Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 26258-26261 [2015-10982]
Download as PDF
26258
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
that corresponds with ‘‘Information
Collection 9000–0076, Novation/Change
of Name Requirements.’’ Follow the
instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘Information Collection 9000–0076,
Novation/Change of Name
Requirements’’ on your attached
document.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms.
Flowers/IC 9000–0076, Novation/
Change of Name Requirements.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite Information Collection
9000–0076, Novation/Change of Name
Requirements, in all correspondence
related to this collection. All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal and/or business
confidential information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
Analyst, Office of Governmentwide
Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202–208–4949
or via email curtis.glover@gsa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Purpose
Federal Acquisition Regulation
42.1203 and 42.1204 provide
requirements for contractors to request
novation/change of name agreements
and supporting documents when a firm
performing under Government contracts
wishes the Government to recognize (1)
a successor in interest to these contracts,
or (2) a name change, it must submit
certain documentation to the
Government.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Annual Reporting Burden
Respondents: 1,178.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Annual Responses: 1,178.
Hours per Response: 2.0.
Total Burden Hours: 2,356.
C. Public Comments
Public comments are particularly
invited on: Whether this collection of
information is necessary; whether it will
have practical utility; whether our
estimate of the public burden of this
collection of information is accurate,
and based on valid assumptions and
methodology; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways in
which we can minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, through the use of
appropriate technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 May 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Obtaining Copies of Proposals:
Requesters may obtain a copy of the
information collection documents from
the General Services Administration,
Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB),
1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC
20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please
cite OMB Control No. 9000–0076,
Novation/Change of Name
Requirements, in all correspondence.
Bulletins can be found at www.gsa.gov/
ftrbulletin.
Dated: May 1, 2015.
Giancarlo Brizzi,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of
Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–10631 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–14–P
Dated: May 4, 2015.
Edward Loeb,
Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy
Division, Office of Governmentwide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
[FR Doc. 2015–11074 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
[Notice–MA–2015–02; Docket No. 2015–
0002, Sequence No. 10]
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Relocation Allowances—Requirement
To Report Agency Payments for
Relocation
Office of Government-Wide
Policy, General Services Administration
(GSA).
ACTION: Notice of a bulletin.
AGENCY:
The purpose of this notice is
to inform agencies that FTR Bulletin 15–
04, pertaining to the Requirement to
Report Agency Payments for Relocation,
is now available online at www.gsa.gov/
ftrbulletin.
DATES: Effective: May 7, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Rick Miller, Office of Asset and
Transportation Management (MA),
Office of Government-wide Policy, GSA,
at 202–501–3822 or via email at
rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Please cite FTR
Bulletin 15–04.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 5
U.S.C. 5707(c), as implemented in the
Federal Travel Regulation, Part 300–70,
Subpart A—Requirement To Report
Agency Payments for Employee Travel
and Relocation, and Part 302–1, Subpart
B—Requirement to Report Agency Data
for Employee Relocation, the
Administrator of General Services is
required to collect data on total agency
payments for travel, transportation, and
relocation expenses every year. This
bulletin provides guidance to agencies
that spent more than $5 million on
travel and transportation payments,
including relocation costs, and the
requirement procedures to report the
data to GSA. Federal Travel Regulation
Bulletin 15–04 and all other FTR
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality
This notice announces the
intention of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approve the proposed
information collection project: ‘‘Pilot
Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on
Patient Safety Culture Version 2.0.’’ In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,
AHRQ invites the public to comment on
this proposed information collection.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by July 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz,
Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by
email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
Copies of the proposed collection
plans, data collection instruments, and
specific details on the estimated burden
can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by
email at doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital
Survey on Patient Safety Culture
Version 2.0
Proposed Project
In 2004, AHRQ developed and
published a measurement tool to assess
the culture of patient safety in hospitals
(OMB control no. 0935–0115). The
Hospital Survey on Patient Safety
Culture (HSOPS) is a survey of
providers and staff that can be
implemented by hospitals to identify
strengths and areas for patient safety
culture improvement as well as raise
awareness about patient safety. When
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
conducted routinely, the survey can be
used to examine trends in patient safety
culture over time and evaluate the
cultural impact of patient safety
initiatives and interventions. The data
can also be used to make comparisons
across hospital units. AHRQ also
produced a survey user’s guide to assist
hospitals in conducting the survey
successfully. The guide addresses issues
such as which providers and staff
should complete the survey, how to
select a sample of hospital providers
and staff, how to administer the
questionnaire, and how to analyze and
report on the resulting data.
Since 2004, thousands of hospitals
within the U.S. and internationally have
implemented the survey. In response to
requests for comparative data from other
hospitals, AHRQ funded the
development of a comparative database
on the survey in 2006 (OMB control no.
0935–0162). The database is currently
compiled every two years, using the
latest data provided by participating
hospitals (and retaining submitted data
for no more than 2 years). Reports
describing the findings from analysis of
the database are made available on the
AHRQ Web site to assist hospitals in
comparing their results. The 2014
database contains data from 405,281
hospital provider and staff respondents
within 653 participating hospitals. The
2014 User Comparative Database Report
presents results by hospital
characteristics (e.g., number of beds,
teaching status, geographic location)
and respondent characteristics (e.g.,
position type, work area/unit).
The survey constructed in 2004
remains in use today, more than 10
years after its initial launch. Since the
launch of HSOPS, AHRQ has funded
development of patient safety culture
surveys for other settings. In 2008,
surveys were published for outpatient
medical offices (OMB control no. 0935–
0131) and nursing homes (OMB control
no. 0935–0132). In 2012, a survey for
community pharmacies (OMB control
no. 0935–0183) was released. Surveys
for each setting built upon the strengths
of HSOPS but improved and updated
items where appropriate.
Users of HSOPS have provided
feedback over the years suggesting that
changes to the instrument would be
valuable and welcomed. The
comparative database registrants
provided feedback about potential
changes in 2013, and telephone
interviews were conducted with 8
current survey users and vendors to gain
an in-depth understanding of their
thoughts on the current survey and
possible changes. As a result of this
feedback, the Hospital Survey on Patient
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 May 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Safety Culture Version 2.0 (HSOPS 2.0)
is being constructed with the following
8 objectives in mind.
(1) Shift to a Just Culture framework
for understanding responses to errors. In
the original HSOPS, questions around
responses to errors were negatively
worded to detect a ‘‘culture of blame’’
in organizations. For example,
respondents evaluated the extent to
which errors were held against them
and whether it felt as though the person
was being written up rather than the
problem. In contrast, a Just Culture
framework emphasizes learning from
mistakes, providing a safe environment
for reporting errors, and utilizing a
balanced approach to errors that
considers both system and individual
behavioral reasons as causes for errors.
New items will be constructed in
HSOPS 2.0 to capture the extent to
which positive responses to error
consistent with a Just Culture
framework are present in an
organization. For example, respondents
will be asked to evaluate the extent to
which the organization tries to
understand the factors that lead to
patient safety errors.
(2) Reduce the number of negatively
worded items. The original HSOPS has
negatively worded items. For example,
respondents are asked whether there are
‘‘patient safety problems in this unit’’
(negatively worded). Using some
negatively worded items was intended
to reduce social desirability and
acquiescence biases and identify
individuals not giving the survey their
full attention (e.g., ‘‘straight-lining,’’ or
providing the same answer for every
item, regardless of positive or negative
wording). However, many users have
indicated that respondents sometimes
had difficultly correctly interpreting and
responding to the negatively worded
items. Therefore, many survey users
recommended that the number of
negatively worded items should be
reduced, but they did not recommend
removing all of these items as they felt
a mixture of items helps keep
respondents engaged.
(3) Add a ‘‘Does not apply/Don’t
know’’ response option. Analysis of the
Comparative Database data found that a
percentage of respondents selects
‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’ on many
items when they really should have
answered ‘‘Does not apply/Don’t know’’.
While some portion of respondents will
always have neutral feelings about a
statement, in some cases a respondent
will select a neutral response to an item
because they do not have experience in
that area or the item does not apply to
their position. Addition of a ‘‘does not
apply/don’t know’’ response option
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26259
should reduce neutral responses to an
item in cases where the item is not
relevant for a respondent, providing
more statistical variability in responses.
Recognizing these issues, the other
AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety
Culture all have a 5th ‘‘Does not apply/
Don’t know’’ response option.
(4) Reword unclear or difficult-totranslate items. HSOPS was originally
designed for use in U.S. hospitals, but
it has since been translated into
languages other than English. Some
HSOPS items use idiomatic expressions
that do not translate well, such as
‘‘things fall between the cracks’’ and
‘‘the person is being written up.’’ Other
items have words that are complex or
may mean different things to different
people, such as ‘‘sacrifice’’ and
‘‘overlook.’’ HSOPS 2.0 uses more
universal phrases which can be
accurately translated and have more
consistent meaning across respondents,
some of whom are non-clinical staff. A
related change across many items is use
of the word ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘staff.’’ It
may be unclear to respondents whether
providers such as physicians, residents,
and interns qualify as ‘‘staff,’’ while
‘‘we’’ invites a more inclusive view of
those in the hospital or unit.
(5) Reword items to be more
applicable to physicians and nonclinical staff. Users have indicated that
the wording of some of the items makes
it awkward for physicians to answer.
For example, the section that asks about
‘‘Your Supervisor/Manager’’ does not
apply well to physicians who report to
a clinical leader but not to a manager
per se. In addition, some items were
difficult for non-clinical staff to answer.
For example, the item ‘‘We have patient
safety problems in this unit’’ may not be
relevant for staff who do not have direct
interaction with patients (e.g., IT staff).
(6) Align the HSOPS survey with
AHRQ patient safety culture surveys for
other settings. The development of
patient safety culture surveys for other
settings provided opportunities to test
new items and refinements of original
HSOPS items. Many of these items have
performed well for other settings and
are relevant to the hospital setting. In
addition, standardizing items across the
patient safety culture surveys would
allow cross-setting comparisons that are
not currently possible.
(7) Reduce survey length. To increase
response rates and reduce the survey
administration burden for hospitals, the
revised survey is intended to be shorter
than the original instrument. Some of
the original items have relatively low
variability and therefore contribute little
to discrimination between positive and
negative assessment of patient safety
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
26260
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
culture. However, the need for careful
testing of alternative questions means
that the initial draft of the revised or 2.0
survey is slightly longer than the
original. Through cognitive
interviewing, pilot testing, and expert
review, we will identify items that can
be deleted, resulting in a shorter final
instrument.
(8) Investigate supplemental items/
composites. Develop a set of
supplemental items for the HSOPS 2.0
survey pertaining to Health Information
Technology (Health IT).
Further details about the specific
changes by composite and at the item
level can be found on the AHRQ Web
site at: https://www.ahrq.gov/
professionals/quality-patient-safety/
patientsafetyculture/hospital/update/
index.html.
The draft 2.0 version of the
instrument has undergone preliminary
cognitive testing with 9 hospital
physicians and staff members as well as
review by a Technical Expert Panel
(TEP).
This research has the following goals:
(1) Cognitively test with individual
respondents the items in a) the draft
HSOPS 2.0 survey and b) HSOPS 2.0
supplemental item set assessing Health
IT Patient Safety. Cognitive testing will
be conducted in English and Spanish.
(2) Conduct data collection as follows:
a. A combined pilot test and bridge
study for the draft HSOPS 2.0 in 40
hospitals and modify the questionnaire
as necessary. The pilot test component
will entail administering the draft 2.0
version to determine which items to
retain. The bridge study component will
entail administering the original HSOPS
in addition to the draft HSOPS 2.0
version to provide guidance to hospitals
in understanding changes in their scores
resulting from the new instrument
versus changes resulting from true
changes in culture.
b. The pilot testing of the
supplemental item set will be
conducted with the same hospitals and
respondents as the pilot test for the draft
HSOPS 2.0. These supplemental items
will be added to the draft HSOPS 2.0
survey for pilot testing.
(3) Engage a TEP in review of pilot
results and finalize the questionnaire
and supplemental item set.
(4) Make the final HSOPS 2.0 survey
and the supplemental items publicly
available.
This work is being conducted by
AHRQ through its contractor, Westat,
pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory authority
to conduct and support research on
healthcare and on systems for the
delivery of such care, including
activities with respect to the quality,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 May 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
effectiveness, efficiency,
appropriateness and value of healthcare
services and with respect to quality
measurement and improvement. 42
U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
Method of Collection
Cognitive interviews—The purpose of
these interviews is to understand the
cognitive processes respondents engage
in when answering each item on the
survey, which will aid in refining the
survey instrument. These interviews
will be conducted with a mix of hospital
personnel, including physicians, nurses,
and other types of staff (from dietitians
to housekeepers).
Draft HSOPS 2.0—Cognitive
interviews have already been conducted
with 9 respondents to inform
development of the current draft HSOPS
2.0. Up to three additional rounds of
interviews will be conducted by
telephone with a total of 27 respondents
(nine respondents each round). The
instrument will be translated into
Spanish and another round of cognitive
interviews will be conducted with nine
Spanish-speaking respondents for a total
of up to 36 respondents across all four
rounds. A cognitive interview guide will
be used for all rounds.
Supplemental Items—Up to three
rounds of interviews will be conducted
by telephone for a total of 27
respondents (nine respondents each
round). The supplemental items will be
translated into Spanish and another
round of cognitive interviews will be
conducted with nine Spanish-speaking
respondents for a total of up to 36
respondents across all four rounds. A
cognitive interview guide will be used
for all rounds.
Feedback obtained from the first
round of interviews for the draft HSOPS
2.0 and the supplemental items will be
used to refine the items. The results of
Round 1 testing, along with the
proposed revisions, will be reviewed
with a TEP prior to commencing with
Rounds 2 and/or 3 testing. In total, up
to 72 cognitive interviews will be
conducted to refine the draft HSOPS 2.0
and supplemental items for pilot testing.
(2) Pilot test and bridge study—There
will be one data collection effort which
will provide data for the pilot test and
the bridge study. The pilot test of the
draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental
items will allow the assessment of the
psychometric properties of the items
and composites. We will assess the
variability, reliability, factor structure
and construct validity of the draft
HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items and
composites, allowing for their further
refinement. The draft HSOPS 2.0 survey
and supplemental items will be pilot
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
tested with hospital personnel in
approximately 40 hospitals to facilitate
multilevel analysis of the data.
Approximately 500 providers and staff
will be sampled from each hospital,
with 250 receiving HSOPS 2.0 with
supplemental items for the pilot test and
250 receiving the original HSOPS for the
bridge study comparisons. A hospital
point of contact will be recruited in
each hospital to publicize the survey
and assemble a list of sampled providers
and staff. Providers and staff will
receive notification of the survey and
reminders via email and the web-based
survey will be fielded entirely online.
The goal of the bridge study will be
to provide users with guidance on how
their new results will compare with
results from the original HSOPS survey.
Although users have requested that the
HSOPS survey be revised, they are also
concerned about their ability to trend
results with data from prior years. A
similar bridge study was conducted
during the 1994 redesign of the Census
Bureau’s Current Population Survey
(CPS). In the CPS bridge study, an
additional 12,000 households were
added to the survey’s monthly rotation
schedule between July 1992 and
December 1993. The added households
received the redesigned version of the
instrument. Thus, the CPS fielded both
the revised and the original versions of
the instrument simultaneously. One of
the most important results of the CPS
bridge study was the development of
metrics that allowed estimates of change
that were due to the changes in the
instrument. These metrics were used to
adjust the estimates produced by the
revised CPS instrument. As a result of
the study, key labor force metrics such
as the unemployment rate could be
trended accurately after the instrument’s
redesign.
We propose to conduct a similarly
constructed bridge study in which
sampled providers and staff take either
the draft HSOPS 2.0 or original versions
of HSOPS. As noted above, a split ballot
design will be used in which half of
sampled providers and staff in each
hospital receive the original HSOPS
(N=250) and the other half receive the
draft HSOPS 2.0 (N=250). This bridge
study is designed to produce metrics of
change that are attributable to the
changed survey instrument. The number
of hospitals and sampled providers and
staff for this data collection effort was
calculated to ensure the statistical
power needed to detect relatively small
differences in scores (3 percentage
points).
(3) TEP feedback—A TEP has been
assembled to provide input to guide
patient safety culture survey product
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
26261
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Notices
development and has been convened to
discuss the proposed changes to the
HSOPS survey and supplemental items.
Upon completion of the pilot test,
results will be reviewed with the TEP
and the survey will be finalized. This
TEP activity does not impose a burden
on the public and is therefore not
included in the burden estimates in
Exhibits 1 and 2.
(4) Dissemination activities—The
final HSOPS 2.0 instrument and
supplemental items will be made
publicly available through the AHRQ
Web site. A report from the bridge study
will also be made public as a resource
to hospitals making the transition to the
new survey. This dissemination activity
does not impose a burden on the public
and is therefore not included in the
burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.
Estimated Annual Respondent Burden
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated
annualized burden hours for the
participants’ time to take part in this
research. Cognitive interviews for the
draft HSOPS 2.0 will be conducted with
36 individuals and will take about one
hour and 30 minutes to complete.
Cognitive interviews for the
supplemental items will be conducted
with 36 individuals and take about one
hour to complete. We will recruit 40
hospitals for the pilot test and bridge
study, sampling approximately 500 staff
members in each (250 taking the
original survey and 250 taking the
HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental item set).
Because we require such a large sample
within each hospital, we will target only
hospitals with 49 or more beds. For
hospitals with fewer than 500 providers
and staff, we will conduct a census in
the hospital (assuming on average 375
providers and staff in these hospitals
this will yield a total of 18,375 sample
members assuming all 40 hospitals
participate. Assuming a response rate of
50 percent, this will yield a total of
9,188 completed questionnaires. The
total annualized burden is estimated to
be 2,387 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated
annualized cost burden associated with
the participants’ time to take part in this
research. The total cost burden is
estimated to be $83,533.26.
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents
Form name/activity
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
Cognitive interviews—HSOPS 2.0 ..............................................................................................
Cognitive interviews—Supplemental Items .................................................................................
Pilot test and bridge study ...........................................................................................................
36
36
9,188
1.5
1.0
0.25
54
36
2,297
Total ......................................................................................................................................
9,260
na
2,387
EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN
Total burden
hours
Form name/activity
Average
hourly wage
rate *
Total cost
burden
Cognitive interviews (HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items) .......................................................
Pilot test and bridge study ...........................................................................................................
90
2,297
a $35.38
b 34.98
$3,184.20
80,349.06
Total ......................................................................................................................................
2,387
na
83,533.26
a Based
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for one physician (29–1060; $101.53), one registered nurse (29–1141; $30.22), one
general and operations manager (11–1021; $52.64), and six clinical lab techs (29–2010; $22.34) whose hourly wage is meant to represent
wages for other hospital employees who may participate in cognitive interviews.
b Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for 1,981 registered nurses, 209 clinical lab techs, 176 physicians and surgeons,
and 21 general and operations managers.
* National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (available at https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for general medical and surgical hospitals, NAICS 622100]).
Request for Comments
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s
information collection are requested
with regard to any of the following: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of AHRQ health care
research and health care information
dissemination functions, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including
hours and costs) of the proposed
collection(s) of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information upon the
respondents, including the use of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 May 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the Agency’s subsequent
request for OMB approval of the
proposed information collection. All
comments will become a matter of
public record.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Dated: April 27, 2015.
Sharon B. Arnold,
Deputy Director, AHRQ.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2015–10982 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–90–P
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality
National Advisory Council for
Healthcare Research and Quality:
Request for Nominations for Public
Members
Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of request for
nominations for public members.
42 U.S.C. 299c establishes a
National Advisory Council for
Healthcare Research and Quality (the
Council). The Council is to advise the
Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the
SUMMARY:
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26258-26261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10982]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the intention of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection
project: ``Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety
Culture Version 2.0.'' In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this
proposed information collection.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 6, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz,
Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection
instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be
obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
doris.lefkowitz@AHRQ.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Pilot Test of the Proposed Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture
Version 2.0
Proposed Project
In 2004, AHRQ developed and published a measurement tool to assess
the culture of patient safety in hospitals (OMB control no. 0935-0115).
The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) is a survey of
providers and staff that can be implemented by hospitals to identify
strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement as well as
raise awareness about patient safety. When
[[Page 26259]]
conducted routinely, the survey can be used to examine trends in
patient safety culture over time and evaluate the cultural impact of
patient safety initiatives and interventions. The data can also be used
to make comparisons across hospital units. AHRQ also produced a survey
user's guide to assist hospitals in conducting the survey successfully.
The guide addresses issues such as which providers and staff should
complete the survey, how to select a sample of hospital providers and
staff, how to administer the questionnaire, and how to analyze and
report on the resulting data.
Since 2004, thousands of hospitals within the U.S. and
internationally have implemented the survey. In response to requests
for comparative data from other hospitals, AHRQ funded the development
of a comparative database on the survey in 2006 (OMB control no. 0935-
0162). The database is currently compiled every two years, using the
latest data provided by participating hospitals (and retaining
submitted data for no more than 2 years). Reports describing the
findings from analysis of the database are made available on the AHRQ
Web site to assist hospitals in comparing their results. The 2014
database contains data from 405,281 hospital provider and staff
respondents within 653 participating hospitals. The 2014 User
Comparative Database Report presents results by hospital
characteristics (e.g., number of beds, teaching status, geographic
location) and respondent characteristics (e.g., position type, work
area/unit).
The survey constructed in 2004 remains in use today, more than 10
years after its initial launch. Since the launch of HSOPS, AHRQ has
funded development of patient safety culture surveys for other
settings. In 2008, surveys were published for outpatient medical
offices (OMB control no. 0935-0131) and nursing homes (OMB control no.
0935-0132). In 2012, a survey for community pharmacies (OMB control no.
0935-0183) was released. Surveys for each setting built upon the
strengths of HSOPS but improved and updated items where appropriate.
Users of HSOPS have provided feedback over the years suggesting
that changes to the instrument would be valuable and welcomed. The
comparative database registrants provided feedback about potential
changes in 2013, and telephone interviews were conducted with 8 current
survey users and vendors to gain an in-depth understanding of their
thoughts on the current survey and possible changes. As a result of
this feedback, the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture Version
2.0 (HSOPS 2.0) is being constructed with the following 8 objectives in
mind.
(1) Shift to a Just Culture framework for understanding responses
to errors. In the original HSOPS, questions around responses to errors
were negatively worded to detect a ``culture of blame'' in
organizations. For example, respondents evaluated the extent to which
errors were held against them and whether it felt as though the person
was being written up rather than the problem. In contrast, a Just
Culture framework emphasizes learning from mistakes, providing a safe
environment for reporting errors, and utilizing a balanced approach to
errors that considers both system and individual behavioral reasons as
causes for errors. New items will be constructed in HSOPS 2.0 to
capture the extent to which positive responses to error consistent with
a Just Culture framework are present in an organization. For example,
respondents will be asked to evaluate the extent to which the
organization tries to understand the factors that lead to patient
safety errors.
(2) Reduce the number of negatively worded items. The original
HSOPS has negatively worded items. For example, respondents are asked
whether there are ``patient safety problems in this unit'' (negatively
worded). Using some negatively worded items was intended to reduce
social desirability and acquiescence biases and identify individuals
not giving the survey their full attention (e.g., ``straight-lining,''
or providing the same answer for every item, regardless of positive or
negative wording). However, many users have indicated that respondents
sometimes had difficultly correctly interpreting and responding to the
negatively worded items. Therefore, many survey users recommended that
the number of negatively worded items should be reduced, but they did
not recommend removing all of these items as they felt a mixture of
items helps keep respondents engaged.
(3) Add a ``Does not apply/Don't know'' response option. Analysis
of the Comparative Database data found that a percentage of respondents
selects ``neither agree nor disagree'' on many items when they really
should have answered ``Does not apply/Don't know''. While some portion
of respondents will always have neutral feelings about a statement, in
some cases a respondent will select a neutral response to an item
because they do not have experience in that area or the item does not
apply to their position. Addition of a ``does not apply/don't know''
response option should reduce neutral responses to an item in cases
where the item is not relevant for a respondent, providing more
statistical variability in responses. Recognizing these issues, the
other AHRQ Surveys on Patient Safety Culture all have a 5th ``Does not
apply/Don't know'' response option.
(4) Reword unclear or difficult-to-translate items. HSOPS was
originally designed for use in U.S. hospitals, but it has since been
translated into languages other than English. Some HSOPS items use
idiomatic expressions that do not translate well, such as ``things fall
between the cracks'' and ``the person is being written up.'' Other
items have words that are complex or may mean different things to
different people, such as ``sacrifice'' and ``overlook.'' HSOPS 2.0
uses more universal phrases which can be accurately translated and have
more consistent meaning across respondents, some of whom are non-
clinical staff. A related change across many items is use of the word
``we'' rather than ``staff.'' It may be unclear to respondents whether
providers such as physicians, residents, and interns qualify as
``staff,'' while ``we'' invites a more inclusive view of those in the
hospital or unit.
(5) Reword items to be more applicable to physicians and non-
clinical staff. Users have indicated that the wording of some of the
items makes it awkward for physicians to answer. For example, the
section that asks about ``Your Supervisor/Manager'' does not apply well
to physicians who report to a clinical leader but not to a manager per
se. In addition, some items were difficult for non-clinical staff to
answer. For example, the item ``We have patient safety problems in this
unit'' may not be relevant for staff who do not have direct interaction
with patients (e.g., IT staff).
(6) Align the HSOPS survey with AHRQ patient safety culture surveys
for other settings. The development of patient safety culture surveys
for other settings provided opportunities to test new items and
refinements of original HSOPS items. Many of these items have performed
well for other settings and are relevant to the hospital setting. In
addition, standardizing items across the patient safety culture surveys
would allow cross-setting comparisons that are not currently possible.
(7) Reduce survey length. To increase response rates and reduce the
survey administration burden for hospitals, the revised survey is
intended to be shorter than the original instrument. Some of the
original items have relatively low variability and therefore contribute
little to discrimination between positive and negative assessment of
patient safety
[[Page 26260]]
culture. However, the need for careful testing of alternative questions
means that the initial draft of the revised or 2.0 survey is slightly
longer than the original. Through cognitive interviewing, pilot
testing, and expert review, we will identify items that can be deleted,
resulting in a shorter final instrument.
(8) Investigate supplemental items/composites. Develop a set of
supplemental items for the HSOPS 2.0 survey pertaining to Health
Information Technology (Health IT).
Further details about the specific changes by composite and at the
item level can be found on the AHRQ Web site at: https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/patientsafetyculture/hospital/update/.
The draft 2.0 version of the instrument has undergone preliminary
cognitive testing with 9 hospital physicians and staff members as well
as review by a Technical Expert Panel (TEP).
This research has the following goals:
(1) Cognitively test with individual respondents the items in a)
the draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and b) HSOPS 2.0 supplemental item set
assessing Health IT Patient Safety. Cognitive testing will be conducted
in English and Spanish.
(2) Conduct data collection as follows:
a. A combined pilot test and bridge study for the draft HSOPS 2.0
in 40 hospitals and modify the questionnaire as necessary. The pilot
test component will entail administering the draft 2.0 version to
determine which items to retain. The bridge study component will entail
administering the original HSOPS in addition to the draft HSOPS 2.0
version to provide guidance to hospitals in understanding changes in
their scores resulting from the new instrument versus changes resulting
from true changes in culture.
b. The pilot testing of the supplemental item set will be conducted
with the same hospitals and respondents as the pilot test for the draft
HSOPS 2.0. These supplemental items will be added to the draft HSOPS
2.0 survey for pilot testing.
(3) Engage a TEP in review of pilot results and finalize the
questionnaire and supplemental item set.
(4) Make the final HSOPS 2.0 survey and the supplemental items
publicly available.
This work is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor,
Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support
research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care,
including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness,
efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with
respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1)
and (2).
Method of Collection
Cognitive interviews--The purpose of these interviews is to
understand the cognitive processes respondents engage in when answering
each item on the survey, which will aid in refining the survey
instrument. These interviews will be conducted with a mix of hospital
personnel, including physicians, nurses, and other types of staff (from
dietitians to housekeepers).
Draft HSOPS 2.0--Cognitive interviews have already been conducted
with 9 respondents to inform development of the current draft HSOPS
2.0. Up to three additional rounds of interviews will be conducted by
telephone with a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents each round).
The instrument will be translated into Spanish and another round of
cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine Spanish-speaking
respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across all four rounds.
A cognitive interview guide will be used for all rounds.
Supplemental Items--Up to three rounds of interviews will be
conducted by telephone for a total of 27 respondents (nine respondents
each round). The supplemental items will be translated into Spanish and
another round of cognitive interviews will be conducted with nine
Spanish-speaking respondents for a total of up to 36 respondents across
all four rounds. A cognitive interview guide will be used for all
rounds.
Feedback obtained from the first round of interviews for the draft
HSOPS 2.0 and the supplemental items will be used to refine the items.
The results of Round 1 testing, along with the proposed revisions, will
be reviewed with a TEP prior to commencing with Rounds 2 and/or 3
testing. In total, up to 72 cognitive interviews will be conducted to
refine the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items for pilot testing.
(2) Pilot test and bridge study--There will be one data collection
effort which will provide data for the pilot test and the bridge study.
The pilot test of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items will allow
the assessment of the psychometric properties of the items and
composites. We will assess the variability, reliability, factor
structure and construct validity of the draft HSOPS 2.0 and
supplemental items and composites, allowing for their further
refinement. The draft HSOPS 2.0 survey and supplemental items will be
pilot tested with hospital personnel in approximately 40 hospitals to
facilitate multilevel analysis of the data. Approximately 500 providers
and staff will be sampled from each hospital, with 250 receiving HSOPS
2.0 with supplemental items for the pilot test and 250 receiving the
original HSOPS for the bridge study comparisons. A hospital point of
contact will be recruited in each hospital to publicize the survey and
assemble a list of sampled providers and staff. Providers and staff
will receive notification of the survey and reminders via email and the
web-based survey will be fielded entirely online.
The goal of the bridge study will be to provide users with guidance
on how their new results will compare with results from the original
HSOPS survey. Although users have requested that the HSOPS survey be
revised, they are also concerned about their ability to trend results
with data from prior years. A similar bridge study was conducted during
the 1994 redesign of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
(CPS). In the CPS bridge study, an additional 12,000 households were
added to the survey's monthly rotation schedule between July 1992 and
December 1993. The added households received the redesigned version of
the instrument. Thus, the CPS fielded both the revised and the original
versions of the instrument simultaneously. One of the most important
results of the CPS bridge study was the development of metrics that
allowed estimates of change that were due to the changes in the
instrument. These metrics were used to adjust the estimates produced by
the revised CPS instrument. As a result of the study, key labor force
metrics such as the unemployment rate could be trended accurately after
the instrument's redesign.
We propose to conduct a similarly constructed bridge study in which
sampled providers and staff take either the draft HSOPS 2.0 or original
versions of HSOPS. As noted above, a split ballot design will be used
in which half of sampled providers and staff in each hospital receive
the original HSOPS (N=250) and the other half receive the draft HSOPS
2.0 (N=250). This bridge study is designed to produce metrics of change
that are attributable to the changed survey instrument. The number of
hospitals and sampled providers and staff for this data collection
effort was calculated to ensure the statistical power needed to detect
relatively small differences in scores (3 percentage points).
(3) TEP feedback--A TEP has been assembled to provide input to
guide patient safety culture survey product
[[Page 26261]]
development and has been convened to discuss the proposed changes to
the HSOPS survey and supplemental items. Upon completion of the pilot
test, results will be reviewed with the TEP and the survey will be
finalized. This TEP activity does not impose a burden on the public and
is therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.
(4) Dissemination activities--The final HSOPS 2.0 instrument and
supplemental items will be made publicly available through the AHRQ Web
site. A report from the bridge study will also be made public as a
resource to hospitals making the transition to the new survey. This
dissemination activity does not impose a burden on the public and is
therefore not included in the burden estimates in Exhibits 1 and 2.
Estimated Annual Respondent Burden
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the
participants' time to take part in this research. Cognitive interviews
for the draft HSOPS 2.0 will be conducted with 36 individuals and will
take about one hour and 30 minutes to complete. Cognitive interviews
for the supplemental items will be conducted with 36 individuals and
take about one hour to complete. We will recruit 40 hospitals for the
pilot test and bridge study, sampling approximately 500 staff members
in each (250 taking the original survey and 250 taking the HSOPS 2.0
and supplemental item set). Because we require such a large sample
within each hospital, we will target only hospitals with 49 or more
beds. For hospitals with fewer than 500 providers and staff, we will
conduct a census in the hospital (assuming on average 375 providers and
staff in these hospitals this will yield a total of 18,375 sample
members assuming all 40 hospitals participate. Assuming a response rate
of 50 percent, this will yield a total of 9,188 completed
questionnaires. The total annualized burden is estimated to be 2,387
hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated
with the participants' time to take part in this research. The total
cost burden is estimated to be $83,533.26.
Exhibit 1--Estimated Annualized Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours per Total burden
Form name/activity respondents response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interviews--HSOPS 2.0................................. 36 1.5 54
Cognitive interviews--Supplemental Items........................ 36 1.0 36
Pilot test and bridge study..................................... 9,188 0.25 2,297
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 9,260 na 2,387
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 2--Estimated Annualized Cost Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total burden Average hourly Total cost
Form name/activity hours wage rate * burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interviews (HSOPS 2.0 and supplemental items)......... 90 \a\ $35.38 $3,184.20
Pilot test and bridge study..................................... 2,297 \b\ 34.98 80,349.06
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,387 na 83,533.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for one physician (29-1060; $101.53), one registered
nurse (29-1141; $30.22), one general and operations manager (11-1021; $52.64), and six clinical lab techs (29-
2010; $22.34) whose hourly wage is meant to represent wages for other hospital employees who may participate
in cognitive interviews.
\b\ Based on the weighted average hourly wage in hospitals for 1,981 registered nurses, 209 clinical lab techs,
176 physicians and surgeons, and 21 general and operations managers.
* National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_621100.htm [for general medical and surgical
hospitals, NAICS 622100]).
Request for Comments
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's
information collection are requested with regard to any of the
following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and
health care information dissemination functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's
estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed
collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the
proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of
public record.
Dated: April 27, 2015.
Sharon B. Arnold,
Deputy Director, AHRQ.
[FR Doc. 2015-10982 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-P