An assessment of the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale for nursing interns: A cross-cultural adaptation of scales and online investigation.

AIM: The Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale is a tool for evaluating the attitudes of medical staff toward reporting adverse events in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale translated into Chinese used with trainee nurses in mainland China. DESIGN: The Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale was developed following guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation of self-reporting measures. METHODS: The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale was tested on 773 nursing interns by online investigation. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on 350 questionnaires completed by the participants while exploratory factor analysis was performed on 423 questionnaires to test the structural validity of the scale. RESULTS: There were 23 items included in the Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale. The Cronbach's α-coefficient for the internal consistency of the total score was found to be 0.84 with a test-retest reliability value of 0.82, indicating a high level of reliability. Five common factors were extracted. The structural validity on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was 0.87 and the contribution rate of cumulative variance was 58.51%. The content validity values ranged between 0.86 and 1.00. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating nursing interns' attitudes toward reporting clinical adverse events in China. This validation of the Chinese version of the scale also extends the use of the scale to a different population. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Nursing interns are responsible for a relatively high incidence of adverse events and their attitude to reporting these is crucial to patient safety. The Chinese version of the Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale will be helpful for evaluating the reporting attitude of nursing interns.

Applicability of the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 Combined with a Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the applicability of the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) tool in screening nutritional risk and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) in determining nutrition status in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NRS2002 and PG-SGA were simultaneously applied to evaluate the nutritional status of NPC patients before induction chemotherapy, as well as before and after radiotherapy. The PG-SGA results were considered golden standard in evaluating nutrition status, and the ROC curve value and Youden index were applied to analyze NRS2002 effectiveness in screening nutritional risk. RESULTS: A total of 102 NPC patients were included in this study. Patients with an NRS2002 score <3 and PG-SGA score ≥4 accounted for 5.3% (5/95), 19.6% (18/92) and 94.8% (36/38) at the time before induction chemotherapy, before radiotherapy and at the end of radiotherapy, respectively. The cut-off values of NRS2002 scores all <2 corresponded to the maximum Youden index at the three procedural times. And the area under curve (AUC) were 0.598 (P = 0.390), 0.665 (P = 0.015) and 0.940 (P = 0.034), respectively. At the end of radiotherapy, NRS2002 scores of <3 and <2 were used as cut-off values for nutritional risk screening, respectively. Additionally, the malnutrition-missed detection rates were 36.0% and 12.0% (χ 2 = 15.789; P <0.001). DISCUSSION: NRS2002 nutritional risk screening combined with the PG-SGA nutritional assessment has certain applicability in NPC. NRS2002 score ≥2 can be considered as a new cut-off point for nutritional assessment.

An Assessment of the Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Chinese Version of the Health Professional Education in Patient Safety Survey (H-PEPSS).

BACKGROUND: A nursing student's reflection on their knowledge and competence in patient safety (PS) may prepare them to provide safer care in certain circumstances. The Health Professional Education in PS Survey (H-PEPSS) is a validated tool for assessing the perceptions of nursing students with regards to competence in PS. The H-PEPSS is widely used internationally but is not available in Chinese. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to translate the H-PEPSS into Chinese and test its psychometric properties among Chinese undergraduate nursing students. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional online survey that was conducted in 2018. SETTINGS: Seven nursing schools in North, East, Northeast, Central, Southwest, South, and Northwest China. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 732 final-year undergraduate nursing students were recruited by convenience sampling. METHODS: Translation was conducted rigorously in accordance with an adapted version of Brislin's translation model. Psychometric evaluation was conducted by incorporating classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) analysis. RESULTS: The Chinese version of the H-PEPSS (both the classroom and clinical practice versions) achieved a Cronbach's α, marginal reliability and 2-week test-retest reliability of >0.85. A six-factor solution explaining 81.49% and 82.32% of the total variance was obtained for the classroom and clinical practice versions, respectively. This was further validated by confirmatory factor analysis. IRT analysis showed that the scale offers a broad range of information on PS competence and discriminates efficiently between patients with high and low levels of competence in PS. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the H-PEPSS is a reliable and valid instrument that is capable of evaluating competence in PS perceived by undergraduate nursing students. In addition, the survey may also be used to evaluate gaps in classroom knowledge and clinical competence, and to offer valid data for designing or tailoring new education strategies.

What influences nursing safety event reporting among nursing interns?: Focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Nursing safety events involving undergraduate nursing interns often occur but are under-reported. Only a few nursing schools have instituted formal reporting systems. The factors that affect reporting by undergraduate nursing interns are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore the barriers and incentives to nursing safety event reporting by nursing interns. DESIGN: Focus groups were adopted to generate data for qualitative, thematic analyses. SETTINGS: Focus groups were held in intern dormitories during evenings or weekends. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling strategies were employed. The participants were undergraduate nursing interns from one medical university in Fuzhou, China. METHODS: A total of six focus groups were conducted. Semi-structured questions guided the groups. RESULTS: Thirty-eight undergraduate nursing interns attended the groups. Barriers to nursing safety event reporting had five major themes: "Lack of knowledge," "Inconvenience of the reporting system," "Feeling of uncertainty and dishonor," "No benefit from reporting," and "Social influence." Incentives had three major themes: "Nursing safety event education," "Optimization of the reporting system," and "Anonymous reporting." Specific and targeted suggestions were considered, such as education by QQ or WeChat and the use of mobile devices. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing schools need to establish nursing safety event reporting systems for interns, and this needs to be accomplished in cooperation with teaching hospitals to clarify duties and management responsibilities. Practical and targeted management strategies need to be developed to foster reporting, improve nursing safety culture, and promote hospital quality.