Differential Impact of Virtual Family-Centered Rounds in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit by Social Factors: A Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis.

Background: Barriers to attending family-centered rounds (FCR) exist for socially disadvantaged families. Using telehealth to conduct virtual FCR could potentially promote equitable parent/guardian FCR access. The objective of this work was to assess whether the effects of a virtual FCR intervention on parent FCR attendance varied by subgroups defined by social factors. Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial of virtual FCR in the neonatal intensive care unit. Parents of intervention arm infants were invited to participate in virtual FCR plus usual care; control arm infants received usual care. Participants were analyzed according to the assigned group and by race/ethnicity, insurance, mother's education, and neighborhood health conditions. We used Poisson regression to estimate and compare FCR parent attendance rates. Heterogeneity of intervention effects was assessed using interaction terms to evaluate the relative benefit of the intervention in increasing parent FCR attendance. Results: We included all enrolled trial subjects (74 intervention, 36 control). Intervention arm infants had 3.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.66-4.23) times the FCR parent attendance rate of subjects in the control arm. Compared with the corresponding reference subgroup, intervention benefits were 2.15 times (95% CI: 1.30-3.56) better for racial/ethnic minorities, 3.08 times (95% CI: 1.59-5.95) better for those with private insurance, 2.68 times (95% CI: 1.12-6.40) better for those whose mother reported no college education, and 4.14 times (95% CI: 2.07-8.25) better for those from a neighborhood with worse health conditions. Conclusions: Virtual FCR improved parent FCR attendance overall, with even greater benefits for certain subgroups. Further research is needed to mitigate the differential benefit demonstrated for privately insured subjects.

Evaluating Screening to Assess Endorsement of Food Insecurity in the Inpatient Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Rates of food insecurity (FI) from screening in the inpatient setting is often not reflective of community prevalence, indicating that screening likely misses families with FI. We aimed to determine the combination of FI screening questions and methods that would result in identifying a percentage of FI families that matched or exceeded our area prevalence (approximately 20%). METHODS: Research staff approached eligible English- and Spanish-speaking families across 4 inpatient units once weekly and screened for FI using a randomly selected method (face-to-face, phone, paper, and tablet). We asked questions from the 6-Item USDA Survey, Hunger Vital Sign screener, and questions utilized by our social workers. RESULTS: We screened 361 families; 19.4% (N = 70) endorsed FI. Differences in rates were not significant by method. Differences in FI rates based on screening questions were: 17.7% for the 6-item USDA survey, 16.0% for Hunger Vital Sign, and 3.1% for the social work questions. When considering method and screening questions together, the 6-Item USDA on paper had the highest positivity rate of 20.9%. A higher percentage of Spanish-speaking families endorsed FI (61.1%) compared to 17.2% of English-speaking families (P < .01). Positivity also varied significantly by self-identified race (P < .01). Caregivers that identified as Hispanic or Latino were significantly more likely to endorse FI than those that did not (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The positivity rate for FI while screening inpatient families using the 6-Item screening questions on paper matched our community prevalence of FI (approximately 20%).

A Qualitative Intervention Evaluation of Neonatal Virtual Family-Centered Rounds.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an implementation evaluation of the virtual family-centered rounds (FCR) intervention by exploring the perceptions and experiences of parents and care team providers. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using a thematic analysis of unobtrusive observations of rounding encounters and semi-structured interviews with the parents of discharged infants and members of the neonatal care team. Eligible participants had used virtual FCR at least once. Five research team members independently performed focused coding and memo writing of transcripts and observation fieldnotes. The team met weekly to compare and refine codes, update the interview guide, develop tentative categories, and discuss the theoretical direction. RESULTS: We conducted 406 minutes of unobtrusive observations and 21 interviews with parents, physicians, neonatal nurse practitioners, bedside nurses, dieticians, and pharmacists. Three themes and 13 subthemes emerged from the analysis: (1) virtual FCR improved perceived care delivery and clinical outcomes through increased opportunities for parent engagement, (2) the acceptance of virtual FCR by providers grew over time despite the persistent presence of technical challenges, and (3) the implementation of virtual FCR should be standardized and delivered by the care team to enhance usability, effectiveness, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual FCR is perceived by NICU parents and care team providers to be a valuable intervention that can enhance family centered care. The identified virtual FCR implementation strategies should be tested in further studies.

Telemedicine vs Telephone Consultations and Medication Prescribing Errors Among Referring Physicians: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.

Importance: Critically ill children presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in non-children's hospitals are at high risk for experiencing medical errors, including medication errors. Video telemedicine consultations with pediatric specialists have the potential to reduce the risk of medication errors beyond the current standard of care, telephone consultations. Objective: To compare the rates of ED physician-related medication errors among critically ill children randomized to receive either video telemedicine or telephone consultations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized, unbalanced crossover trial was conducted at 15 community EDs in northern California between September 2014 and March 2018. Analyses were conducted from May 2022 to January 2023. Participants included acutely ill children younger than 15 years presenting to a participating ED. Interventions: Participating EDs were randomized to use video telemedicine or telephone for consultations with pediatric critical care physicians according to 1 of 4 unbalanced (3 telemedicine to 1 telephone) crossover treatment assignment sequences. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pharmacists reviewed medical records to document physician-related medication errors using a previously validated instrument. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed to create models with the medication order as the unit of analysis and adjusting for age, the log-transformed Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool score, and hospital study period. Results: A total of 696 patient encounters were included in the trial (mean [SD] age, 4.2 [4.6] years; median [IQR] age, 2.1 [0.5-2.1] years; 304 female [43.7%]), with 537 patient encounters (77.2%) assigned to video telemedicine and 159 patient encounters (22.8%) assigned to telephone. At least 1 physician-related medication error occurred for 87 patients (12.5%), including 20 of 159 patients (12.6%) in the telephone cohort and 67 of 537 patients (12.5%) in the telemedicine cohort. Of the 2414 medication orders, errors occurred in 124 cases (5.1%), including 26 of 513 orders (5.1%) in the telephone cohort and 98 of 1901 orders (5.2%) in the telemedicine cohort. In the multivariable analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of experiencing a medication error among those assigned to telemedicine was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.49-1.52; P = .61). Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized crossover trial found no statistically significant differences in physician-related medication errors between critically ill children assigned to receive telephone consultations vs video telemedicine consultations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02877810.

Addressing food insecurity in the inpatient setting: Results of a postdischarge pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With a growing interest in screening for food insecurity (FI) during pediatric hospitalization, there is a parallel need to develop interventions. With input from caregivers experiencing FI, we sought to identify interventions to assist with short-term FI after discharge and evaluate their feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. METHODS: We first employed qualitative methods to identify potential interventions. Next, we conducted a pilot study of selected interventions for families experiencing FI. Seven days postdischarge, caregivers rated the intervention's feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. We also assessed for ongoing FI. We summarized the median and proportion of "completely agree" responses to feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness questions, and we compared in-hospital and postdischarge FI using McNemar's test. RESULTS: In the qualitative stage, 14 caregivers prioritized three interventions: grocery store gift cards, grocery delivery/pick-up, and frozen meals. In the pilot study, 53 caregivers (25% of those screened) endorsed FI during their child's hospitalization and received one or more of the interventions. Every caregiver selected the grocery gift card option; 37 families (69.8%) also received frozen meals. Seven days after discharge, most caregivers rated the intervention as "completely" feasible (76%), acceptable (90%), and appropriate (88%). There was a significant decrease in caregivers who reported FI after discharge compared to during the hospitalization (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of inpatient interventions to address FI, particularly at the time of pediatric hospital discharge and transition home. Randomized trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy of interventions employed during hospitalization.

Clinician Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children's Hospital: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.

Prioritization of Randomized Clinical Trial Questions for Children Hospitalized With Common Conditions: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: There is a lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data to guide many routine decisions in the care of children hospitalized for common conditions. A first step in addressing the shortage of RCTs for this population is to identify the most pressing RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. Objective: To identify the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this consensus statement, a 3-stage modified Delphi process was used in a virtual conference series spanning January 1 to September 29, 2022. Forty-six individuals from 30 different institutions participated in the process. Stage 1 involved construction of RCT questions for the 10 most common pediatric conditions leading to hospitalization. Participants used condition-specific guidelines and reviews from a structured literature search to inform their development of RCT questions. During stage 2, RCT questions were refined and scored according to importance. Stage 3 incorporated public comment and feasibility with the prioritization of RCT questions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was RCT questions framed in a PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcome) format and ranked according to importance and feasibility; score choices ranged from 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater importance and feasibility. Results: Forty-six individuals (38 who shared demographic data; 24 women [63%]) from 30 different institutions participated in our modified Delphi process. Participants included children's hospital (n = 14) and community hospital (n = 13) pediatricians, parents of hospitalized children (n = 4), other clinicians (n = 2), biostatisticians (n = 2), and other researchers (n = 11). The process yielded 62 unique RCT questions, most of which are pragmatic, comparing interventions in widespread use for which definitive effectiveness data are lacking. Overall scores for importance and feasibility of the RCT questions ranged from 1 to 9, with a median of 5 (IQR, 4-7). Six of the top 10 selected questions focused on determining optimal antibiotic regimens for 3 common infections (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and cellulitis). Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statementhas identified the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. This list of RCT questions can guide investigators and funders in conducting impactful trials to improve care and outcomes for hospitalized children.