A Mixed-Methods Assessment of Coronavirus Disease of 2019-Era Telehealth Acute Care Visits in the Medical Home.

OBJECTIVES: To compare acute care virtual visits with in-person visits with respect to equity of access, markers of quality and safety, and parent and provider experience, before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We compared patient demographics, antimicrobial prescribing rates, emergency department (ED) use, and patient-experience scores for virtual visits and in-person care at 2 academic pediatric primary care practices using χ2 testing and interrupted time series analyses. Parent and provider focus groups explored themes related to virtual visit experience and acceptability. RESULTS: We compared virtual acute care visits conducted in March 2020-February 2021 (n = 8868) with in-person acute care visits conducted in February 2019-March 2020 (n = 24 120) and March 2020-February 2021 (n = 6054). There were small differences in patient race/ethnicity across the different cohorts (P < .01). Virtual visits were associated with a 9.6% (-11.5%, -7.8%, P < .001) decrease in all antibiotic prescribing and a 13.2% (-22.1%, -4.4%, P < .01) decrease in antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections. Unanticipated visits to the ED did not significantly differ among visit types. Patient experience scores were significantly greater (P < .05) for virtual acute care in overall rating of care and likelihood to recommend. Focus group themes included safety, distractibility, convenience, treatment, and technology. Providers were broadly accepting of virtual care while parental views were more mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth acute care visits may not have negative effects on quality and safety, as measured by antimicrobial prescribing and unanticipated ED visit rates. Efforts to increase parental acceptance and avoid creating disparities in access to virtual care will be essential to continued success of telehealth acute care visits.

Gender Differences in Earnings of Early- and Midcareer Pediatricians.

BACKGROUND: The US physician workforce includes an increasing number of women, with pediatrics having the highest percentage. In recent research on physicians, it is indicated that men earn more than women. It is unclear how this finding extends to pediatricians. METHODS: We examined cross-sectional 2016 data on earnings from the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatrician Life and Career Experience Study, a longitudinal study of early- and midcareer pediatricians. To estimate adjusted differences in pediatrician earnings between men and women, we conducted 4 ordinary least squares regression models. Model 1 examined gender, unadjusted; model 2 controlled for labor force characteristics; model 3 controlled for both labor force and physician-specific job characteristics; and model 4 controlled for labor force, physician-specific job, and work-family characteristics. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent of Pediatrician Life and Career Experience Study participants completed the 2016 surveys (1213 out of 1801). The analytic sample was restricted to participants who completed training and worked in general pediatrics, hospitalist care, or subspecialty care (n = 998). Overall pediatrician-reported mean annual income was $189 804. Before any adjustment, women earned ∼76% of what men earned, or ∼$51 000 less. Adjusting for common labor force characteristics such as demographics, work hours, and specialty, women earned ∼87% of what men earned, or ∼$26 000 less. Adjusting for a comprehensive set of labor force, physician-specific job, and work-family characteristics, women earned ∼94% of what men earned, or ∼$8000 less. CONCLUSIONS: Early- to midcareer female pediatricians earned less than male pediatricians. This difference persisted after adjustment for important labor force, physician-specific job, and work-family characteristics. In future work, researchers should use longitudinal analyses and further explore family obligations and choices.

Developing Standardized "Receiver-Driven" Handoffs Between Referring Providers and the Emergency Department: Results of a Multidisciplinary Needs Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunication during patient transfers is a leading cause of medical errors. Inpatient standardization of handoff communication has been associated with reduced medical errors, but less is known about best practices for handoffs from referring providers to the emergency department (ED). The study aims were to identify (1) stakeholder perceptions of current handoff processes and (2) key handoff elements and strategies to optimize patient care on transfer. METHODS: A mixed-methods needs assessment study was conducted at a tertiary care children's hospital with a communication center that receives verbal handoff via telephone from referring providers and provides written summary to the ED. ED, primary care providers, and communication center staff were surveyed to understand perceptions of handoff processes and ideal handoff elements. Focus groups were conducted to refine concepts. Descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and qualitative content analysis were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 129/152 providers (85%). Forty-two percent of respondents described the quality of the handoff process as "very good" or "excellent"; 43% reported miscommunication occurring "sometimes" or "frequently." Within the I-PASS framework-Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency planning, and Synthesis by receiver-respondents identified 10 key elements to obtain through a receiver-driven process to optimize care on transfer. Free-text responses revealed a perceived need to standardize communication. CONCLUSION: A minority of providers perceived handoff quality between outpatient practices and the ED as "very good" or "excellent"; almost half perceived regular miscommunication. A receiver-driven process is a novel approach that may help ensure standardized communication of key handoff elements in this context.

Inpatient Hospital Factors and Resident Time With Patients and Families.

OBJECTIVES: To define hospital factors associated with proportion of time spent by pediatric residents in direct patient care. METHODS: We assessed 6222 hours of time-motion observations from a representative sample of 483 pediatric-resident physicians delivering inpatient care across 9 pediatric institutions. The primary outcome was percentage of direct patient care time (DPCT) during a single observation session (710 sessions). We used one-way analysis of variance to assess a significant difference in the mean percentage of DPCT between hospitals. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient analysis to determine within- versus between-hospital variations. We compared hospital characteristics of observation sessions with ≥12% DPCT to characteristics of sessions with <12% DPCT (12% is the DPCT in recent resident trainee time-motion studies). We conducted mixed-effects regression analysis to allow for clustering of sessions within hospitals and accounted for correlation of responses across hospital. RESULTS: Mean proportion of physician DPCT was 13.2% (SD = 8.6; range, 0.2%-49.5%). DPCT was significantly different between hospitals (P < .001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.25, indicating more within-hospital than between-hospital variation. Observation sessions with ≥12% DPCT were more likely to occur at hospitals with Magnet designation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.45, P = .006), lower medical complexity (OR = 2.57, P = .04), and higher patient-to-trainee ratios (OR = 2.48, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: On average, trainees spend <8 minutes per hour in DPCT. Variation exists in DPCT between hospitals. A less complex case mix, increased patient volume, and Magnet designation were independently associated with increased DPCT.

Reliability of Verbal Handoff Assessment and Handoff Quality Before and After Implementation of a Resident Handoff Bundle.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To develop validity evidence for the use of the Verbal Handoff Assessment Tool (VHAT) and examine the reliability of VHAT scores, and 2) to determine whether implementation of a resident handoff bundle (RHB) was associated with improved verbal patient handoffs among pediatric resident physicians. METHODS: In a pre-post design, prospectively audio recorded verbal patient handoffs conducted at Boston Children's Hospital before and after implementation of the RHB were rated using the VHAT, which was developed for this study (primary outcome). Using generalizability theory, we evaluated the reliability of VHAT scores. RESULTS: Overall, VHAT scores increased after RHB implementation (mean 142 vs 191, possible score 0-500; P < .0001). When accounting for clustering according to resident physician, hospital unit, unit census, and patient complexity, implementation of the RHB was associated with a 63-point increase in VHAT score. Using generalizability theory, we determined that a resident's mean VHAT score on the basis of a handoff of 15 patients assessed by a single observer was sufficiently reliable for relative ranking decisions (ie, norm-based; generalizability coefficient, 0.81), whereas a VHAT score on the basis of a handoff of 21 patients would be sufficiently reliable for high-stakes, standard-based decisions (Phi, 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Verbal handoffs improved after implementation of a RHB, although gains were variable across the 2 clinical units. The VHAT shows promise as an assessment tool for resident handoff skills. If used for competency or entrustment decisions, a resident's mean VHAT score should be on the basis of observation of verbal handoff of ≥21 patients.

Variation in printed handoff documents: Results and recommendations from a multicenter needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Handoffs of patient care are a leading root cause of medical errors. Standardized techniques exist to minimize miscommunications during verbal handoffs, but studies to guide standardization of printed handoff documents are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether variability exists in the content of printed handoff documents and to identify key data elements that should be uniformly included in these documents. SETTING: Pediatric hospitalist services at 9 institutions in the United States and Canada. METHODS: Sample handoff documents from each institution were reviewed, and structured group interviews were conducted to understand each institution's priorities for written handoffs. An expert panel reviewed all handoff documents and structured group-interview findings, and subsequently made consensus-based recommendations for data elements that were either essential or recommended, including best overall printed handoff practices. RESULTS: Nine sites completed structured group interviews and submitted data. We identified substantial variation in both the structure and content of printed handoff documents. Only 4 of 23 possible data elements (17%) were uniformly present in all sites' handoff documents. The expert panel recommended the following as essential for all printed handoffs: assessment of illness severity, patient summary, action items, situation awareness and contingency plans, allergies, medications, age, weight, date of admission, and patient and hospital service identifiers. Code status and several other elements were also recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in the content of printed handoff documents. Standardizing printed handoff documents has the potential to decrease omissions of key data during patient care transitions, which may decrease the risk of downstream medical errors.

Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burdens but may be preventable. PURPOSE: To review the clinical utility of pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments and the comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in persons at higher risk. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 through November 2012), CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, grant databases, clinical trial registries, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and observational studies on effects of using risk assessment on clinical outcomes and randomized trials of preventive interventions on clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Multiple investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: One good-quality trial found no evidence that use of a pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, with or without a protocolized intervention strategy based on assessed risk, reduces risk for incident pressure ulcers compared with less standardized risk assessment based on nurses' clinical judgment. In higher-risk populations, 1 good-quality and 4 fair-quality randomized trials found that more advanced static support surfaces were associated with lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses (relative risk range, 0.20 to 0.60). Evidence on the effectiveness of low-air-loss and alternating-air mattresses was limited, with some trials showing no clear differences from advanced static support surfaces. Evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation, repositioning, and skin care interventions versus usual care was limited and had methodological shortcomings, precluding strong conclusions. LIMITATION: Only English-language articles were included, publication bias could not be formally assessed, and most studies had methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSION: More advanced static support surfaces are more effective than standard mattresses for preventing ulcers in higher-risk populations. The effectiveness of formal risk assessment instruments and associated intervention protocols compared with less standardized assessment methods and the effectiveness of other preventive interventions compared with usual care have not been clearly established.

Peering into the future: pediatrics in a changing world.

Over the last decade, health care has experienced continuous, capricious, and ever-accelerating change. In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics convened the Vision of Pediatrics (VOP) 2020 Task Force in 2008. This task force was charged with identifying forces that affect child and adolescent health and the implications for the field of pediatrics. It determined that shifts in demographics, socioeconomics, health status, health care delivery, and scientific advances mandate creative responses to these current trends. Eight megatrends were identified as foci for the profession to address over the coming decade. Given the unpredictable speed and direction of change, the VOP 2020 Task Force concluded that our profession needs to adopt an ongoing process to prepare for and lead change. The task force proposed that pediatric clinicians, practices, organizations, and interest groups embark on a continual process of preparing, envisioning, engaging, and reshaping (PEER) change. This PEER cycle involves (1) preparing our capacity to actively participate in change efforts, (2) envisioning possible futures and potential strategies through ongoing conversations, (3) engaging change strategies to lead any prioritized changes, and (4) reshaping our futures on the basis of results of any change strategies and novel trends in the field. By illustrating this process as a cycle of inquiry and action, we deliberately capture the continuous aspects of successful change processes that attempt to peer into a multiplicity of futures to anticipate and lead change.

Pediatrics in the year 2020 and beyond: preparing for plausible futures.

Although the future of pediatrics is uncertain, the organizations that lead pediatrics, and the professionals who practice within it, have embraced the notion that the pediatric community must anticipate and lead change to ultimately improve the health of children and adolescents. In an attempt to proactively prepare for a variety of conceivable futures, the board of directors of the American Academy of Pediatrics established the Vision of Pediatrics 2020 Task Force in 2008. This group was charged to think broadly about the future of pediatrics, to gather input on key trends that are influencing the future, to create likely scenarios of the future, and to recommend strategies to best prepare pediatric clinicians and pediatric organizations for a range of potential futures. The work of this task force led to the development of 8 "megatrends" that were identified as highly likely to have a profound influence on the future of pediatrics. A separate list of "wild-card" scenarios was created of trends with the potential to have a substantial influence but are less likely to occur. The process of scenario-planning was used to consider the effects of the 8 megatrends on pediatrics in the year 2020 and beyond. Consideration of these possible scenarios affords the opportunity to determine potential future pediatric needs, to identify potential solutions to address those needs, and, ultimately, to proactively prepare the profession to thrive if these or other future scenarios become realities.