Pediatric Clinician Comfort Discussing Diagnostic Errors for Improving Patient Safety: A Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Meaningful conversations about diagnostic errors require safety cultures where clinicians are comfortable discussing errors openly. However, clinician comfort discussing diagnostic errors publicly and barriers to these discussions remain unexplored. We compared clinicians' comfort discussing diagnostic errors to other medical errors and identified barriers to open discussion. METHODS: Pediatric clinicians at 4 hospitals were surveyed between May and June 2018. The survey assessed respondents' comfort discussing medical errors (with varying degrees of system versus individual clinician responsibility) during morbidity and mortality conferences and privately with peers. Respondents reported the most significant barriers to discussing diagnostic errors publicly. Poststratification weighting accounted for nonresponse bias; the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for false discovery (significance set at P < 0.018). RESULTS: Clinicians (n = 838; response rate 22.6%) were significantly less comfortable discussing all error types during morbidity and mortality conferences than privately (P < 0.004) and significantly less comfortable discussing diagnostic errors compared with other medical errors (P < 0.018). Comfort did not differ by clinician type or years in practice; clinicians at one institution were significantly less comfortable discussing diagnostic errors compared with peers at other institutions. The most frequently cited barriers to discussing diagnostic errors publicly included feeling like a bad clinician, loss of reputation, and peer judgment of knowledge base and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are more uncomfortable discussing diagnostic errors than other types of medical errors. The most frequent barriers involve the public perception of clinical performance. Addressing this aspect of safety culture may improve clinician participation in efforts to reduce harm from diagnostic errors.

Clinical practice patterns are relatively uniform between pediatric heart transplant centers: A survey-based assessment.

Clinical practice variations are a barrier to the study of pediatric heart transplants and coordination of multicenter RCTs in this patient population. We surveyed centers to describe practice patterns, understand areas of variation, and willingness to modify protocol. Pediatric heart transplant centers were identified, and one survey was completed per center. Simple descriptive statistics were used. The response rate was 77% (40 responses from 52 contacted centers, 37 with complete responses). Median center volume of respondents was eight transplants/year (IQR 3-19). Most centers reported tacrolimus (36/38, 95%) and mycophenolate mofetil (36/38, 95%) as maintenance immunosuppression. Other immunosuppression agents reported were cyclosporine (7/38, 18%), everolimus or sirolimus (3/38, 8%), and azathioprine (2/38, 5%). Overall, respondents answered similarly for questions regarding clinical practices including induction therapy, maintenance immunosuppression, and rejection treatment threshold (>85% agreement for all). Additionally, willingness to change clinical practices was over 70% for all practices surveyed (35 total respondents), and 97% of centers (36/37) were willing to participate in a RCT of maintenance immunosuppression. In conclusion, we found many similar clinical practice protocols. Most centers are willing to collaborate on a common protocol in order to participate in a RCT and support a trial investigating maintenance immunosuppression.

Family participation during intensive care unit rounds: goals and expectations of parents and health care providers in a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perceptions, goals, and expectations of health care providers and parents regarding parental participation in morning rounds and target specific areas of opportunity for educational interventions. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews of parents and focus groups of health care providers to learn about their experiences in, goals for, and perceived barriers to successful parental participation in morning rounds. Qualitative methods were used to analyze interview and focus group transcripts. RESULTS: Parents (n = 21) and health care providers (n = 24) participated in interviews and focus groups, respectively. Analyses revealed key areas of agreement between providers and parents regarding goals for rounds when parents are present, including helping parents achieve an understanding of the child's current status and plan of care. Providers and parents disagreed, however, about the nature of opportunities to ask questions. Parents additionally reported a strong desire to provide expert advice about their children and expected transparency from their care team, while providers stated that parental presence sometimes hindered frank discussions and education. CONCLUSIONS: Some agreement in goals for parent participation in morning rounds exists, although there are opportunities to calibrate expectations for both parents and health care providers. Solutions may involve a protocol for orienting parents to morning rounds, focusing on improving communication with parents outside of morning rounds, and the preservation of a forum for providers to have private discussions as a team.

Family participation during intensive care unit rounds: attitudes and experiences of parents and healthcare providers in a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the experiences and attitudes of healthcare providers and parents regarding parental participation in morning rounds, in particular to evaluate for differences in perception of parental comprehension of rounds content and parental comfort with attendance, and to identify subgroups of parents who are more likely to report comfort with attending rounds. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 100 parents and 131 healthcare providers in a tertiary care pediatric medical/surgical intensive care unit. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses; univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare parent and healthcare provider responses. RESULTS: Of parents, 92% reported a desire to attend rounds, and 54% of healthcare providers reported a preference for parental presence. There were significant discrepancies in perception of understanding between the 2 groups, with healthcare providers much less likely to perceive that parents understood both the format (30% vs 73%, P < .001) and content (21% vs 84%, P < .001) of rounds compared with parents. Analysis of parent surveys did not reveal characteristics correlated with increased comfort or desire to attend rounds. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of parents wish to participate in morning rounds, whereas healthcare provider opinions are mixed. Important discrepancies exist between parent and healthcare provider perceptions of parental comfort and comprehension on rounds, which may be important in facilitating parental presence.