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.

Primary Intensivists and Nurses for Long-Stay Patients: A Survey of Practices and Perceptions at Academic PICUs.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of the utilization of primary intensivists and primary nurses for long-stay patients in large, academic PICU and ascertain how these practices are operationalized and perceived. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: U.S. PICUs with accredited Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowships. SUBJECTS: One senior physician and one senior nurse at each institution. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Separate but largely analogous questionnaires for intensivists and nurses were created using an iterative process to enhance content/face validity and readability. Sixty-seven intensivists (representing 93% of the 72 institutions with fellowship programs and their PICUs) and 59 nurses (representing 82%) responded. Twenty-four institutions utilize primary intensivists; 30 utilize primary nurses; and 13 utilize both. Most institutions use length of stay and/or other criteria (e.g., medical complexity) for eligibility. Commonly, not all patients that meet eligibility criteria receive primaries. Primary providers are overwhelmingly volunteers, and often only a fraction of providers participate. Primary intensivists at a large majority (>75%) of institutions facilitate information sharing and decision-making, attend family/team meetings, visit patients/families regularly, and are otherwise available upon request. Primary nurses at a similar majority of institutions provide consistent bedside care, facilitate information sharing, and attend family/team meetings. A large majority of respondents thought that primary intensivists increase patient/family satisfaction, reduce their stress, improve provider communication, and reduce conflict, whereas primary nurses similarly increase patient/family satisfaction. More than half of respondents shared that these practices can sometimes require effort (e.g., time and emotion), complicate decision-making, and/or reduce staffing flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Primary practices are potential strategies to augment rotating PICU care models and better serve the needs of long-stay and other patients. These practices are being utilized to varying extents and with some operationalization uniformity at large, academic PICUs.

Group Concept Mapping Conceptualizes High-Quality Care for Long-Stay Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients and Families.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and conceptualize high-quality care for long-stay pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients using group concept mapping (GCM). STUDY DESIGN: We convened an expert panel to elucidate domains of high-quality care for this growing patient population for which transitory care models fail to meet their needs. Thirty-one healthcare professionals and 7 parents of patients with previous prolonged PICU hospitalizations comprised a diverse, interprofessional multidisciplinary panel. Participants completed the prompt "For PICU patients and families experiencing prolonged lengths of stay, high quality care from the medical team includes ______", with unlimited free text responses. Responses were synthesized into individual statements, then panelists sorted them by idea similarity and rated them by perceived importance. Statement analysis using GCM software through GroupWisdom generated nonoverlapping clusters representing domains of high-quality care. RESULTS: Participants submitted 265 prompt responses representing 313 unique ideas, resulting in 78 final statements for sorting and rating. The resultant cluster map best representing the data contained 8 domains: (1) Family-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making, (2) Humanizing the Patient, (3) Clinician Supports and Resources, (4) Multidisciplinary Coordination of Care, (5) Family Well-Being, (6) Anticipatory Guidance and Care Planning, (7) Communication, and (8) Continuity of Care. CONCLUSIONS: GCM empowered a panel of healthcare professionals and parents to explicitly describe and conceptualize high-quality care for patients and families experiencing prolonged PICU stays. This information will aid the effort to address shortcomings of transitory PICU care models.

Continuity Strategies for Long-Stay PICU Patients: Consensus Statements From the Lucile Packard Foundation PICU Continuity Panel.

OBJECTIVES: To develop consensus statements on continuity strategies using primary intensivists, primary nurses, and recurring multidisciplinary team meetings for long-stay patients (LSPs) in PICUs. PARTICIPANTS: The multidisciplinary Lucile Packard Foundation PICU Continuity Panel comprising parents of children who had prolonged PICU stays and experts in several specialties/professions that care for children with medical complexity in and out of PICUs. DESIGN/METHODS: We used modified RAND Delphi methodology, with a comprehensive literature review, Delphi surveys, and a conference, to reach consensus. The literature review resulted in a synthesized bibliography, which was provided to panelists. We used an iterative process to generate draft statements following panelists' completion of four online surveys with open-ended questions on implementing and sustaining continuity strategies. Panelists were anonymous when they voted on revised draft statements. Agreement of 80% constituted consensus. At a 3-day virtual conference, we discussed, revised, and re-voted on statements not reaching or barely reaching consensus. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the quality of the evidence and rate the statements' strength. The Panel also generated outcome, process, and balancing metrics to evaluate continuity strategies. RESULTS: The Panel endorsed 17 consensus statements in five focus areas of continuity strategies (Eligibility Criteria, Initiation, Standard Responsibilities, Resources Needed to Implement, Resources Needed to Sustain). The quality of evidence of the statements was low to very low, highlighting the limited evidence and the importance of panelists' experiences/expertise. The strength of the statements was conditional. An extensive list of potential evaluation metrics was generated. CONCLUSIONS: These expert/parent-developed consensus statements provide PICUs with novel summaries on how to operationalize, implement, and sustain continuity strategies for LSP, a rapidly growing, vulnerable, resource-intensive population in PICUs.

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.

Prevalence of ICU Delirium in Postoperative Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of ICU delirium in children less than 18 years old that underwent cardiac surgery within the last 30 days. The secondary aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with ICU delirium in postoperative pediatric cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: A 1-day, multicenter point-prevalence study of delirium in pediatric postoperative cardiac surgery patients. SETTING: Twenty-seven pediatric cardiac and general critical care units caring for postoperative pediatric cardiac surgery patients in North America. PATIENTS: All children less than 18 years old hospitalized in the cardiac critical care units at 06:00 on a randomly selected, study day. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible children were screened for delirium using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium by the study team in collaboration with the bedside nurse. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 181 patients were enrolled and 40% (n = 73) screened positive for delirium. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographic information, severity of defect or surgical procedure, past medical history, or postoperative day between patients screening positive or negative for delirium. Our bivariate analysis found those patients screening positive had a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (12.8 vs 5.1 d; p = 0.02); required more vasoactive support (55% vs 26%; p = 0.0009); and had a higher number of invasive catheters (4 vs 3 catheters; p = 0.001). Delirium-positive patients received more total opioid exposure (1.80 vs 0.36 mg/kg/d of morphine equivalents; p < 0.001), did not have an ambulation or physical therapy schedule (p = 0.02), had not been out of bed in the previous 24 hours (p < 0.0002), and parents were not at the bedside at time of data collection (p = 0.008). In the mixed-effects logistic regression analysis of modifiable risk factors, the following variables were associated with a positive delirium screen: 1) pain score, per point increase (odds ratio, 1.3; 1.06-1.60); 2) total opioid exposure, per mg/kg/d increase (odds ratio, 1.35; 1.06-1.73); 3) SBS less than 0 (odds ratio, 4.01; 1.21-13.27); 4) pain medication or sedative administered in the previous 4 hours (odds ratio, 3.49; 1.32-9.28); 5) no progressive physical therapy or ambulation schedule in their medical record (odds ratio, 4.40; 1.41-13.68); and 6) parents not at bedside at time of data collection (odds ratio, 2.31; 1.01-5.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found delirium to be a common problem after cardiac surgery with several important modifiable risk factors.

The impact of eligibility for primary attendings and nurses on PICU length of stay.

PURPOSE: To examine whether primary attendings and/or nurses impact pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) length of stay (LOS) in long-stay patients (LSP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational cross-sectional study from 2012 to 2016 of 29,170 LSP (LOS ≥ 10 days) admitted to 64 PICUs that participated in the Virtual Pediatric Systems, LLC. Generalized linear mixed models were used to examine the association between being eligible for primary practices and LOS. Secondary outcomes of proportions of limitations and withdrawal of aggressive, life-sustaining interventions were also explored. RESULTS: After controlling for several factors, being eligible for primary nurses and for primary attendings and nurses were associated with significantly lower mean LOS (8.9% and 9.7% lower, respectively), compared to not being eligible for any primary practice. Being eligible for primary attendings was associated with significantly higher mean LOS (9.6% higher). When the primary attendings were used for larger proportions of LSP, the practice was associated with significantly lower mean LOS. Limitations and withdrawal of aggressive interventions were more common in LSPs cared for in PICUs that utilized primary attendings. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of lower LOS in LSP who were eligible for primary practices should induce more rigorous research on the impact of these primary practices.

Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter before and after intervention study. SETTING: Pediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents. INTERVENTION: Families, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting. RESULTS: The overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.

Importance: Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection. Objective: To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Error and AE rates. Results: Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.