturing dimensions of PCC articulated by The Commonwealth Fund. We quantitatively assessed survey psychometric properties using reliability (Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients) and validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) statistics, and refined the survey. After confirming aggregation suitability (ICCs), we calculated "MICC culture scores" at the individual, unit, and hospital level and assessed associations between scores and survey-collected, staff-reported outcomes to evaluate concurrent validity. DATA COLLECTION: Survey development included 12 site-visit observations, one semi-structured focus group (five participants), two semi-structured interviews, five cognitive interviews, and three expert consultations. Survey testing used online surveys administered to obstetric and neonatal unit staff (N = 316). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using responses from 10 hospitals with ≥4 responses from both units (n = 240), the 20-item MICC culture survey demonstrated reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.95) while capturing all PCC dimensions (subscale Cronbach's α = 0.72-0.87). CFA showed validity through goodness-of-fit (overall chi-square = 214 [p-value = 0.012], SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.041, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.96). Aggregation statistics (ICCs < 0.05) justify unit- and hospital-level aggregation. Demonstrating preliminary validity, individual-, unit-, and hospital-level MICC culture scores were associated with all outcomes (satisfaction with care provided, within-unit team effectiveness, and relational coordination [RC] between units) (p-values < 0.05), except for neonatal unit scores and RC (p-value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: The MICC culture survey is a psychometrically sound measure of PCC culture for hospital-based perinatal care. Survey scores are associated with staff-reported outcomes. Future studies with patient outcomes will aid identification of improvement opportunities in perinatal care.
Authors: Joanne C Armstrong; Katy B Kozhimannil; Patricia McDermott; George R Saade; Sindhu K Srinivas Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Yuri V Sebastião; Lindsay S Womack; Humberto López Castillo; Maya Balakrishnan; Karen Bruder; Paige Alitz; Linda A Detman; Emily A Bronson; John S Curran; William M Sappenfield Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Leslie A Curry; Marie A Brault; Erika L Linnander; Zahirah McNatt; Amanda L Brewster; Emily Cherlin; Signe Peterson Flieger; Henry H Ting; Elizabeth H Bradley Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Sara C Handley; Molly Passarella; Ashley E Martin; Scott A Lorch; Sindhu K Srinivas; Ingrid M Nembhard Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 3.734