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 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).

Day of Illness and Outcomes in Bronchiolitis Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is often described to follow an expected clinical trajectory, with a peak in severity between days 3 and 5. This predicted trajectory may influence anticipatory guidance and clinical decision-making. We aimed to determine the association between day of illness at admission and outcomes, including hospital length of stay, receipt of positive-pressure ventilation, and total cough duration. METHODS: We compiled data from 2 multicenter prospective studies involving bronchiolitis hospitalizations in patients <2 years. Patients were excluded for complex conditions. We assessed total cough duration via weekly postdischarge phone calls. We used mixed-effects multivariable regression models to test associations between day of illness and outcomes, with adjustment for age, sex, insurance (government versus nongovernment), race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) day of illness at admission for 746 patients was 4 (2-5) days. Day of illness at admission was not associated with length of stay (coefficient 0.01 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05 to 0.08 days), positive-pressure ventilation (adjusted odds ratio: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.1), or total cough duration (coefficient 0.33 days, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.67 days). Additionally, there was no significant difference in day of illness at discharge in readmitted versus nonreadmitted patients (5.9 vs 6.4 days, P = .54). The median cough duration postdischarge was 6 days, with 65 (14.3%) patients experiencing cough for 14+ days. CONCLUSIONS: We found no associations between day of illness at admission and outcomes in bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Practitioners should exercise caution when making clinical decisions or providing anticipatory guidance based on symptom duration.

Comparison of As-Needed and Scheduled Posthospitalization Follow-up for Children Hospitalized for Bronchiolitis: The Bronchiolitis Follow-up Intervention Trial (BeneFIT) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Posthospitalization follow-up visits are prescribed frequently for children with bronchiolitis. The rationale for this practice is unclear, but prior work has indicated that families value these visits for the reassurance provided. The overall risks and benefits of scheduled visits have not been evaluated. Objective: To assess whether an as-needed posthospitalization follow-up visit is noninferior to a scheduled posthospitalization follow-up visit with respect to reducing anxiety among parents of children hospitalized for bronchiolitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial, performed between January 1, 2018, and April 31, 2019, assessed children younger than 24 months of age hospitalized for bronchiolitis at 2 children's hospitals (Primary Children's Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, California) and 2 community hospitals (Intermountain Riverton Hospital, Riverton, Utah, and Packard El Camino Hospital, Mountain View, California). Data analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat manner. Interventions: Randomization (1:1) to a scheduled (n = 151) vs an as-needed (n = 153) posthospitalization follow-up visit. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was parental anxiety 7 days after hospital discharge, measured using the anxiety portion of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, which ranged from 0 to 28 points, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. Fourteen prespecified secondary outcomes were assessed. Results: Among 304 children randomized (median age, 8 months; interquartile range, 3-14 months; 179 [59%] male), the primary outcome was available for 269 patients (88%). A total of 106 children (81%) in the scheduled follow-up group attended a scheduled posthospitalization visit compared with 26 children (19%) in the as-needed group (absolute difference, 62%; 95% CI, 53%-71%). The mean (SD) 7-day parental anxiety score was 3.9 (3.5) among the as-needed posthospitalization follow-up group and 4.2 (3.5) among the scheduled group (absolute difference, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -1.0 to 0.4 points), with the upper bound of the 95% CI within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.1 points. Aside from a decreased mean number of clinic visits (absolute difference, -0.6 visits per patient; 95% CI, -0.4 to -0.8 visits per patient) among the as-needed group, there were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes, including readmissions (any hospital readmission before symptom resolution: absolute difference, -1.6%; 95% CI, -5.7% to 2.5%) and symptom duration (time from discharge to cough resolution: absolute difference, -0.6 days; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.2 days; time from discharge to child reported "back to normal": absolute difference, -0.8 days; 95% CI, -2.7 to 1.0 days; and time from discharge to symptom resolution: absolute difference, -0.6 days; 95% CI, -2.5 to 1.3 days). Conclusions and Relevance: Among parents of children hospitalized for bronchiolitis, an as-needed posthospitalization follow-up visit is noninferior to a scheduled posthospitalization follow-up visit with respect to reducing parental anxiety. These findings support as-needed follow-up as an effective posthospitalization follow-up strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354325.

Family-Centered Rounds: Past, Present, and Future.

Bedside rounds have evolved concurrently with hospitalist medicine and patient-centered care. Family-centered rounds are the foundation of effective communication in the in-patient pediatric setting. Participant perspectives (family members, patients, nurses, faculty, and trainees) on family-centered rounds differ and goals may not always align. Further, the practical components of how rounds are conducted varies and have continued opportunities for improvement. This article summarizes the most recent experience with rounds in an attempt to identify unified and effective strategies moving forward.

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.

I-PASS Handoff Program: Use of a Campaign to Effect Transformational Change.

BACKGROUND: Behavior change is notoriously difficult to achieve within health care systems. Successful implementation of the I-PASS handoff bundle with subsequent decreases in medical errors and preventable adverse events represents an example of successful transformational change within academic medical centers. OBJECTIVE: We designed a campaign to support and enhance uptake of the I-PASS handoff bundle at 9 study sites from 2011 to 2013. METHODS: Following Kotter's model of transformational change, we established urgency using local data and institutional mandates, and site leaders built local guiding coalitions with institutional leaders, key faculty, and Chief Residents. We created and communicated our vision using a branded campaign and empowered others to act by soliciting and acting on feedback and supporting systems changes. Site leaders planned for and created short-term wins by recognizing residents who engaged with I-PASS, consolidated improvements, and institutionalized new approaches. RESULTS: Implementation of I-PASS was successful, with achievement of substantial improvements in rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events. Data from the initial I-PASS study have continued to drive a national campaign that has included national recognition by leaders in the field of patient safety and pediatrics. Momentum has increased significantly to support mentored implementation of the I-PASS handoff program at over 35 academic medical centers across North America. CONCLUSIONS: I-PASS provides an example of transformational change achieved through a combination of educational interventions and change management to address resistance/barriers, supported by a robust campaign. We encourage others in academic medicine to consider using change models, including campaigns, to support health care improvement programs.

Improving Communication with Primary Care Physicians at the Time of Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Communication with primary care physicians (PCPs) at the time of a patient's hospital discharge is important to safely transition care to home. The goal of this quality improvement initiative was to increase discharge communication to PCPs at an academic children's hospital. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford used Lean A3 problem solving methodology to address the problem of inadequate discharge communication with PCPs. Emphasis was placed on frontline provider (resident physicians) involvement in the improvement process, creating standards, and error proofing. Root cause analysis identified several key drivers of the problem, and successive countermeasures were implemented beginning in August 2013 aimed at achieving the target of 80% attempted verbal communication within seven days before or after (usually 24-48 hours) on the pediatric medical services. Run charts were generated tracking the outcome of PCP communication. RESULTS: On the pediatric medical services, the goal of 80% communication was met and sustained during a seven-month period starting October 2013, a statistically significant improvement. In the eight months prior to October 2013, hospitalwide PCP communication prior to discharge averaged 59.1% (n = 5,397) and improved to 76.7% (n = 4,870) in the seven months after (p <0.001). Fifteen of 19 specialty services had a significant increase in discharge communication after October 2013. CONCLUSION: Lean improvement methodology (including structured problem solving using A3 thinking), intensive frontline provider involvement, and process-oriented electronic health record work flow redesign led to increased verbal PCP communication at around the time of a patient's discharge.

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.

Engaging Pediatric Resident Physicians in Quality Improvement Through Resident-Led Morbidity and Mortality Conferences.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, medical disciplines have used morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) to address quality improvement and patient safety (QI/PS), as well as teach systems-based improvement to graduate trainees. The goal of this educational intervention was to establish a pediatric resident physician­led MMC that not only focused on QI/PS principles but also engaged resident physicians in QI/ PS endeavors in their clinical learning environments. METHODS: Following a needs assessment, pediatric resident physicians at the Stanford University School of Medicine (Stanford, California) established a new MMC model in February 2010 as part of a required QI rotation. Cases were identified, explored, analyzed, and presented by resident physicians using the Johns Hopkins Learning from Defects tool. Discussions during the MMCs were resident physician­ directed and systems-based, and resulted in projects to address care delivery. Faculty advisors assessed resident physician comprehension of QI/PS. Conferences were evaluated through the end of the 2012­2013 academic year and outcomes tracked through the 2013­2014 academic year to determine trainee involvement in systems change resulting from the MMCs. RESULTS: The MMC was well received and the number of MMCs increased over time. By the end of the 2013­2014 academic year, resident physicians were involved in address ing 14 systems-based issues resulting from 25 MMCs. Examples of the resident physician­initiated improvement work included increasing use of the rapid response team, institution of a gastrostomy (g)-tube order set, and establishing a face-to-face provider handoff for pediatric ICU­to-acute-care-floor transfers. CONCLUSION: A resident physician­run MMC exposes resident physicians to QI/PS concepts and principles, enables direct faculty assessment of QI/PS knowledge, and can propel resident physicians into real-time engagement in the culture of safety in a complex hospital environment.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).