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.

Different Measures and Ways to Categorize Pediatrician Burnout and the Association with Satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: Compare pediatrician burnout when measured and categorized in different ways to better understand burnout and the association with satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed national survey data from a cohort study of early to midcareer pediatricians. In 2017, participants randomly received 1 of 3 question sets measuring burnout components (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment): group A received the Maslach Burnout Inventory, group B received a previously used measure, and group C received a new severe measure. Repeated measures ANOVA tested differences across burnout categorizations: high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization and low personal accomplishment; high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization; and high emotional exhaustion or high depersonalization. Logistic regression tested relationships between burnout profiles (engaged, intermediate, and burnout) and satisfaction. Seventy-one percent of participants completed the survey (1279/1800). RESULTS: Burnout varied depending on measurement (groups A, B, and C) and categorization. For example, for group A, when categorized as high emotional exhaustion, high depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment, burnout was lower (4.8%) than categorized as high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (15.2%) (P < .001) or categorized as high emotional exhaustion or depersonalization (44.6%) (P < .001). Most participants were satisfied with their career (83.6%). Using burnout profiles, 38.4%-85.1% fell in the engaged profile. For each group, burnout profiles were associated with satisfaction. For example, group A participants in the burnout or intermediate profile were less likely than those engaged to be satisfied with their careers (aOR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.24]; and aOR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.10-0.56], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The way burnout is measured and categorized affects burnout prevalence and its association with satisfaction. Transparency in methodology used is critical to interpreting results.

"All the ward's a stage": a qualitative study of the experience of direct observation of handoffs.

Direct observation of clinical skills is central to assessment in a competency-based medical education model, yet little is known about how direct observation is experienced by trainees and observers. The objective of the study is to explore how direct observation was experienced by residents and faculty in the context of the I-PASS Handoff Study. In this multi-center qualitative study, we conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews of residents and faculty members at eight tertiary pediatric centers in North America that implemented the I-PASS Handoff Bundle. We employed qualitative thematic analysis to interpret the data. Barriers to and strategies for direct observation were described relating to the observer, trainee, and clinical environment. Residents and faculty described a mutual awareness that residents change their performance of handoffs when observed, in contrast to their usual behavior in a clinical setting. Changes in handoff performance may depend on the nature of the observer or 'audience'. Direct observation also highlighted the importance of handoffs to participants, recognized as a clinical activity that warrants feedback and assessment. Dramaturgical theory can be used to understand our finding of 'front-stage' (observed) versus 'backstage' (unobserved) handoffs as distinct performances, tailored to an "audience". Educators must be cognizant of changes in performance of routine clinical activities when using direct observation to assess clinical competence.

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.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Integrating Research, Quality Improvement, and Medical Education for Better Handoffs and Safer Care: Disseminating, Adapting, and Implementing the I-PASS Program.

BACKGROUND: In 2009 the I-PASS Study Group was formed by patient safety, medical education, health services research, and clinical experts from multiple institutions in the United States and Canada. When the I-PASS Handoff Program, which was developed by the I-PASS Study Group, was implemented in nine hospitals, it was associated with a 30% reduction in injuries due to medical errors and significant improvements in handoff processes, without any adverse effects on provider work flow. METHODS: To effectively disseminate and adapt I-PASS for use across specialties and disciplines, a series of federally and privately funded dissemination and implementation projects were carried out following the publication of the initial study. The results of these efforts have informed ongoing initiatives intended to continue adapting and scaling the program. RESULTS: As of this writing, I-PASS Study Group members have directly worked with more than 50 hospitals to facilitate implementation of I-PASS. To further disseminate I-PASS, Study Group members delivered hundreds of academic presentations, including plenaries at scientific meetings, workshops, and institutional Grand Rounds. Some 3,563 individuals, representing more than 500 institutions in the 50 states in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 57 other countries, have requested access to I-PASS materials. Most recently, the I-PASSSM Patient Safety Institute has developed a virtual immersion training platform, mobile handoff observational tools, and processes to facilitate further spread of I-PASS. CONCLUSION: Implementation of I-PASS has been associated with substantial improvements in patient safety and can be applied to a variety of disciplines and types of patient handoffs. Widespread implementation of I-PASS has the potential to substantially improve patient safety in the United States and beyond.

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.

Improving Safety through a Virtual Learning Collaborative.

Background: Frontline healthcare safety leaders require expertise and confidence to manage local safety programs effectively yet are confronted with substantial challenges in identifying risk and reducing harm. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary safety learning collaborative in a children's hospital pediatric department and used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series model. Participants attended four virtual education sessions over 13 months (September 2020-September 2021) focused on identifying harm and using tools to improve safety. We analyzed departmental safety data monthly throughout the collaborative. The primary outcome was the development of improvement projects using direct application of the session content. The secondary outcome was participant confidence in improving safety via pre- and postsurveys. Results: Seventy clinicians and quality consultants participated. Fifteen divisional safety improvement projects were initiated. The percentage of survey respondents who reported feeling "completely confident" in their ability to improve safety increased from 26% (n = 39) to 58% (n = 26) from September 2020 to September 2021 (P = 0.01) and maintained at 65% 1 year after the end of the collaborative. We observed a decrease in the mean rate of reported inpatient preventable and possibly preventable moderate/serious/catastrophic events per 1000 bedded days from 1.10 (baseline) to 0.71 (intervention period). Conclusions: Through a collaborative effort in a virtual learning environment, we facilitated the development of fifteen safety projects, increased leaders' confidence in improving safety, and saw improved inpatient safety. This approach, which involves healthcare professionals from various disciplines, may be effectively adapted to other settings.

Pediatricians' Career Satisfaction and Wellbeing by Sex Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pediatrician career satisfaction and wellbeing by sex during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic with prepandemic years using longitudinal survey data. METHODS: Data from a cohort study, the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatrician Life and Career Experience Study, were used to examine career satisfaction and wellbeing from 2012 to 2021 among 2002-2004 and 2009-2011 residency graduates (n = 1760). Mixed effects logistic regression, including key pediatrician characteristics, examined career satisfaction and wellbeing measures for sex (female vs male), pandemic year (2012-2019 vs 2020-2021), and their interaction effect. Adjusted predicted percentage values (PVs) were determined. RESULTS: In total, 73.4% of participants identified as female. Adjusting for key pediatrician characteristics, differences were found by sex for satisfaction and 4 of 5 wellbeing measures, by pandemic year for 2 wellbeing measures, and the interaction of sex and pandemic year for 3 wellbeing measures. Female pediatricians reported higher levels of anxiety, sadness, and work stress, with greater differences during the pandemic. For example, female pediatricians (PV = 22.6, confidence interval [CI] = 21.0-24.3) were more likely than male pediatricians (PV = 14.2, CI = 12.0-16.4) to report anxiety during pre-pandemic years, and the difference between female pediatricians (PV = 29.3, CI = 26.7-32.0) and male pediatricians (PV = 12.4, CI = 9.3-15.5) increased during pandemic years (sex by pandemic year interaction, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with male pediatricians, female pediatricians reported worse anxiety, sadness, and stress at work, and the differences were more pronounced during the pandemic.

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.

Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle.

IMPORTANCE: Handoff miscommunications are a leading cause of medical errors. Studies comprehensively assessing handoff improvement programs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether introduction of a multifaceted handoff program was associated with reduced rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events, fewer omissions of key data in written handoffs, improved verbal handoffs, and changes in resident-physician workflow. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective intervention study of 1255 patient admissions (642 before and 613 after the intervention) involving 84 resident physicians (42 before and 42 after the intervention) from July-September 2009 and November 2009-January 2010 on 2 inpatient units at Boston Children's Hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Resident handoff bundle, consisting of standardized communication and handoff training, a verbal mnemonic, and a new team handoff structure. On one unit, a computerized handoff tool linked to the electronic medical record was introduced. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events measured by daily systematic surveillance. The secondary outcomes were omissions in the printed handoff document and resident time-motion activity. RESULTS: Medical errors decreased from 33.8 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 27.3-40.3) to 18.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 14.7-21.9; P < .001), and preventable adverse events decreased from 3.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 1.7-4.8) to 1.5 (95% CI, 0.51-2.4) per 100 admissions (P = .04) following the intervention. There were fewer omissions of key handoff elements on printed handoff documents, especially on the unit that received the computerized handoff tool (significant reductions of omissions in 11 of 14 categories with computerized tool; significant reductions in 2 of 14 categories without computerized tool). Physicians spent a greater percentage of time in a 24-hour period at the patient bedside after the intervention (8.3%; 95% CI 7.1%-9.8%) vs 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-12.2%; P = .03). The average duration of verbal handoffs per patient did not change. Verbal handoffs were more likely to occur in a quiet location (33.3%; 95% CI, 14.5%-52.2% vs 67.9%; 95% CI, 50.6%-85.2%; P = .03) and private location (50.0%; 95% CI, 30%-70% vs 85.7%; 95% CI, 72.8%-98.7%; P = .007) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a handoff bundle was associated with a significant reduction in medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children. Improvements in verbal and written handoff processes occurred, and resident workflow did not change adversely.

Improving Handoffs in the Perioperative Environment: A Conceptual Framework of Key Theories, System Factors, Methods, and Core Interventions to Ensure Success.

BACKGROUND: Patient handoffs involve the transition of information and responsibility for care from one health care provider to another. They occur frequently during a patient's perioperative care continuum, potentially introducing communication errors that could result in harmful, even fatal consequences. The perioperative environment poses distinct challenges to team communication and patient safety, which in turn leaves the surgical patient uniquely vulnerable to adverse events. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: The best way to achieve safe, coordinated handoffs throughout the perioperative continuum has yet to be established. However, a variety of theoretical principles, methods, and interventions have been used successfully in operative and nonoperative contexts among multiple disciplines. Informed by a literature review, the authors describe a conceptual framework for the development, implementation, and sustainment of a multimodal perioperative handoff improvement bundle. The conceptual framework presented here begins with overarching objectives for patient-centered handoff improvement efforts. The article outlines theoretical principles that could be used to guide and inform future multimodal interventions, as well as health care system factors to consider. Further, the authors propose employing data-driven quality improvement and research methodologies to conduct, measure, achieve, and sustain long-term success. Finally, this report describes essential evidence-based interventional components to employ. IMPLICATIONS: Future efforts to improve handoff safety in the perioperative environment will require a comprehensive evidence-based approach. The authors believe the conceptual framework presented here outlines essential components for success. It integrates proven theoretical frameworks, consideration of system factors, data-driven iterative methods, and synergistic patient-centered interventions.

Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Timing of Enteral Feeds in Pediatric Acute Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis (AP) represents a significant disease burden in the pediatric population. The management of AP includes fluid resuscitation, pain management, and early enteral feeds. Contrary to old dogma, early enteral feeding has been shown to improve outcomes and reduce hospital length of stay (LOS), yet uptake of this approach has not been standardized. Our aim was to standardize the management of AP, increasing the percentage of patients receiving early enteral nutrition from 40% to 65% within 12 months. METHODS: Between January 2013 and September 2021, we conducted a quality improvement initiative among patients hospitalized with AP. Interventions included the development of a clinical care pathway, integration of an AP order set, and physician education. Our primary outcome was the percentage of patients receiving enteral nutrition within 48 hours of admission, and our secondary outcome was hospital LOS. Balancing measures included hospital readmission rates. RESULTS: A total of 652 patients were admitted for AP during the project, of which 322 (49%) were included after pathway implementation. Before pathway development, the percentage of patients receiving early enteral nutrition was 40%, which increased significantly to 84% after our interventions. This improvement remained stable. Median LOS decreased significantly from 5.5 to 4 days during this timeframe. Our balancing measure of readmission rates did not change during the project period. CONCLUSIONS: Through multiple interventions, including the implementation of an AP clinical pathway, we significantly increased the proportion of patients receiving early enteral nutrition and decreased hospital LOS without increasing hospital readmission rates.

Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: A multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Handoff miscommunications are a leading source of medical errors. Harmful medical errors decreased in pediatric academic hospitals following implementation of the I-PASS handoff improvement program. However, implementation across specialties has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To determine if I-PASS implementation across diverse settings would be associated with improvements in patient safety and communication. DESIGN: Prospective Type 2 Hybrid effectiveness implementation study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents from diverse specialties across 32 hospitals (12 community, 20 academic). INTERVENTION: External teams provided longitudinal coaching over 18 months to facilitate implementation of an enhanced I-PASS program and monthly metric reviews. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Systematic surveillance surveys assessed rates of resident-reported adverse events. Validated direct observation tools measured verbal and written handoff quality. RESULTS: 2735 resident physicians and 760 faculty champions from multiple specialties (16 internal medicine, 13 pediatric, 3 other) participated. 1942 error surveillance reports were collected. Major and minor handoff-related reported adverse events decreased 47% following implementation, from 1.7 to 0.9 major events/person-year (p < .05) and 17.5 to 9.3 minor events/person-year (p < .001). Implementation was associated with increased inclusion of all five key handoff data elements in verbal (20% vs. 66%, p < .001, n = 4812) and written (10% vs. 74%, p < .001, n = 1787) handoffs, as well as increased frequency of handoffs with high quality verbal (39% vs. 81% p < .001) and written (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) patient summaries, verbal (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) and written (24% vs. 73%, p < .001) contingency plans, and verbal receiver syntheses (31% vs. 83%, p < .001). Improvement was similar across provider types (adult vs. pediatric) and settings (community vs. academic).

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.

Effect of a Multispecialty Faculty Handoff Initiative on Safety Culture and Handoff Quality.

Structured handoffs at transitions of care are vital components of patient safety. A safety culture survey showed that "handoffs and transitions" were among the lowest scoring dimensions at our hospital. We sought to improve physician handoffs and safety culture scores by implementing standardized handoff communication across multiple divisions of an academic pediatric department. Methods: We used a modified learning collaborative model to implement an I-PASS program, including training, standardized verbal handoff processes, observation and feedback, and sustainment. The setting was the Department of Pediatrics (DoP) within a tertiary academic children's hospital encompassing 13 clinical divisions. The primary outcome was a change in the DoP staff physician "handoffs and transitions" score on the Agency for Healthcare Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Process measures included handoff duration and proportion of handoffs using the complete I-PASS mnemonic. Results: Five hundred sixty-seven physicians from clinical divisions participated over 14 months. One hundred percent of eligible physicians completed an introductory online I-PASS training module. The "handoffs and transitions" score improved from 46% to 54% from 2018 to 2020. From May 2019 to February 2020, the proportion of observed handoffs with all five elements of the I-PASS mnemonic improved from 62% to 100%, and the duration of handoffs per patient did not change. Conclusions: We successfully implemented an I-PASS program across an academic department of pediatrics. The departmental staff physician safety culture "handoff and transitions" score improved. The adherence to the I-PASS mnemonic improved. The duration of handoffs did not change over the study period.

Standardizing Opioid Prescribing in a Pediatric Hospital: A Quality Improvement Effort.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are indicated for moderate-to-severe pain caused by trauma, ischemia, surgery, cancer and sickle cell disease, and vaso-occlusive episodes (SCD-VOC). There is only limited evidence regarding the appropriate number of doses to prescribe for specific indications. Therefore, we developed and implemented an opioid prescribing algorithm with dosing guidelines for specific procedures and conditions. We aimed to reach and sustain 90% compliance within 1 year of implementation. METHODS: We conducted this quality improvement effort at a pediatric academic quaternary care institution. In 2018, a multidisciplinary team identified the need for a standard approach to opioid prescribing. The algorithm guides prescribers to evaluate the medical history, physical examination, red flags, pain type, and to initiate opioid-sparing interventions before prescribing opioids. Opioid prescriptions written between January 2015 and September 2020 were included. Examples from 2 hospital departments will be highlighted. Control charts for compliance with guidelines and variability in the doses prescribed are presented for selected procedures and conditions. RESULTS: Over 5 years, 83 037 opioid prescriptions in 53 804 unique patients were entered electronically. The encounters with ≥1 opioid prescription decreased from 48% to 25% between 2015 and 2019. Compliance with the specific guidelines increased to ∼85% for periacetabular osteotomies and SCD-VOC and close to 100% for anterior-cruciate ligament surgery. In all 3 procedures and conditions, variability in the number of doses prescribed decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: We developed an algorithm, guidelines, and a process for improvement. The number of opioid prescriptions and variability in opioid prescribing decreased. Future evaluation of specific initiatives within departments is needed.

Improving HPV Vaccination Rates in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Pediatric Population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nationally, 54.2% of youth are fully vaccinated for human papilloma virus (HPV) with persistent gender and racial/ethnic disparities. We used a quality improvement approach to improve completion of the HPV vaccine series by age 13 years. As a secondary aim, we examined racial/ethnic and gender differences in vaccine uptake. METHODS: The study setting included 2 pediatric, academic, primary care practices in Massachusetts. We designed a multilevel patient-, provider-, and systems-level intervention addressing parental hesitancy, provider communication, and clinical operations. Rates of HPV series completion by age 13 were monitored using a control p chart. Bivariate and multivariate analyses evaluated vaccine completion differences on the basis of clinic size, gender, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2014, and September 30, 2021, control p charts showed special cause variation with HPV vaccine initiation by age 9 years, increasing from 1% to 52%, and vaccine completion by 13 years, increasing from 37% to 77%. Compared with White and Black children, Hispanic children were more likely to initiate the HPV vaccine at age 9 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = (1.4-2.6)] and complete the series by age 13 (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.3 (1.7-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: A multilevel intervention was associated with sustained HPV vaccine series completion by age 13 years. Hispanic children were more likely to be vaccinated. Qualitative family input was critical to intervention design. Provider communication training addressed vaccine hesitancy. Initiation of the vaccine at age 9 and clinicwide vaccine protocols were key to sustaining improvements.

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.