ObjectiveTo 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.DesignProspective, multicenter before and after intervention study.SettingPediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents.InterventionFamilies, 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 measuresMedical 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

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...

In this 3-year prospective grounded theory study in three pediatric settings, we aimed to develop a conceptualization of best practice health care providers (BPHCPs) in interaction with parents of children with complex, chronic, life-threatening conditions. Analysis of semistructured interviews with 34 parents and 80 health care professionals (HCPs) and 88 observation periods of HCP/parent interactions indicated that BPHCPs shared a broad worldview; values of equity, family-centered care, and integrity; and a commitment to authentic engagement. BPHCPs engaged in direct care activities, in connecting behaviors, and in exquisitely attuning to particularities of the situation in the moment, resulting in positive outcomes for parents and HCPs. By focusing on what HCPs do well, findings showed that not only is it possible for HCPs to practice in this way, but those who do so are also recognized as being the best at what they do. We provide recommendations for practice and initial and ongoing professional education.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of ICU delirium in children less than 18 years old that underwent cardiac surgery within the last 30 days. The secondary aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with ICU delirium in postoperative pediatric cardiac surgical patients. Design: A 1-day, multicenter point-prevalence study of delirium in pediatric postoperative cardiac surgery patients. Setting: Twenty-seven pediatric cardiac and general critical care units caring for postoperative pediatric cardiac surgery patients in North America. Patients: All children less than 18 years old hospitalized in the cardiac critical care units at 06:00 on a randomly selected, study day. Interventions: Eligible children were screened for delirium using the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium by the study team in collaboration with the bedside nurse. Measurement and Main Results: Overall, 181 patients were enrolled and 40% (n = 73) screened positive for delirium. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographic information, severity of defect or surgical procedure, past medical history, or postoperative day between patients screening positive or negative for delirium. Our bivariate analysis found those patients screening positive had a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (12.8 vs 5.1 d; p = 0.02); required more vasoactive support (55% vs 26%; p = 0.0009); and had a higher number of invasive catheters (4 vs 3 catheters; p = 0.001). Delirium-positive patients received more total opioid exposure (1.80 vs 0.36 mg/kg/d of morphine equivalents; p < 0.001), did not have an ambulation or physical therapy schedule (p = 0.02), had not been out of bed in the previous 24 hours (p < 0.0002), and parents were not at the bedside at time of data collection (p = 0.008). In the mixed-effects logistic regression analysis of modifiable risk factors, the following variables were associated with a positive delirium screen: 1) pain score, per point increase (odds ratio, 1.3; 1.06–1.60); 2) total opioid exposure, per mg/kg/d increase (odds ratio, 1.35; 1.06–1.73); 3) SBS less than 0 (odds ratio, 4.01; 1.21–13.27); 4) pain medication or sedative administered in the previous 4 hours (odds ratio, 3.49; 1.32–9.28); 5) no progressive physical therapy or ambulation schedule in their medical record (odds ratio, 4.40; 1.41–13.68); and 6) parents not at bedside at time of data collection (odds ratio, 2.31; 1.01–5.31). Conclusions: We found delirium to be a common problem after cardiac surgery with several important modifiable risk factors.

Background Parents of children with complex, chronic conditions report a desire for continuity of care, but relatively little is known about the ways in which nursing continuity of care occurs and the extent to which it is delivered in the inpatient setting. Objectives The objective of this analysis, which arose from a study on best practices in parent/nurse interactions in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), was to explore the delivery of continuity of nursing care in the PICU from the perspective of both parents and nurses. Methods A qualitative, grounded theory study using situational analysis was conducted with seven parents, and 12 nurse participants from a single PICU. Data sources included in-depth interviews, observation, and organizational written materials. Data were coded and analyzed using memoing and situational and positional maps to highlight emerging themes, context, and positions within the data. Results Parents repeatedly endorsed a desire for continuity of nursing care, wanting to ensure that the bedside nurse valued their child as an individual and understood the complexities of the child’s care regimen. Nurses understood this need but faced both contextual and personal challenges to achieving continuity, including fluctuations in staffing needs, training demands, fear of emotional entanglement, and concern for missed learning opportunities. Discussion Continuity of nursing care is highly valued by parents of children with CCC in the PICU, but significant barriers to optimal delivery exist within the current critical care environment. Mechanisms for supporting nurses to deliver continuity of care are needed, as are alternative ways to help parents feel that all nurses caring for their child have the knowledge necessary to deliver safe and compassionate care.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract