Factors Influencing Feeding Decisions in Children With Bronchiolitis on High-Flow Nasal Cannula.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used in up to 50% of children admitted with bronchiolitis. Consensus recommendations for feeding these children have not been established, and there is variability in practice. We sought to identify factors influencing feeding decisions for general care patients admitted with bronchiolitis on HFNC from a national sample of interdisciplinary care team members. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured virtual interviews with care team members involved in making feeding decisions at 10 US hospitals from June 2022 to March 2023. Eligible participants included 1 nurse, respiratory therapist, speech language pathologist, and physician from each site. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and conducted until reaching sufficiency. Three researchers analyzed transcript data using content analysis guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 participants, including 19 nurses, respiratory therapists, and speech language pathologists and 10 physicians. Participants identified 11 factors influencing feeding decisions related to hospital work systems and processes outlined in the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, including people (child and parent characteristics, care team experience), tools and technology (guideline, protocol, ordersets), organization (institutional culture, education), environment (time of day, care location), task (interventions to optimize feeding), and process (clinical assessment, feeding trial, communication). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that feeding decisions are driven by factors related to the child, care team experience, institutional tools, and culture. These key factors may inform local improvement efforts to decrease variation in feeding children with bronchiolitis requiring HFNC.

Adolescent Access to Clinicians' Notes: Adolescent, Parent, and Clinician Perspectives.

PURPOSE: In 2021, federal guidelines mandated that health-care organizations share clinicians' notes with patients to increase information transparency. While findings indicate advantages for adult patients, less is known about note-sharing from the viewpoint of adolescents. This study aims to identify adolescent, parent, and clinician perspectives on the anticipated benefits and concerns of giving adolescents access to clinicians' notes and strategies to support note-sharing in this population. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups with adolescents, parents, and clinicians at a children's hospital from May to October 2021. A semistructured facilitator guide captured participant perspectives of note-sharing benefits, concerns, and strategies. Two researchers independently coded and analyzed transcript data using thematic analysis; a third researcher reconciled discrepancies. RESULTS: 38 stakeholders (17 adolescents, 10 parents, and 11 clinicians) described four benefits, three concerns, and four implementation strategies regarding adolescent note-sharing. Potential benefits included adolescents using notes to remember and reinforce the visit, gaining knowledge about their health, strengthening the adolescent-clinician relationship, and increasing agency in health care decisions. Concerns included notes leading to a breach in confidentiality, causing negative emotions, and becoming less useful for clinicians. Strategies included making note-sharing more secure, optimizing note layout and content, setting clear expectations, and having a portion of the note for clinician use only. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders suggest multiple strategies to optimize the implementation of note-sharing to support adolescent patients, parents, and clinicians as hospitals work to comply with federal regulations. These strategies may reinforce the potential benefits and mitigate the challenges of sharing notes with adolescent patients.

Physician Work-Personal Intersection: A Scoping Review of Terms, Definitions, and Measures.

PURPOSE: A substantial body of evidence describes the multidimensional relationship between the intersection of physicians' work and personal lives and health care quality and costs, workforce sustainability, and workplace safety culture. However, there is no clear consensus on the terms, definitions, or measures used in physician work-personal intersection (WPI) research. In this scoping review, the authors aimed to describe the terms and definitions used by researchers to describe physician WPI, summarize the measurement tools used, and formulate a conceptual model of WPI that can inform future research. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies that investigated U.S. practicing physicians' WPI and measured WPI as an outcome from January 1990 to March 2022. The authors applied thematic analysis to all WPI terms, definitions, and survey questions or prompts in the included studies to create a conceptual model of physician WPI. RESULTS: Ultimately, 102 studies were included in the final analysis. The most commonly used WPI terms were work-life balance, work-life integration, and work-home or work-life conflict(s). There was no consistency in the definition of any terms across studies. There was heterogeneity in the way WPI was measured, and only 8 (7.8%) studies used a validated measurement tool. The authors identified 6 key driver domains of WPI: work and personal demands; colleague and institutional support and resources; personal identity, roles, health, and values; work schedule and flexibility; partner and family support; and personal and professional strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found significant variability in the terms, definitions, and measures used to study physician WPI. They offer a conceptual model of the WPI construct that can be used to more consistently study physician WPI in the future. Future work should further investigate the validity of this model and generate consensus around WPI terms, definitions, and measures.

Parent Experiences with the Process of Sharing Inpatient Safety Concerns for Children with Medical Complexity: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of identifying and reporting inpatient safety concerns from the perspective of parents of children with medical complexity (CMC). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 31 English and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC at two tertiary children's hospitals. Interviews lasted 45-60 minutes and were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed. Three researchers inductively and deductively coded transcripts using an iteratively refined codebook with validation by a fourth researcher. Thematic analysis was used to develop a conceptual model of the process of inpatient parent safety reporting. RESULTS: We identified four steps illustrating the process of inpatient parent safety concern reporting 1) parent recognizing concern, 2) parent reporting concern, 3) staff/hospital response continuum, and 4) parent feelings of validation/invalidation. Many parents endorsed that they were the first to catch a safety concern and were identified as unique reporters of safety information. Parents typically described reporting their concerns verbally and in real-time to the person they felt could quickly remedy the situation. There was a spectrum of validation. Some parents reported their concerns were not acknowledged and addressed, which led them to feel overlooked, disregarded, or judged. Others reported their concerns were acknowledged and addressed, resulting in parents feeling heard and seen and often leading to changes in clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Parents described a multi-step process of reporting safety concerns during hospitalization and a spectrum of staff response and validation. These findings can inform family-centered interventions that support safety concern reporting in the inpatient setting.