Patient-reported experiences of consultation with an advanced nurse practitioner: Factor structure and reliability analysis of the patient enablement and satisfaction survey.

AIM: The aim was to analyse the psychometric properties of a patient-reported-experience measure, the Patient Enablement and Satisfaction Survey (PESS), when used to evaluate the care provided by Advanced Nurse Practitioners (ANPs) in terms of factor structure and internal consistency. The PESS is a 20-item, patient-completed data collection tool that was originally developed to measure patient experience and enablement following consultation with nurses in general practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey; validity and reliability analysis. METHODS: The sample in this study consisted of 178 patients who consulted with 26 ANPs working in four different specialities. Data were collected between June and December 2019. An exploratory factor analysis of the PESS was conducted to determine convergent validity which was supported by parallel analysis and the traditional Kaiser criterion. The internal consistency of individual PESS items was determined via Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, the Average Variance Extracted tests and item-subscale/total score correlations. RESULTS: A three-factor structure (PESS-ANP) was found through exploratory factor analysis and this was supported by parallel analysis, the traditional Kaiser criterion and the percentage of variance explained criterion. A high degree of internal consistency was reported across all factors. One question was omitted from the analysis ('Overall Satisfaction') following the identification of problematic cross-loadings. The three factor solution was identified as: patient satisfaction, quality of care provision and patient enablement. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study propose a three-factor model that is sufficiently reliable for analysing the experience and enablement of patients following consultation with an ANP. IMPACT: Increasingly, patient-reported experience measures are being used to evaluate patients' experience of receiving care from a healthcare professional. The PESS was identified to be reliable in evaluating the experience of patients who receive care from an ANP while a three-factor structure was proposed that can capture specific attributes of this care.

Reflections on the added value of using mixed methods in the SCAPE study.

AIM: To reflect on the added value that a mixed method design gave in a large national evaluation study of specialist and advanced practice (SCAPE), and to propose a reporting guide that could help make explicit the added value of mixed methods in other studies. BACKGROUND: Recently, researchers have focused on how to carry out mixed methods research (MMR) rigorously. The value-added claims for MMR include the capacity to exploit the strengths and compensate for weakness inherent in single designs, generate comprehensive description of phenomena, produce more convincing results for funders or policy-makers and build methodological expertise. DATA SOURCES: Data illustrating value added claims were drawn from the SCAPE study. REVIEW METHODS: Studies about the purpose of mixed methods were identified from a search of literature. DISCUSSION: The authors explain why and how they undertook components of the study, and propose a guideline to facilitate such studies. CONCLUSION: If MMR is to become the third methodological paradigm, then articulation of what extra benefit MMR adds to a study is essential. The authors conclude that MMR has added value and found the guideline useful as a way of making value claims explicit. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/RESEARCH: The clear articulation of the procedural aspects of mixed-methods research, and identification of a guideline to facilitate such research, will enable researchers to learn more effectively from each other.