PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026BMJ Open Quality0 citationsOpen Access

Validation and benchmarking of Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM) tool for the safety of patients undergoing MRI investigations

View Full Paper
JPJawahar S. K. PillaiLJL. B. M. JosephBSBandya Sahoo

Key Points

  • To develop a context-specific Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) tool focused on MRI safety through patient feedback.
  • Phase 1 involved forming an expert group and conducting focus group discussions to develop a Standard Operating Procedure and PREM questionnaire.
  • Phase 2 included a pilot study using the PREM tool with 213 participants.
  • Phase 3 consisted of a field study in 15 hospitals across India with 720 participants.
  • The PREM tool consisted of 21 essential questions based on expert input and patient feedback.
  • Internal consistency of the PREM tool was found to be excellent, indicating high reliability.
  • In the pilot study, 100% of participants confirmed they were asked about removing metallic devices, and 99% in the main study.

Abstract

Background MRI uses a magnetic field that can harm patients with metallic implants and eliciting details about implants while entering MRI room is essential. Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) tool takes feedback from patients and checks whether staff have enquired about safety parameters while undergoing the diagnostic test, thereby safeguarding the patients against any potential hazards. Objective of study to develop a context-specific PREM tool for MRI safety through constructive feedback from patients Methodology Phase 1 expert group was formed and focused group discussions (FGDs) conducted to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and the PREM Questionnaire tool. Phase 2 and phase 3, multiphasic study conducted in 15 hospitals, India with good geographical distribution using purposive sampling. Phase 2 consisted of a pilot study using the PREM tool with a sample size of 213 participants, and phase 3 consisted of a field study with 720 participants. Results PREM tool developed with 21 questions based on SOP, findings of FGDs and patient feedback. The internal consistency of the PREM tool was excellent and indicated high reliability and showed that the expert group considered the questions essential. Concerning removing metallic devices before the scan, 100% of participants said yes in the pilot study and 99% in the main study. Lacunae identified in the study included screening using a metal detector, counselling about history of allergy, side effects of contrast agents and claustrophobia, and methods to contact the staff in case of any emergency during the MRI scan. These findings indicate that there is a need to improve safety practices based on feedback from patients using the MRI Safety PREM tool. Conclusions MRI Safety PREM tool was developed and validated as a zero-cost patient safety tool. Study participants accepted the PREM questionnaire as a vital tool for patients undergoing MRI to ensure patient safety and improved quality of care.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pillai et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980feeac1c9540dea8116fahttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003387
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper