Achieving Diagnostic Excellence: Roadmaps to Develop and Use Patient-Reported Measures With an Equity Lens.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic excellence refers to the optimal process to attain an accurate and precise explanation about a patient's condition and incorporates the perspectives of patients and their care partners. Patient-reported measures (PRMs), designed to capture patient-reported information, have potential to contribute to achieving diagnostic excellence. We aimed to craft a set of roadmaps illustrating goals and guiding the development of PRMs for diagnostic excellence ("Roadmaps"). METHODS: We used iterative inputs from environmental literature scans, expert consultations, and patient voice and employed human-centred design (HCD) and equity-focused road-mapping. The culminating activity of these approaches was an Expert Convening. RESULTS: Use of PRMs can achieve multiple goals for diagnostic excellence, including but not limited to: (1) PRMs for diagnostic continuity, (2) diagnostic PRM alerts, (3) PRM-based quality improvement, (4) PRMs for research, (5) PRMs for routine screening, (6) PRM-based diagnostic excellence population-level patterns, and (7) PRMs supporting patient storytelling. Equity is considered as a cross-cutting goal. Altogether these and future goals support operationalising a vision of patient-reported diagnostic excellence. Roadmaps were developed as a dynamic tool to illustrate PRMs in relation to specific steps with feedback loops to accomplish goals, anticipated timeframes (8-15 years), synergies to foster, and challenges to overcome. Roadmaps are practical in their following PRMs through the stages of development, endorsement, implementation and scaling, and acting upon those measures. Timeframe estimates assume immediate transitions between these stages and no acceleration through incentives and active coordination. CONCLUSION: PRMs for diagnostic excellence have potential to connect patient perspectives, equity, and achievable goals. Roadmaps offer a design approach to enable coordinating measurement activities among diverse stakeholders. Roadmaps also highlight versatility in ways patient-reported information can be collected and used, from clinical settings to public health contexts. Patient-reported diagnostic excellence cannot be established as a solely top-down endeavour, but inherently benefits from bottom-up approaches.

Communicating With Spanish-Speaking Families of Hospitalized Children With Medical Complexity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized families who use languages other than English (LOE) for care encounter unique communication challenges, as do children with medical complexity (CMC). We sought to better understand communication challenges and opportunities to improve care of families who use LOE from the perspectives of hospital staff and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC. METHODS: This qualitative project involved secondary analysis of transcripts from a study on family safety reporting at 2 quaternary care children's hospitals and additional primary data collection (interviews) of staff and parents. Bilingual researchers conducted audio-recorded, semistructured interviews with staff and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC during/after hospitalization. We professionally transcribed and translated interviews and developed, iteratively refined, and validated a codebook. Three independent researchers coded interviews using qualitative descriptive methodology and identified emerging themes through thematic analysis. RESULTS: We coded 49 interviews (13 parents, 11 physicians, 13 nurses, 6 allied health professionals, 6 leaders). Five themes emerged: (1) assumptions and bias regarding specific groups who use LOE for care, (2) importance of trust and relationships, (3) importance of language-concordant care, (4) workarounds to address communication challenges, and (5) the "double-edged" sword of technology. Participant-suggested strategies to improve communication included increasing interpreter access for parents and staff, optimizing technology use, and minimizing bias and assumptions through training. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of CMC and staff identified challenges and opportunities related to communicating with hospitalized families who use LOE for care. Solutions to improve communication and safety for these families should be attuned to needs of all parties involved.

Martha's rule: applying a behaviour change framework to understand the potential of complementary roles of clinicians and patients in improving safety of patients deteriorating in hospital.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: Martha's rule stipulates the right of patients and their families to escalate care as a way to improve safety while in hospital. This article analyses the possible impact of the proposed policy through the lens of a behaviour change framework and explores new opportunities presented by the implementation of Martha's rule.. METHODS: A descriptive analysis was undertaken of interactions between patients, family, friends and clinicians during clinical deterioration in hospital. The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework was applied to understand reasons for failure to respond to deterioration. RESULTS: Care of deteriorating patients requires recording of vital signs, recognition of abnormalities, reporting through escalation and response by a competent clinician. Regarding the care of patients who deteriorate in hospital, healthcare professionals have capability and motivation to provide safe, high-quality care, but often lack the physical and social opportunity to report or respond through lack of time and peer pressure. Patients and family members have motivation and might have time to support safety systems. Martha's rule or similar arrangements allow healthcare organisations to create opportunities for patients and families to report and escalate care to experts in critical care when they recognise deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework provides insights into the causes of failure to rescue in deteriorating patients and an argument for opportunities through escalation by patients and families through Martha's rule. This might reduce the number of system failures and enable safer care.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS). CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Implementing a Family-Centered Rounds Intervention Using Novel Mentor-Trios.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient and Family Centered I-PASS (PFC I-PASS) emphasizes family and nurse engagement, health literacy, and structured communication on family-centered rounds organized around the I-PASS framework (Illness severity-Patient summary-Action items-Situational awareness-Synthesis by receiver). We assessed adherence, safety, and experience after implementing PFC I-PASS using a novel "Mentor-Trio" implementation approach with multidisciplinary parent-nurse-physician teams coaching sites. METHODS: Hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation study from 2/29/19-3/13/22 with ≥3 months of baseline and 12 months of postimplementation data collection/site across 21 US community and tertiary pediatric teaching hospitals. We conducted rounds observations and surveyed nurses, physicians, and Arabic/Chinese/English/Spanish-speaking patients/parents. RESULTS: We conducted 4557 rounds observations and received 2285 patient/family, 1240 resident, 819 nurse, and 378 attending surveys. Adherence to all I-PASS components, bedside rounding, written rounds summaries, family and nurse engagement, and plain language improved post-implementation (13.0%-60.8% absolute increase by item), all P < .05. Except for written summary, improvements sustained 12 months post-implementation. Resident-reported harms/1000-resident-days were unchanged overall but decreased in larger hospitals (116.9 to 86.3 to 72.3 pre versus early- versus late-implementation, P = .006), hospitals with greater nurse engagement on rounds (110.6 to 73.3 to 65.3, P < .001), and greater adherence to I-PASS structure (95.3 to 73.6 to 72.3, P < .05). Twelve of 12 measures of staff safety climate improved (eg, "excellent"/"very good" safety grade improved from 80.4% to 86.3% to 88.0%), all P < .05. Patient/family experience and teaching were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals successfully used Mentor-Trios to implement PFC I-PASS. Family/nurse engagement, safety climate, and harms improved in larger hospitals and hospitals with better nurse engagement and intervention adherence. Patient/family experience and teaching were not affected.

In their own words: Safety and quality perspectives from families of hospitalized children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) experience adverse events due to multiorgan impairment, frequent hospitalizations, subspecialty care, and dependence on multiple medications/equipment. Their families are well-versed in care and can help identify safety/quality gaps to inform improvements. Although previous studies have shown families identify important safety/quality gaps in hospitals, studies of inpatient safety/quality experience of CMC and their families are limited. To address this gap and identify otherwise unrecognized, family-prioritized areas for improving safety/quality of CMC, we conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of safety reporting surveys among families of CMC. OBJECTIVE: Explore safety reports from families of hospitalized CMC to identify areas to improve safety/quality. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed free-text responses from predischarge safety reporting surveys administered to families of CMC at a quaternary children's hospital from April 2018 to November 2020. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we categorized responses into standard clinical categories. Three team members inductively generated an initial codebook to apply iteratively to responses. Reviewers coded responses collaboratively, resolved discrepancies through consensus, and generated themes. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Outcomes: family-reported areas of safety/quality improvement. MEASURES: pre-discharge family surveys. RESULTS: Two hundred and eight/two hundred and thirty-seven (88%) families completed surveys; 83 families offered 138 free-text safety responses about medications, feeds, cares, and other categories. Themes included unmet expectations of hospital care/environment, lack of consistency, provider-patient communication lapses, families' expertise about care, and the value of transparency. CONCLUSION: To improve care of CMC and their families, hospitals can manage expectations about hospital limitations, improve consistency of care/communication, acknowledge family expertise, and recognize that family-observed quality concerns can have safety implications. Soliciting family input can help hospitals improve care in meaningful, otherwise unrecognized ways.

Parent Experiences with the Process of Sharing Inpatient Safety Concerns for Children with Medical Complexity: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of identifying and reporting inpatient safety concerns from the perspective of parents of children with medical complexity (CMC). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 31 English and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC at two tertiary children's hospitals. Interviews lasted 45-60 minutes and were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed. Three researchers inductively and deductively coded transcripts using an iteratively refined codebook with validation by a fourth researcher. Thematic analysis was used to develop a conceptual model of the process of inpatient parent safety reporting. RESULTS: We identified four steps illustrating the process of inpatient parent safety concern reporting 1) parent recognizing concern, 2) parent reporting concern, 3) staff/hospital response continuum, and 4) parent feelings of validation/invalidation. Many parents endorsed that they were the first to catch a safety concern and were identified as unique reporters of safety information. Parents typically described reporting their concerns verbally and in real-time to the person they felt could quickly remedy the situation. There was a spectrum of validation. Some parents reported their concerns were not acknowledged and addressed, which led them to feel overlooked, disregarded, or judged. Others reported their concerns were acknowledged and addressed, resulting in parents feeling heard and seen and often leading to changes in clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Parents described a multi-step process of reporting safety concerns during hospitalization and a spectrum of staff response and validation. These findings can inform family-centered interventions that support safety concern reporting in the inpatient setting.