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.).

No abstract

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.

Patient handoffs are a key source of communication failures and adverse events in hospitals. Despite Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements for residency training programs to provide formal handoff skills training and to monitor handoffs, well-established curricula and validated skills assessment tools are lacking. Developing a handoff curriculum is challenging because of the need for standardized processes and faculty development, cultural resistance to change, and diverse institution- and unit-level factors. In this article, the authors apply a logic model to describe the process they used from June 2010 to February 2014 to develop, implement, and disseminate an innovative, comprehensive handoff curriculum in pediatric residency training programs as a fundamental component of the multicenter Initiative for Innovation in Pediatric Education-Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Accelerating Safe Sign-outs (I-PASS) Study. They describe resources, activities, and outputs, and report preliminary learner outcomes using data from resident and faculty evaluations of the I-PASS Handoff Curriculum: 96% of residents and 97% of faculty agreed or strongly agreed that the curriculum promoted acquisition of relevant skills for patient care activities. They also share lessons learned that could be of value to others seeking to adopt a structured handoff curriculum or to develop large-scale curricular innovations that involve redesigning firmly established processes. These lessons include the importance of approaching curricular implementation as a transformational change effort, assembling a diverse team of junior and senior faculty to provide opportunities for mentoring and professional development, and linking the educational intervention with the direct measurement of patient outcomes.

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...

Key Points Question Are women, who in 2015 made up 61.9% of pediatricians and 53.0% of full-time physician pediatric faculty, underrepresented among physician first authors of perspective-type articles published in the 4 highest-impact general pediatric journals? Findings In this cross-sectional study, women were underrepresented among physician first authors (140 of 336 [41.7%]). Underrepresentation was more pronounced in article categories described as more scholarly (range, 15.4%-44.1%) vs narrative (range, 52.9%-65.6%). Meaning Because women are underrepresented among physician first authors of perspective-type articles, they are less likely to have opportunities to express their opinions and provide insights that may influence the field.

In this perspective piece, we describe a multifactorial phenomenon whereby academic women physicians become invisible in the mid-career stage. Barriers, both small and large, cause a cumulative inequity effect, and women may leave academic medicine. Certainly, family and lifestyle choices play a role. And as we describe, so is a situation created where women become discouraged and disillusioned. We describe the growing evidence of subtle disparities, or micro-inequities, that cause women to be less visible and marginalized. Over time, early career women transition to mid-career with an accumulation of these micro-inequities. Women have more difficulty in building their academic portfolios and curriculum vitae-core components of academic promotion. They comprise greater than 50% of the health care workforce; yet, they are underrepresented in top leadership positions. For example, only 22% of full professors, 18% of department chairs, and 17% of medical school deans are women. Macro-inequities, which are observable and measurable, are also well documented. For example, women receive less compensation than men for the same job. We examine the contributing and causative processes and offer suggestions on how to promote equity among highly qualified mid-career women as they graduate from training and move beyond the early career stage.

Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. The sheer number of women who comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States suggests this specialty has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine and pediatrics. However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or even regressing. The fair treatment of women pediatricians will require enhanced and simultaneous commitment from leaders in 4 key gatekeeper groups: academic medical centers, hospitals, health care organizations, and practices; medical societies; journals; and funding agencies. In this report, we describe the 6-step equity, diversity, and inclusion cycle, which provides a strategic methodology to (1) examine equity, diversity, and inclusion data; (2) share results with stakeholders; (3) investigate causality; (4) implement strategic interventions; (5) track outcomes and adjust strategies; and (6) disseminate results. Next steps include the enforcement of a climate of transparency and accountability, with leaders prioritizing and financially supporting workforce gender equity. This scientific and data-driven approach will accelerate progress and help pave a pathway to better health care and science. Gender bias and discrimination have profound and far-reaching effects on the health care workforce, delivery of patient care, and advancement of science and are antithetical to the principles of professionalism. In the quest for gender equity, medicine, with its abundance of highly educated and qualified women, should be leading the way. Because women comprise the majority of pediatricians in the United States, pediatrics has a unique opportunity to stand out as progressively equitable. Indeed, there has been much progress to celebrate for women in medicine 1-7 and pediatrics. 3,4,7 However, many challenges remain, and there are areas in which progress is too slow, stalled, or regressing. 8-14 Moreover, women with intersectional identities (ie, simultaneously belonging to multiple underrepresented groups, including gender, race, sexual orientation, ability, age, or socioeconomic status 15) may experience heightened levels of bias and discrimination, sometimes called a "double bind." 16 Therefore, this report focuses on persistent disparities and highlights key a Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine Program,