Racial and ethnic disparities in common inpatient safety outcomes in a children's hospital cohort.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence has shown racial and ethnic disparities in rates of harm for hospitalised children. Previous work has also demonstrated how highly heterogeneous approaches to collection of race and ethnicity data pose challenges to population-level analyses. This work aims to both create an approach to aggregating safety data from multiple hospitals by race and ethnicity and apply the approach to the examination of potential disparities in high-frequency harm conditions. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, multicentre study, a cohort of hospitals from the Solutions for Patient Safety network with varying race and ethnicity data collection systems submitted validated central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and unplanned extubation (UE) data stratified by patient race and ethnicity categories. Data were submitted using a crosswalk created by the study team that reconciled varying approaches to race and ethnicity data collection by participating hospitals. Harm rates for race and ethnicity categories were compared with reference values reflective of the cohort and broader children's hospital population. RESULTS: Racial and ethnic disparities were identified in both harm types. Multiracial Hispanic, Combined Hispanic and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander patients had CLABSI rates of 2.6-3.6 SD above reference values. For Black or African American patients, UE rates were 3.2-4.4 SD higher. Rates of both events in White patients were significantly lower than reference values. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of harm data across hospitals with varying race and ethnicity collection systems was accomplished through iterative development of a race and ethnicity category framework. We identified racial and ethnic disparities in CLABSI and UE that can be addressed in future improvement work by identifying and modifying care delivery factors that contribute to safety disparities.

Pediatric Ventilator-Associated Events Before and After a Multicenter Quality Improvement Initiative.

Importance: Pediatric ventilator-associated events (PedVAEs, defined as a sustained worsening in oxygenation after a baseline period of stability or improvement) are useful for surveillance of complications from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear whether interventions to mitigate known risk factors can reduce PedVAE rates. Objective: To assess whether adherence to 1 or more test factors in a quality improvement bundle was associated with a reduction in PedVAE rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter quality improvement study obtained data from 2017 to 2020 for patients who were mechanically ventilated and cared for in neonatal, pediatric, and cardiac intensive care units (ICUs). These ICUs were located in 95 hospitals participating in the Children's Hospitals' Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS) network in North America. Data analyses were performed between September 2021 and April 2023. Intervention: A quality improvement bundle consisted of 3 test factors: multidisciplinary apparent cause analysis, daily discussion of extubation readiness, and daily discussion of fluid balance goals. This bundle was distributed to a subgroup of hospitals that volunteered to participate in a collaborative PedVAE prevention initiative under the SPS network guidance in July 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Each SPS network hospital submitted monthly PedVAE rates from January 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020, and test factor data were submitted from July 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. Analyses focused on hospitals that reliably submitted PedVAE rate data, defined as outcomes data submission through May 31, 2020, for at least 80% of the baseline and postbaseline periods. Results: Of the 95 hospitals in the SPS network that reported PedVAE data, 21 were grouped in the Pioneer cohort and 74 in the non-Pioneer cohort. Only 12 hospitals (57%) from the 21 Pioneer hospitals and 33 (45%) from the 74 non-Pioneer hospitals were considered to be reliable reporters of outcome data. Among the 12 hospitals, the PedVAE rate decreased from 1.9 to 1.4 events per 1000 ventilator days (absolute rate difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.7; P < .001). No significant change in the PedVAE rate was seen among the 33 hospitals that reliably submitted PedVAE rates but did not implement the bundle. Of the 12 hospitals, 3 that reliably performed daily discussion of extubation readiness had a decrease in PedVAE rate from 2.6 to 1.2 events per 1000 ventilator days (absolute rate difference, -1.4; 95% CI, -1.0 to -1.7; P < .001), whereas the other 9 hospitals that did not implement this discussion did not have a decrease. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that a multicenter quality improvement intervention targeting PedVAE risk factors was associated with a substantial reduction in the rate of PedVAEs in hospital ICUs. The findings suggest that ICU teams seeking to reduce PedVAEs incorporate daily discussion of extubation readiness during morning rounds.

Compliance With Central Line Maintenance Bundle and Infection Rates.

BACKGROUND: Reliable bundle performance is the mainstay of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) prevention despite an unclear relationship between bundle reliability and outcomes. Our primary objective was to evaluate the correlation between reported bundle compliance and CLABSI rate in the Solutions for Patient Safety network. The secondary objective was to identify which hospital and process factors impact this correlation. METHODS: We examined data on bundle compliance and monthly CLABSI rates from January 11 to December 21 in 159 hospitals. The correlation (adjusting for temporal trend) between CLABSI rates and bundle compliance was done at the network level. Negative binomial regression was done to detect the impact of hospital type, central line audit rate, and adoption of a comprehensive safety culture program on the association between bundle compliance and CLABSI rates. RESULTS: During the study, hospitals reported 27 196 CLABSI on 20 274 565 line days (1.34 CLABSI/1000 line days). Out of 2 460 133 observed bundle opportunities, 2 085 700 (84%) were compliant. There was a negative correlation between the monthly bundle reliability and monthly CLABSI rate (-0.35, P <.001). After adjusting for the temporal trend, the partial correlation was -0.25 (P = .004). On negative binomial regression, significant positive interaction was only noted for the hospital type, with Hospital Within Hospital (but not freestanding children's hospitals) revealing a significant association between compliance ≥95% and lower CLABSI rates. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to best practice guidelines is associated with a reduction in CLABSI rate. Hospital-level factors (hospitals within hospitals vs freestanding), but not process-related (central line audit rate and safety culture training), impact this association.

Applying an equity lens to hospital safety monitoring: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.

Exploring the lived experience of patients and families who speak language other than English (LOE) for healthcare: developing a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who use Languages other than English (LOE) for healthcare communication in an English-dominant region are at increased risk for experiencing adverse events and worse health outcomes in healthcare settings, including in pediatric hospitals. Despite the knowledge that individuals who speak LOE have worse health outcomes, they are often excluded from research studies on the basis of language and there is a paucity of data on ways to address these known disparities. Our work aims to address this gap by generating knowledge to improve health outcomes for children with illness and their families with LEP. BODY: We describe an approach to developing a study with individuals marginalized due to using LOE for healthcare communication, specifically using semi-structured qualitative interviews. The premise of this study is participatory research-our overall goal with this systematic inquiry is to, in collaboration with patients and families with LOE, set an agenda for creating actionable change to address the health information disparities these patients and families experience. In this paper we describe our overarching study design principles, a collaboration framework in working with different stakeholders and note important considerations for study design and execution. CONCLUSIONS: We have a significant opportunity to improve our engagement with marginalized populations. We also need to develop approaches to including patients and families with LOE in our research given the health disparities they experience. Further, understanding lived experience is critical to advancing efforts to address these well-known health disparities. Our process to develop a qualitative study protocol can serve as an example for engaging this patient population and can serve as a starting point for other groups who wish to develop similar research in this area. Providing high-quality care that meets the needs of marginalized and vulnerable populations is important to achieving an equitable, high-quality health care system. Children and families who use a Language other than English (LOE) in English dominant regions for healthcare have worse health outcomes including a significantly increased risk of experiencing adverse events, longer lengths of stay in hospital settings, and receiving more unnecessary tests and investigations. Despite this, these individuals are often excluded from research studies and the field of participatory research has yet to meaningfully involve them. This paper aims to describe an approach to conducting research with a marginalized population of children and families due to using a LOE. We detail protocol development for a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients and families who use a LOE during hospitalization. We aim to share considerations when conducting research within this population of families with LOE. We highlight learning applied from the field of patient-partner and child and family-centred research and note specific considerations for those with LOE. Developing strong partnerships and adopting a common set of research principles and collaborative framework underlies our approach and initial learnings, which we hope spark additional work in this area.

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).

Association Between Hospital-Acquired Harm Outcomes and Membership in a National Patient Safety Collaborative.

Importance: Hospital engagement networks supported by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Partnership for Patients program have reported significant reductions in hospital-acquired harm, but methodological limitations and lack of peer review have led to persistent questions about the effectiveness of this approach. Objective: To evaluate associations between membership in Children's Hospitals' Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS), a federally funded hospital engagement network, and hospital-acquired harm using standardized definitions and secular trend adjustment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective hospital cohort study included 99 children's hospitals. Using interrupted time series analyses with staggered intervention introduction, immediate and postimplementation changes in hospital-acquired harm rates were analyzed, with adjustment for preexisting secular trends. Outcomes were further evaluated by early-adopting (n = 73) and late-adopting (n = 26) cohorts. Exposures: Hospitals implemented harm prevention bundles, reported outcomes and bundle compliance using standard definitions to the network monthly, participated in learning events, and implemented a broad safety culture program. Hospitals received regular reports on their comparative performance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes for 8 hospital-acquired conditions were evaluated over 1 year before and 3 years after intervention. Results: In total, 99 hospitals met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 73 were considered part of the early-adopting cohort (joined between 2012-2013) and 26 were considered part of the late-adopting cohort (joined between 2014-2016). A total of 42 hospitals were freestanding children's hospitals, and 57 were children's hospitals within hospital or health systems. The implementation of SPS was associated with an improvement in hospital-acquired condition rates in 3 of the 8 conditions after accounting for secular trends. Membership in the SPS was associated with an immediate reduction in central catheter-associated bloodstream infections (coefficient = -0.152; 95% CI, -0.213 to -0.019) and falls of moderate or greater severity (coefficient = -0.331; 95% CI, -0.594 to -0.069). The implementation of the SPS was associated with a reduction in the monthly rate of adverse drug events (coefficient = -0.021; 95% CI, -0.034 to -0.008) in the post-SPS period. The study team observed larger decreases for the early-adopting cohort compared with the late-adopting cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: Through the application of rigorous methods (standard definitions and longitudinal time series analysis with adjustment for secular trends), this study provides a more thorough analysis of the association between the Partnership for Patients hospital engagement network model and reductions in hospital-acquired conditions. These findings strengthen previous claims of an association between this model and improvement. However, inconsistent observations across hospital-acquired conditions when adjusted for secular trends suggests that some caution regarding attributing all effects observed to this model is warranted.

Striving for high reliability in healthcare: a qualitative study of the implementation of a hospital safety programme.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. OBJECTIVE: This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. METHODS: We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles 'preoccupation with failure', 'reluctance to simplify interpretations' and 'sensitivity to operations', and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles 'commitment to resilience' and 'deference to expertise' and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices.

Implementation of a central-line bundle: a qualitative study of three clinical units.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) bundle effectiveness remains mixed, possibly reflecting implementation challenges and persistent ambiguities in how CLABSIs are counted and bundle adherence measured. In the context of a tertiary pediatric hospital that had reduced CLABSI by 30% as part of an international safety program, we aimed to examine unit-based socio-cultural factors influencing bundle practices and measurement, and how they come to be recognized and attended to by safety leaders over time in an organization-wide bundle implementation effort. METHODS: We used an interpretivist qualitative research approach, based on 74 interviews, approximately 50 h of observations, and documents. Data collection focused on hospital executives and safety leadership, and three clinical units: a medical specialty unit, an intensive care unit, and a surgical unit. We used thematic analysis and constant comparison methods for data analysis. RESULTS: Participants had variable beliefs about the central-line bundle as a quality improvement priority based on their professional roles and experiences and unit setting, which influenced their responses. Nursing leaders were particularly concerned about CLABSI being one of an overwhelming number of QI targets for which they were responsible. Bundle implementation strategies were initially reliant on unit-based nurse education. Over time there was recognition of the need for centralized education and reinforcement tactics. However, these interventions achieved limited impact given the influence of competing unit workflow demands and professional roles, interactions, and routines, which were variably targeted in the safety program. The auditing process, initially a responsibility of units, was performed in different ways based on individuals' approaches to the process. Given concerns about auditing reliability, a centralized approach was implemented, which continued to have its own variability. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings report on a contextualized, dynamic implementation approach that required movement between centralized and unit-based approaches and from a focus on standardization to some recognition of a role for customization. However, some factors related to bundle compliance and measurement remain unaddressed, including harder to change socio-cultural factors likely important to sustainability of the CLABSI reductions and fostering further improvements across a broader safety agenda.

Interprofessional and multiprofessional approaches in quality improvement education.

The imperative for all healthcare professionals to partake in quality improvement (QI) has resulted in the development of QI education programs with participants from different professional backgrounds. However, there is limited empirical and theoretical examination as to why, when and how interprofessional and multiprofessional education occurs in QI and the outcomes of these approaches. This paper reports on a qualitative collective case study of interprofessional and multiprofessional education in three longitudinal QI education programs. We conducted 58 interviews with learners, QI project coaches, program directors and institutional leads and 135 h of observations of in-class education sessions, and collected relevant documents such as course syllabi and handouts. We used an interpretive thematic analysis using a conventional and directed content analysis approach. In the directed content approach, we used sociology of professions theory with particular attention to professional socialization, hierarchies and boundaries in QI, to understand the ways in which individuals' professional backgrounds informed the planning and experiences of the QI education programs. Findings demonstrated that both interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches were being used to achieve different education objectives. While each approach demonstrated positive learning and practice outcomes, tensions related to the different ways in which professional groups are engaging in QI, power dynamics between professional groups, and disconnects between curricula and practice existed. Further conceptual clarity is essential for a more informed discussion about interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches in QI and explicit attention is needed to professional processes and tensions, to optimize the impact of education on practice.

Experiential Learning in Project-Based Quality Improvement Education: Questioning Assumptions and Identifying Future Directions.

PURPOSE: Project-based experiential learning is a defining element of quality improvement (QI) education despite ongoing challenges and uncertainties. The authors examined stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of QI project-based learning to increase understanding of factors that influence learning and project experiences. METHOD: The authors used a case study approach to examine QI project-based learning in 3 advanced longitudinal QI programs, 2 at the University of Toronto and 1 at an academic tertiary-care hospital. From March 2016 to June 2017, they undertook 135 hours of education program observation and 58 interviews with learners, program directors, project coaches, and institutional leaders and reviewed relevant documents. They analyzed data using a conventional and directed data analysis approach. RESULTS: The findings provide insight into 5 key factors that influenced participants' project-based learning experiences and outcomes: (1) variable emphasis on learning versus project objectives and resulting benefits, tensions, and consequences; (2) challenges integrating the QI project into the curriculum timeline; (3) project coaching factors (e.g., ability, capacity, role clarity); (4) participants' differing access to resources and ability to direct a QI project given their professional roles; and (5) workplace environment influence on project success. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to an empirical basis toward more effective experiential learning in QI by identifying factors to target and optimize. Expanding conceptualizations of project-based learning for QI education beyond learner-initiated, time-bound projects, which are at the core of many QI educational initiatives, may be necessary to improve learning and project outcomes.

Accelerating Improvement in Children's Healthcare Through Quality Improvement Collaboratives: A Synthesis of Recent Efforts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Quality improvement collaboratives can accelerate quality improvement and patient safety efforts. We reviewed major pediatric quality improvement collaboratives that have published results in the past five years and discussed common success factors and barriers encountered by these collaboratives. RECENT FINDINGS: Many pediatric quality improvement collaboratives are active in neonatal, cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, hematology/oncoogy, chronic kidney disease, rheumatology, critical care, and general pediatric care. SUMMARY: Factors important to the success of these pediatric quality improvement collaboratives include data sharing and communication, trust among institutions, financial support, support from national organizations, use of a theoretical framework to guide collaboration, patient and family involvement, and incentives for participation at both the individual and institutional levels. Common barriers encountered by these collaboratives include insufficient funding or resources, legal concerns, difficulty coming to consensus on best practices and outcome measures, and overcoming cultural barriers to change. Learning from the successes and challenges encountered by these collaboratives will enable the pediatric healthcare quality improvement community to continue to evolve this approach to maximize benefits to children.

"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.

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.

We Will Not Compete on Safety: How Children's Hospitals Have Come Together to Hasten Harm Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Launched in 2012, the Children's Hospitals' Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS) Network is a collaborative of children's hospitals in the United States and Canada working together to eliminate patient and employee/staff harm across all children's hospitals. METHODS: The SPS Network, which has grown from 8 to 137 hospitals, has a foundation of leadership engagement, noncompetition, data-driven learning, attention to safety culture, family engagement, and transparency. The SPS Leadership Group, which consists of more than 150 leaders from participating hospitals, forms condition-specific teams to promote the reduction of hospital-acquired harm in a phased design that includes an ongoing focus on both process improvement and safety culture enhancements. Hospital leaders are engaged through monthly reports, executive webinars, in-person meetings, and biannual training opportunities for boards of trustees. SPS has developed extensive opportunities for learning collaboration, including in-person networkwide learning sessions, regional meetings, general and condition-specific webinars, communications, and a shared website. RESULTS: Over time, the portfolio has expanded as SPS has achieved harm reduction targets for some conditions and begun work to reduce harm in other, previously unaddressed areas. In 2017 SPS reported a 9%-71% reduction in eight harm conditions by an initial cohort of 33 hospitals. SPS estimates that more than 9,000 children have been spared harm since 2012, with $148.5 million in health care spending avoided. CONCLUSION: Participation in the SPS Network has been associated with improved safety in children's hospitals. Widespread participation in this or similar collaborations has the potential to dramatically decrease harm to patients, employees, and staff.

Resident Experiences With Implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Bundle.

BACKGROUND: The I-PASS Handoff Study found that introduction of a handoff bundle (handoff and teamwork training for residents, a mnemonic, a handoff tool, a faculty development program, and a sustainability campaign) at 9 pediatrics residency programs was associated with improved communication and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This parallel qualitative study aimed to understand resident experiences with I-PASS and to inform future implementation and sustainability strategies. METHODS: Resident experiences with I-PASS were explored in focus groups (N = 50 residents) at 8 hospitals throughout 2012-2013. A content analysis of transcripts was conducted following the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Residents generally accepted I-PASS as an ideal format for handoffs, and valued learning a structured approach. Across all sites, residents reported full adherence to I-PASS when observed, but selective adherence in usual practice. Residents adhered more closely when patients were complex, teams were unfamiliar, and during evening handoff. Residents reported using elements of the I-PASS mnemonic variably, with Illness Severity and Action Items most consistently used, but Synthesis by Receiver least used, except when observed. Most residents were receptive to the electronic handoff tool, but perceptions about usability varied across sites. Experiences with observation and feedback were mixed. Concern about efficiency commonly influenced attitudes about I-PASS. CONCLUSIONS: Residents generally supported I-PASS implementation, but adherence was influenced by patient type, context, and individual and team factors. Our findings could inform future implementation, particularly around the areas of resident engagement in change, sensitivity to resident level, perceived efficiency, and faculty observation.

Learning Through Experience: Influence of Formal and Informal Training on Medical Error Disclosure Skills in Residents.

BACKGROUND: Residents' attitudes toward error disclosure have improved over time. It is unclear whether this has been accompanied by improvements in disclosure skills. OBJECTIVE: To measure the disclosure skills of internal medicine (IM), paediatrics, and orthopaedic surgery residents, and to explore resident perceptions of formal versus informal training in preparing them for disclosure in real-world practice. METHODS: We assessed residents' error disclosure skills using a structured role play with a standardized patient in 2012-2013. We compared disclosure skills across programs using analysis of variance. We conducted a multiple linear regression, including data from a historical cohort of IM residents from 2005, to investigate the influence of predictor variables on performance: training program, cohort year, and prior disclosure training and experience. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of data from semistructured interviews with residents to explore resident perceptions of formal versus informal disclosure training. RESULTS: In a comparison of disclosure skills for 49 residents, there was no difference in overall performance across specialties (4.1 to 4.4 of 5, P = .19). In regression analysis, only the current cohort was significantly associated with skill: current residents performed better than a historical cohort of 42 IM residents (P < .001). Qualitative analysis identified the importance of both formal (workshops, morbidity and mortality rounds) and informal (role modeling, debriefing) activities in preparation for disclosure in real-world practice. CONCLUSIONS: Residents across specialties have similar skills in disclosure of errors. Residents identified role modeling and a strong local patient safety culture as key facilitators for disclosure.

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.