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.

How and why might interprofessional patient- and family-centered rounds improve outcomes among healthcare teams and hospitalized patients? A conceptual framework informed by scoping and narrative literature review methods.

Poor communication within healthcare contributes to inefficiencies, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. A promising model to improve outcomes resulting from poor communication in the inpatient hospital setting is Interprofessional Patient- and Family-Centered rounds (IPFCR). IPFCR brings two or more health professions together with hospitalized patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. A growing body of literature focuses on implementation and outcomes of IPFCR to improve healthcare quality and team and patient outcomes. Most studies report positive changes following IPFCR implementation. However, conceptual frameworks and theoretical models are lacking in the IPFCR literature and represent a major gap that needs to be addressed to move this field forward. The purpose of this two-part review is to propose a conceptual framework of how IPFCR works. The goal is to articulate a framework that can be tested in subsequent research studies. Published IPFCR literature and relevant theories and frameworks were examined and synthesized to explore how IPFCR works, to situate IPFCR in relation to existing models and frameworks, and to postulate core components and underlying causal mechanisms. A preliminary, context-specific, conceptual framework is proposed illustrating interrelationships between four core components of IPFCR (interprofessional approach, intentional patient and family engagement, rounding structure, shared development of a daily care plan), improvements in communication, and better outcomes.

Reduced Postdischarge Incidents After Implementation of a Hospital-to-Home Transition Intervention for Children With Medical Complexity.

OBJECTIVES: Prior research suggests that errors occur frequently for patients with medical complexity during the hospital-to-home transition. Less is known about effective postdischarge communication strategies for this population. We aimed to assess rates of 30-day (1) postdischarge incidents and (2) readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits before and after implementing a hospital-to-home intervention. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of children with medical complexity discharged at a children's hospital from April 2018 to March 2020. A multistakeholder team developed a bundled intervention incorporating the I-PASS handoff framework including a postdischarge telephone call, restructured discharge summary, and handoff communication to outpatient providers. The primary outcome measure was rate of postdischarge incidents collected via electronic medical record review and family surveys. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmissions and ED visits. RESULTS: There were 199 total incidents and the most common were medication related (60%), equipment issues (15%), and delays in scheduling/provision of services (11%). The I-PASS intervention was associated with a 36.4% decrease in the rate of incidents per discharge (1.51 versus 0.95, P = 0.003). There were fewer nonharmful errors and quality issues after intervention (1.27 versus 0.85 per discharge, P = 0.02). The 30-day ED visit rate was significantly lower after intervention (12.6% versus 3.4%, per 100 discharges, P = 0.05). Thirty-day readmissions were 15.8% versus 10.2% postintervention (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: A postdischarge communication intervention for patients with medical complexity was associated with fewer postdischarge incidents and reduced 30-day ED visits. Standardized postdischarge communication may play an important role in improving quality and safety in the transition from hospital-to-home for vulnerable populations.

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.

Effect of Patient and Family Centered I-PASS on adverse event rates in hospitalized children with complex chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) are at risk for adverse events (AEs) during hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect of Patient and Family Centered (PFC)I-PASS on AE rates in children with and without CCCs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were drawn from the PFCI-PASS study, which included 3106 hospitalized children from seven North American pediatric hospitals between December 2014 and January 2017. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: An effect modification analysis did not show difference in the intervention on children with and without CCCs (RRR 0.81, 95% CI [0.59-1.10]; p = .2). RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, the adjusted incidence rate ratiofor AEs in children with CCCs was 0.5 (95% CI = 0.3-0.9, p = .01) with PFC I-PASS exposure; there was no statistically significant change in AEs for children without CCCs [IRR 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.2; p = .1)].

Family, nurse, and physician beliefs on family-centered rounds: A 21-site study.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study. INTERVENTION: We inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Out of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time. RESULT: Support for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.

Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program: Resident and Advanced Care Provider Training Materials.

Introduction: Patient and family-centered rounds (PFCRs) are an important element of family-centered care often used in the inpatient pediatric setting. However, techniques and best practices vary, and faculty, trainees, nurses, and advanced care providers may not receive formal education in strategies that specifically enhance communication on PFCRs. Methods: Harnessing the use of structured communication, we developed the Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS Safer Communication on Rounds Every Time (SCORE) Program. The program uses a standardized framework for rounds communication via the I-PASS mnemonic, principles of health literacy, and techniques for patient/family engagement and bidirectional communication. The resident and advanced care provider training materials, a component of the larger SCORE Program, incorporate a flipped classroom approach as well as interactive exercises, simulations, and virtual learning options to optimize learning and retention via a 90-minute workshop. Results: Two hundred forty-six residents completed the training and were evaluated on their knowledge and confidence regarding key elements of the curriculum. Eighty-eight percent of residents agreed/strongly agreed that after training they could activate and engage families and all members of the interprofessional team to create a shared mental model; 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they could discuss the roles/responsibilities of various team members during PFCRs. Discussion: The Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program provides a structured framework for teaching advanced communication techniques that can improve provider knowledge of and confidence with engaging and communicating with patients/families and other members of the interprofessional team during PFCRs.

Family Safety Reporting in Hospitalized Children With Medical Complexity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized children with medical complexity (CMC) are at high risk of medical errors. Their families are an underutilized source of hospital safety data. We evaluated safety concerns from families of hospitalized CMC and patient/parent characteristics associated with family safety concerns. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month prospective cohort study of English- and Spanish-speaking parents/staff of hospitalized CMC on 5 units caring for complex care patients at a tertiary care children's hospital. Parents completed safety and experience surveys predischarge. Staff completed surveys during meetings and shifts. Mixed-effects logistic regression with random intercepts controlling for clustering and other patient/parent factors evaluated associations between family safety concerns and patient/parent characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 155 parents and 214 staff completed surveys (>89% response rates). 43% (n = 66) had ≥1 hospital safety concerns, totaling 115 concerns (1-6 concerns each). On physician review, 69% of concerns were medical errors and 22% nonsafety-related quality issues. Most parents (68%) reported concerns to staff, particularly bedside nurses. Only 32% of parents recalled being told how to report safety concerns. Higher education (adjusted odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval [1.21-7.14], P = .02) and longer length of stay (3.08 [1.29-7.38], P = .01) were associated with family safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents of CMC were infrequently advised about how to report safety concerns, they frequently identified medical errors during hospitalization. Hospitals should provide clear mechanisms for families, particularly of CMC and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to share safety concerns. Actively engaging patients/families in reporting will allow hospitals to develop a more comprehensive, patient-centered view of safety.

Intervention, individual, and contextual determinants to high adherence to structured family-centered rounds: a national multi-site mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication in transitions between healthcare team members is associated with improved patient safety and experience through a clinically meaningful reduction in serious safety events. Family-centered rounds (FCR) can serve a critical role in interprofessional and patient-family communication. Despite widespread support, FCRs are not utilized consistently in many institutions. Structured FCR approaches may prove beneficial in increasing FCR use but should address organizational challenges. The purpose of this study was to identify intervention, individual, and contextual determinants of high adherence to common elements of structured FCR in pediatric inpatient units during the implementation phase of a large multi-site study implementing a structured FCR approach. METHODS: We performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from September 2019 to October 2020 to evaluate the variation in structured FCR adherence across 21 pediatric inpatient units. We analyzed 24 key informant interviews of supervising physician faculty, physician learners, nurses, site administrators, and project leaders at 3 sites using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation in FCR use. We classified implementation determinants based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Provisional measurements of adherence demonstrated considerable variation in structured FCR use across sites at a median time of 5 months into the implementation. Consistent findings across all three sites included generally positive clinician beliefs regarding the use of FCR and structured rounding approaches, benefits to learner self-efficacy, and potential efficiency gains derived through greater rounds standardization, as well as persistent challenges with nurse engagement and interaction on rounds and coordination and use of resources for families with limited English proficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Studies during implementation to identify determinants to high adherence can provide generalizable knowledge regarding implementation determinants that may be difficult to predict prior to implementation, guide adaptation during the implementation, and inform sustainment strategies.

Association of Patient and Family Reports of Hospital Safety Climate With Language Proficiency in the US.

Importance: Patients with language barriers have a higher risk of experiencing hospital safety events. This study hypothesized that language barriers would be associated with poorer perceptions of hospital safety climate relating to communication openness. Objective: To examine disparities in reported hospital safety climate by language proficiency in a cohort of hospitalized children and their families. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study conducted from April 29, 2019, through March 1, 2020, included pediatric patients and parents or caregivers of hospitalized children at general and subspecialty units at 21 US hospitals. Randomly selected Arabic-, Chinese-, English-, and Spanish-speaking hospitalized patients and families were approached before hospital discharge and were included in the analysis if they provided both language proficiency and health literacy data. Participants self-rated language proficiency via surveys. Limited English proficiency was defined as an answer of anything other than "very well" to the question "how well do you speak English?" Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were top-box (top most; eg, strongly agree) 5-point Likert scale ratings for 3 Children's Hospital Safety Climate Questionnaire communication openness items: (1) freely speaking up if you see something that may negatively affect care (top-box response: strongly agree), (2) questioning decisions or actions of health care providers (top-box response: strongly agree), and (3) being afraid to ask questions when something does not seem right (top-box response: strongly disagree [reverse-coded item]). Covariates included health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regression was used with generalized estimating equations to control for clustering by site to model associations between openness items and language proficiency, adjusting for health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Of 813 patients, parents, and caregivers who were approached to participate in the study, 608 completed surveys (74.8% response rate). A total of 87.7% (533 of 608) of participants (434 [82.0%] female individuals) completed language proficiency and health literacy items and were included in the analyses; of these, 14.1% (75) had limited English proficiency. Participants with limited English proficiency had lower odds of freely speaking up if they see something that may negatively affect care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.43), questioning decisions or actions of health care providers (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.41), and being unafraid to ask questions when something does not seem right (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71). Individuals with limited health literacy (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91) and a lower level of educational attainment (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95) were also less likely to question decisions or actions. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that limited English proficiency was associated with lower odds of speaking up, questioning decisions or actions of providers, and being unafraid to ask questions when something does not seem right. This disparity may contribute to higher hospital safety risk for patients with limited English proficiency. Dedicated efforts to improve communication with patients and families with limited English proficiency are necessary to improve hospital safety and reduce disparities.

Family Safety Reporting in Medically Complex Children: Parent, Staff, and Leader Perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite compelling evidence that patients and families report valid and unique safety information, particularly for children with medical complexity (CMC), hospitals typically do not proactively solicit patient or family concerns about patient safety. We sought to understand parent, staff, and hospital leader perspectives about family safety reporting in CMC to inform future interventions. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care children's hospitals with dedicated inpatient complex care services. A research team conducted approximately 60-minute semistructured, individual interviews with English and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC, physicians, nurses, and hospital leaders. Audio-recorded interviews were translated, transcribed, and verified. Two researchers coded data inductively and deductively developed and iteratively refined the codebook with validation by a third researcher. Thematic analysis allowed for identification of emerging themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 80 participants (34 parents, 19 nurses and allied health professionals, 11 physicians, and 16 hospital leaders). Four themes related to family safety reporting were identified: (1) unclear, nontransparent, and variable existing processes, (2) a continuum of staff and leadership buy-in, (3) a family decision-making calculus about whether to report, and (4) misaligned staff and parent priorities and expectations. We also identified potential strategies for engaging families and staff in family reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents were deemed experts about their children, buy-in about the value of family safety reporting among staff and leaders varied, staff and parent priorities and expectations were misaligned, and family decision-making around reporting was complex. Strategies to address these areas can inform design of family safety reporting interventions attuned to all stakeholder groups.