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 PARTICIPANTSWe 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 des...

Introduction Many studies focused on entrustment have not considered prospective entrustment decisions, where clinical competency and entrustment committees determine how much supervision trainees will require in the future for tasks occurring in not completely known contexts. The authors sought to explore factors that influence and determine prospective entrustment decisions made by members of such committees in graduate medical education (GME) and undergraduate medical education (UME). Methods The authors conducted a constructivist grounded theory study with 23 faculty participants from GME and UME clinical competency and entrustment committees in the United States between October 2020 and March 2021. Interviews sought to explore factors and considerations participants weigh in making prospective entrustment decisions about trainees. Data collection and analysis occurred in an iterative fashion, ensuring constant comparison. Theoretical sampling was used to confirm, disconfirm and elaborate on the evolving results. Results Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help is the foundation of participants' prospective entrustment decision making. Most participants, however, describe a presumption of trainee readiness to progress and describe commonly making default prospective entrustment decisions unless ‘red flags’ in performance are present. Although participants desire sufficient and trusted data about trainee performance to inform decisions, they often lack it. Finally, the perceived permanence and consequences of prospective entrustment decisions influence how participants weigh other factors contributing to prospective entrustment decisions. Conclusion Trainees' ability to know limits and seek help appears to be the foundation of prospective entrustment decision making. Training programmes should strive to collect and employ robust data supporting and questioning the presence of these attributes.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the landscape of pediatric graduate medical education. We anticipate that pediatric residents and fellows will acquire new skills to carry with them as practicing pediatricians of the future. Here, we present the collective observations of a resident, fellow, and hospitalist, with the intention of highlighting the challenges and opportunities in trainee education during this unusual and unpredictable time. THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL DISTANCING ON THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Direct Interaction With Patients A central tenet in medical education is that spending time at the bedside is best: examine your patients and then examine them again. As Osler observed, "Medicine is learned by the bedside and not in the classroom," 1 and "We miss more by not seeing than we do by not knowing." 2 In a time when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is releasing guidelines to conserve personal protective equipment 3 and the public is being asked to distance themselves both socially and physically, thoughtful decisions are being made as to who should examine the patient and how often. In this environment, direct patient interaction is limited, and this central tenet of medical education must be reexamined. Although encounters with inpatients are modified, live outpatient encounters conducted by trainees are near nonexistent. Although some trainees are participating in virtual visits, this opportunity is not yet available to all trainees, and many of the continuity relationships cultivated through well-child checks and routine examinations are on hold. With that, the opportunities to counsel on preventive health, manage chronic disease, and become familiar with less acute yet crucial physical examination findings are lost. Interaction With Colleagues Social and physical distancing guidelines have interfered with the interactions of trainees with the larger interdisciplinary team. Impromptu