Martha's rule: applying a behaviour change framework to understand the potential of complementary roles of clinicians and patients in improving safety of patients deteriorating in hospital.

AIMS/BACKGROUND: Martha's rule stipulates the right of patients and their families to escalate care as a way to improve safety while in hospital. This article analyses the possible impact of the proposed policy through the lens of a behaviour change framework and explores new opportunities presented by the implementation of Martha's rule.. METHODS: A descriptive analysis was undertaken of interactions between patients, family, friends and clinicians during clinical deterioration in hospital. The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework was applied to understand reasons for failure to respond to deterioration. RESULTS: Care of deteriorating patients requires recording of vital signs, recognition of abnormalities, reporting through escalation and response by a competent clinician. Regarding the care of patients who deteriorate in hospital, healthcare professionals have capability and motivation to provide safe, high-quality care, but often lack the physical and social opportunity to report or respond through lack of time and peer pressure. Patients and family members have motivation and might have time to support safety systems. Martha's rule or similar arrangements allow healthcare organisations to create opportunities for patients and families to report and escalate care to experts in critical care when they recognise deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: The capability-opportunity-motivation behaviour change framework provides insights into the causes of failure to rescue in deteriorating patients and an argument for opportunities through escalation by patients and families through Martha's rule. This might reduce the number of system failures and enable safer care.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Executive Summary: Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU.

RATIONALE: Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care facilities have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients. OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients. PANEL DESIGN: The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs). RESULTS: The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among "unselected" patients due to the absence of data regarding the benefit and the potential harms of false positive alarms, the risk of alarm fatigue, and cost. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system (GPS). CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

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.

In their own words: Safety and quality perspectives from families of hospitalized children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) experience adverse events due to multiorgan impairment, frequent hospitalizations, subspecialty care, and dependence on multiple medications/equipment. Their families are well-versed in care and can help identify safety/quality gaps to inform improvements. Although previous studies have shown families identify important safety/quality gaps in hospitals, studies of inpatient safety/quality experience of CMC and their families are limited. To address this gap and identify otherwise unrecognized, family-prioritized areas for improving safety/quality of CMC, we conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of safety reporting surveys among families of CMC. OBJECTIVE: Explore safety reports from families of hospitalized CMC to identify areas to improve safety/quality. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed free-text responses from predischarge safety reporting surveys administered to families of CMC at a quaternary children's hospital from April 2018 to November 2020. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we categorized responses into standard clinical categories. Three team members inductively generated an initial codebook to apply iteratively to responses. Reviewers coded responses collaboratively, resolved discrepancies through consensus, and generated themes. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Outcomes: family-reported areas of safety/quality improvement. MEASURES: pre-discharge family surveys. RESULTS: Two hundred and eight/two hundred and thirty-seven (88%) families completed surveys; 83 families offered 138 free-text safety responses about medications, feeds, cares, and other categories. Themes included unmet expectations of hospital care/environment, lack of consistency, provider-patient communication lapses, families' expertise about care, and the value of transparency. CONCLUSION: To improve care of CMC and their families, hospitals can manage expectations about hospital limitations, improve consistency of care/communication, acknowledge family expertise, and recognize that family-observed quality concerns can have safety implications. Soliciting family input can help hospitals improve care in meaningful, otherwise unrecognized ways.

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

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

Human centered design workshops as a meta-solution to diagnostic disparities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors - inaccurate or untimely diagnoses or failures to communicate diagnoses - are harmful and costly for patients and health systems. Diagnostic disparities occur when diagnostic errors are experienced at disproportionate rates by certain patient subgroups based, for example, on patients' age, sex/gender, or race/ethnicity. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a human centered design workshop series that engages diverse stakeholders to develop solutions for mitigating diagnostic disparities. METHODS: We employed a series of human centered design workshops supplemented by semi-structured interviews and literature evidence scans. Co-creation sessions and rapid prototyping by patient, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were used to generate design challenges, solution concepts, and prototypes. RESULTS: A series of four workshops attended by 25 unique participants was convened in 2019-2021. Workshops generated eight design challenges, envisioned 29 solutions, and formulated principles for developing solutions in an equitable, patient-centered manner. Workshops further resulted in the conceptualization of 37 solutions for addressing diagnostic disparities and prototypes for two of the solutions. Participants agreed that the workshop processes were replicable and could be implemented in other settings to allow stakeholders to generate context-specific solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of human centered design through a series of workshops promises to be a productive way of engaging patient-researcher stakeholders to mitigate and prevent further exacerbation of diagnostic disparities. Healthcare stakeholders can apply human centered design principles to guide thinking about improving diagnostic performance and to center diverse patients' needs and experiences when implementing quality and safety improvements.

Family Safety Reporting in Hospitalized Children With Medical Complexity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized children with medical complexity (CMC) are at high risk of medical errors. Their families are an underutilized source of hospital safety data. We evaluated safety concerns from families of hospitalized CMC and patient/parent characteristics associated with family safety concerns. METHODS: We conducted a 12-month prospective cohort study of English- and Spanish-speaking parents/staff of hospitalized CMC on 5 units caring for complex care patients at a tertiary care children's hospital. Parents completed safety and experience surveys predischarge. Staff completed surveys during meetings and shifts. Mixed-effects logistic regression with random intercepts controlling for clustering and other patient/parent factors evaluated associations between family safety concerns and patient/parent characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 155 parents and 214 staff completed surveys (>89% response rates). 43% (n = 66) had ≥1 hospital safety concerns, totaling 115 concerns (1-6 concerns each). On physician review, 69% of concerns were medical errors and 22% nonsafety-related quality issues. Most parents (68%) reported concerns to staff, particularly bedside nurses. Only 32% of parents recalled being told how to report safety concerns. Higher education (adjusted odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval [1.21-7.14], P = .02) and longer length of stay (3.08 [1.29-7.38], P = .01) were associated with family safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents of CMC were infrequently advised about how to report safety concerns, they frequently identified medical errors during hospitalization. Hospitals should provide clear mechanisms for families, particularly of CMC and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to share safety concerns. Actively engaging patients/families in reporting will allow hospitals to develop a more comprehensive, patient-centered view of safety.

Family Safety Reporting in Medically Complex Children: Parent, Staff, and Leader Perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite compelling evidence that patients and families report valid and unique safety information, particularly for children with medical complexity (CMC), hospitals typically do not proactively solicit patient or family concerns about patient safety. We sought to understand parent, staff, and hospital leader perspectives about family safety reporting in CMC to inform future interventions. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted at 2 tertiary care children's hospitals with dedicated inpatient complex care services. A research team conducted approximately 60-minute semistructured, individual interviews with English and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC, physicians, nurses, and hospital leaders. Audio-recorded interviews were translated, transcribed, and verified. Two researchers coded data inductively and deductively developed and iteratively refined the codebook with validation by a third researcher. Thematic analysis allowed for identification of emerging themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 80 participants (34 parents, 19 nurses and allied health professionals, 11 physicians, and 16 hospital leaders). Four themes related to family safety reporting were identified: (1) unclear, nontransparent, and variable existing processes, (2) a continuum of staff and leadership buy-in, (3) a family decision-making calculus about whether to report, and (4) misaligned staff and parent priorities and expectations. We also identified potential strategies for engaging families and staff in family reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Although parents were deemed experts about their children, buy-in about the value of family safety reporting among staff and leaders varied, staff and parent priorities and expectations were misaligned, and family decision-making around reporting was complex. Strategies to address these areas can inform design of family safety reporting interventions attuned to all stakeholder groups.