Patient education and validating understanding


11-Sep-2017 02:38

The five factors were labelled as (1) being quality improvement focused; (2) value of contextual learning; (3) internalising errors regardless of harm; (4) acceptability of questioning more senior healthcare professionals’ behaviour and (5) attitude towards open disclosure of errors.In the second phase of the analysis, the construct validity of the instrument was established using CFA.In addition, root mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used to evaluate absolute fit (a measure of how well the data fits the proposed model) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was used to evaluate the comparative fit (a measure of how well the data fits a model where relationships exist between the survey items compared to a model where no relationships exist).23 A total of 245 first-year and 201 second-year pharmacy students completed the survey, resulting in survey response rates of 87.5% and 74.7%, respectively.The characteristics of the first and second year students are compared in table 1.Participant characteristics were compared across year groups using χ tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables.In addition, the potential relationship between each of the participant demographic characteristics and their effects on survey responses were evaluated.

patient education and validating understanding-32

who is gilbert arenas dating

patient education and validating understanding-43

love dating and directory

Results After exploratory factor analysis on first year student responses (55.76% variance explained) and confirmatory factor analysis on second year responses, a 5-factor model consisting of 14 items was obtained with satisfactory model fit (χ(7)=3.079, p=0.878).Items that related to the reporting of errors were split into two items to evaluate whether students’ responses would change due to the presence or absence of patient harm.