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.

Implementation of ED I-PASS as a Standardized Handoff Tool in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Communication, failures during patient handoffs are a significant cause of medical error. There is a paucity of data on standardized handoff tools for intershift transitions of care in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). The purpose of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to improve handoffs between PEM attending physicians (i.e., supervising physicians ultimately responsible for patient care) through the implementation of a modified I-PASS tool (ED I-PASS). Our aims were to: (1) increase the proportion of physicians using ED I-PASS by two-thirds and (2) decrease the proportion reporting information loss during shift change by one-third, over a 6-month period. METHODS: After literature and stakeholder review, Expected Disposition, Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness, Synthesis by Receiver (ED I-PASS) was implemented using iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, incorporating: trained "super-users"; print and electronic cognitive support tools; direct observation; and general and targeted feedback. Implementation occurred from September to April of 2021, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when patient volumes were significantly lower than prepandemic levels. Data from observed handoffs were collected for process outcomes. Surveys regarding handoff practices were distributed before and after ED I-PASS implementation. RESULTS: 82.8% of participants completed follow-up surveys, and 69.6% of PEM physicians were observed performing a handoff. Use of ED I-PASS increased from 7.1% to 87.5% ( p < .001) and the reported perceived loss of important patient information during transitions of care decreased 50%, from 75.0% to 37.5% ( p = .02). Most (76.0%) participants reported satisfaction with ED I-PASS, despite half citing a perceived increase in handoff length. 54.2% reported a concurrent increase in written handoff documentation during the intervention. CONCLUSION: ED I-PASS can be successfully implemented among attending physicians in the pediatric emergency department setting. Its use resulted in significant decreases in reported perceived loss of patient information during intershift handoffs.

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).

Family, nurse, and physician beliefs on family-centered rounds: A 21-site study.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study. INTERVENTION: We inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Out of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time. RESULT: Support for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.

Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program: Resident and Advanced Care Provider Training Materials.

Introduction: Patient and family-centered rounds (PFCRs) are an important element of family-centered care often used in the inpatient pediatric setting. However, techniques and best practices vary, and faculty, trainees, nurses, and advanced care providers may not receive formal education in strategies that specifically enhance communication on PFCRs. Methods: Harnessing the use of structured communication, we developed the Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS Safer Communication on Rounds Every Time (SCORE) Program. The program uses a standardized framework for rounds communication via the I-PASS mnemonic, principles of health literacy, and techniques for patient/family engagement and bidirectional communication. The resident and advanced care provider training materials, a component of the larger SCORE Program, incorporate a flipped classroom approach as well as interactive exercises, simulations, and virtual learning options to optimize learning and retention via a 90-minute workshop. Results: Two hundred forty-six residents completed the training and were evaluated on their knowledge and confidence regarding key elements of the curriculum. Eighty-eight percent of residents agreed/strongly agreed that after training they could activate and engage families and all members of the interprofessional team to create a shared mental model; 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they could discuss the roles/responsibilities of various team members during PFCRs. Discussion: The Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program provides a structured framework for teaching advanced communication techniques that can improve provider knowledge of and confidence with engaging and communicating with patients/families and other members of the interprofessional team during PFCRs.

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.

Twelve Tips for Teaching with Virtual Learning Platforms.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Met with the challenge of physical distancing during the escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic, medical educators rapidly pivoted their educational repertoires to virtual learning platforms. While selection and utilization of virtual platforms may vary amongst medical educators, elements of evidence-based educational theories, collaborative learning, and learner engagement are essential to the success of learning for any format. In this piece we outline 12 tips for virtual learning, drawing on concepts from available literature and our collective experience as medical educators. As virtual learning platforms continue to evolve, medical educators should leverage different modalities, without compromising the fundamental elements and theories that promote learner success.

Identifying Caregiver Needs for Children With a Tracheostomy Living at Home.

This study sought to understand caregiver needs of children with tracheostomies (CWT) living at home and inform development of standardized tracheostomy simulation training curricula. Long-term goals are decreasing hospital readmissions following tracheostomy placement and improving family experiences while implementing a medical home model. We recruited caregivers of CWT and conducted semistructured interviews, subsequently recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emerging themes using NVivo. Demographic data were collected via quantitative surveys. Twenty-seven caregivers participated. Emerging themes included the following: (1) caregivers felt overwhelmed, sad, frightened when learning need for tracheostomy; (2) training described as adequate, but individualized training desired; (3) families felt prepared to go home, but transition was difficult; (4) home nursing care fraught with difficulty and yet essential for families of CWT. Families of CWT have specific needs related to discharge training, resources, support, and home nursing. Provider understanding of caregiver needs is essential for child well-being, patient-/family-centered care, and may improve health outcomes.

I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum: Frontline Provider Training Materials.

Introduction: The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. Frontline providers are the key individuals participating in handoffs of patient care. It is important they receive robust handoff training. Methods: The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum frontline provider training materials were created as part of the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach with an emphasis on adult learning theory principles. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, TeamSTEPPS team communication strategies, verbal handoff simulation scenarios, and a printed handoff document exercise. Results: As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 2,735 frontline providers were trained at 32 study sites (16 adult and 16 pediatric) across North America. At the end of their training, 1,762 frontline providers completed the workshop evaluation form (64% response rate). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they were able to distinguish a good- from a poor-quality handoff, articulate the elements of the I-PASS mnemonic, construct a high-quality patient summary, advocate for an appropriate environment for handoffs, and participate in handoff simulations. Universally, the training provided them with knowledge and skills relevant to their patient care activities. Discussion: The I-PASS frontline training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Simulation in Medical Education for the Hospitalist: Moving Beyond the Mock Code.

Simulation in medical education has grown due to an evolution in health care. It uses 4 main modalities to re-create a situation from the clinical environment to allow experiential learning and improve patient care. Simulation must be considered as an educational strategy within a larger curriculum. Building an exercise requires first developing goals and objectives and then designing the scenario. There are 4 phases of implementation, wherein the final debrief phase is critical for learning. Educators have used simulation for multiple curricular needs: communication skills, interprofessional education, clinical reasoning, procedural training, and patient safety, which apply to the inpatient setting.

Association of Pediatric Resident Physician Depression and Burnout With Harmful Medical Errors on Inpatient Services.

PURPOSE: To determine whether higher rates of medical errors were associated with positive screenings for depression or burnout among resident physicians. METHOD: The authors conducted a prospective cohort study from 2011 to 2013 in seven pediatric academic medical centers in the United States and Canada. Resident physicians were screened for burnout and depression using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) and Harvard Department of Psychiatry/National Depression Screening Day Scale (HANDS). A two-step surveillance methodology, involving a research nurse and two physician reviewers, was used to measure and categorize errors. Bivariate and mixed-effects regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between burnout, depression, and rates of harmful, nonharmful, and total errors. RESULTS: A total of 388/537 (72%) resident physicians completed the MBI-HSS and HANDS surveys. Seventy-six (20%) and 178 (46%) resident physicians screened positive for depression and burnout, respectively. Screening positive for depression was associated with a 3.0-fold higher rate of harmful errors (incidence rate ratio = 2.99 [95% CI 1.40-6.36], P = .005). However, there was no statistically significant association between depression and total or nonharmful errors or between burnout and harmful, nonharmful, or total errors. CONCLUSIONS: Resident physicians with a positive depression screen were three times more likely than those who screened negative to make harmful errors. This association suggests resident physician mental health could be an important component of patient safety. If further research confirms resident physician depression increases the risk of harmful errors, it will become imperative to determine what interventions might mitigate this risk.

I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum: Champion Training Materials.

Introduction: The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. I-PASS champions are a critical part of the implementation and sustainment of this curriculum, and therefore, a rigorous program to support their training is necessary. Methods: The I-PASS Handoff champion training materials were created for the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach and adult learning theory. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, an opportunity to practice evaluating handoffs with the I-PASS observation tools using a handoff video vignette, and other key implementation principles. Results: As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 366 champions were trained at 32 sites across North America and participated in a total of 3,491 handoff observations. A total of 346 champions completed the I-PASS Champion Workshop evaluation form at the end of their training (response rate: 94.5%). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that it provided them with knowledge or skills critical to their patient care activities and that they were able to distinguish the difference between high- and poor-quality handoffs, competently use the I-PASS handoff assessment tools, and articulate the importance of handoff observations. Conclusion: The I-PASS champion training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Key Factors in Clinical Competency Committee Members' Decisions Regarding Residents' Readiness to Serve as Supervisors: A National Study.

PURPOSE: Entrustment has become a popular assessment framework in recent years. Most research in this area has focused on how frontline assessors determine when a learner can be entrusted. However, less work has focused on how these entrustment decisions are made. The authors sought to understand the key factors that pediatric residency program clinical competency committee (CCC) members consider when recommending residents to a supervisory role. METHOD: CCC members at 14 pediatric residency programs recommended residents to one of five progressive supervisory roles (from not serving as a supervisory resident to serving as a supervisory resident in all settings). They then responded to a free-text prompt, describing the key factors that led them to that decision. The authors analyzed these responses, by role recommendation, using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 155 CCC members at the participating programs, 84 completed 769 supervisory role recommendations during the 2015-2016 academic year. Four themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) Determining supervisory ability follows from demonstrated trustworthiness; (2) demonstrated performance matters, but so does experience; (3) ability to lead a team is considered; and (4) contextual considerations external to the resident are at play. CONCLUSIONS: CCC members considered resident and environmental factors in their summative entrustment decision making. The interplay between these factors should be considered as CCC processes are optimized and studied further.

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.

Thresholds and interpretations: How clinical competency committees identify pediatric residents with performance concerns.

BACKGROUND: Clinical competency committee (CCC) identification of residents with performance concerns is critical for early intervention. METHODS: Program directors and 94 CCC members at 14 pediatric residency programs responded to a written survey prompt asking them to describe how they identify residents with performance concerns. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from analysis and were grouped into two domains. The first domain included four themes, each describing a path through which residents could meet or exceed a concern threshold:1) written comments from rotation assessments are foundational in identifying residents with performance concerns, 2) concerning performance extremes stand out, 3) isolated data points may accumulate to raise concern, and 4) developmental trajectory matters. The second domain focused on how CCC members and program directors interpret data to make decisions about residents with concerns and contained 2 themes: 1) using norm- and/or criterion-referenced interpretation, and 2) assessing the quality of the data that is reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying residents with performance concerns is important for their education and the care they provide. This study delineates strategies used by CCC members across several programs for identifying these residents, which may be helpful for other CCCs to consider in their efforts.

I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum: Implementation Guide and Resources.

Introduction: Communication failures during shift-to-shift handoffs of patient care have been identified as a leading cause of adverse events in health care institutions. The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff program that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events. As part of the spread and adaptation of this program, a comprehensive implementation guide was created to assist individuals in the implementation process. Methods: The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide grew out of materials created for the original I-PASS Study, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) mentored implementation programs, and the experience of members of the I-PASS Study Group. The guide provides a comprehensive framework of all elements required to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program and contains detailed information on generating institutional support, training activities, a campaign, measuring impact, and sustaining the program. Results: Thirty-two sites across North America utilized the guide as part of the SHM program. The guide served as a main reference for 477 hours of mentoring phone calls between site leads and their mentors. Postprogram surveys from wave 2 sites revealed that 85% (N = 34) of respondents felt the quality of the guide was very good/excellent. Site leads noted that they referenced the guide most often during the early part of the program and that they referenced the sections on the curriculum and handoff observations most often. Discussion: The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide is an essential resource for those looking to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program at their institution.

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.