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.).

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...

The success rate and overall quality of neonatal intubations performed by neonatal and pediatric trainees in Canada did not meet NRP standards; in particular, the time taken to intubate by pediatric residents and neonatal fellows is concerning. Re-evaluation of training methods and the volume of formalized exposure to neonatal intubation in Canadian residency programs are required.

Objective: Despite completing accredited resuscitation training, neonatal trainees often feel unprepared to deal with real-life clinical emergencies. High-fidelity simulator (HFS) technology offers the potential of recreating a realistic stressful clinical environment to aid training and evaluation. To date, there are limited data examining the physiological impact of this training modality in comparison to less costly alternatives. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of low-fidelity simulator (LFS) versus HFS technology on performance levels, objective and subjective measures of stress in neonatal trainees.Study Design: Sixteen neonatal fellows were invited to participate in a prospective randomized study. Subjects were divided into pairs and randomized to LFS or HFS for completion of scenario I. After an interval of 1 month, fellow teams crossed over to complete scenario II using the alternative simulator technology. Technical and non-technical skills were assessed using validated resuscitation scoring tools. Participants recorded subjective stress at sequential time points before and after each simulation. Buccal cortisol was measured at each corresponding time point and comparison between HFS and LFS groups was made.Result: The mean overall resuscitation performance score was 75.8%±10, but there was no difference in performance between HFS and LFS groups. There was also no significant difference in non-technical skills performance between groups. Salivary cortisol increased over the duration of the simulated experience, but there were no differences between the two groups (P ¼ 0.001, two-way repeated measures analysis of variance). We also identified changes in subjective measures of stress (P<0.001, analysis of variance) over time, but again there were no differences between groups.Conclusion: Simulated neonatal resuscitations induce a significant stress response in neonatal trainees; however, we were unable to identify any difference in stress measures between HFS and LFS. These data suggest that HFS technology offers no additional stress-inducing benefit.

Objective: Neonatal intubation is a life-saving procedural skill required by pediatricians. Trainees receive insufficient clinical exposure to develop this competency. Traditional training comprises a Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) complemented by clinical experience. More recently, simulation is being used in procedural skills training. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of a simulation session, which teaches the skill of neonatal intubation by comparing pre-and post-intervention performance, and examining transferability of skill acquisition to the clinical setting.Study Design: First-year pediatric residents with NRP training, but no previous neonatal experience, attended a 2-h intubation education session conducted by two experienced respiratory therapists. Individual components of the skill were taught, followed by practice on a highfidelity infant mannequin with concurrent feedback. Skills were assessed using a validated neonatal intubation checklist (CL) and a five-point global rating scale (GRS), pre-and immediately post-intervention, using the mannequin. Clinical intubations performed in the subsequent 8-week neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) rotation were evaluated by documenting success rates, time taken to intubate, and CL and GRS scores. Performance was also compared with similar data collected on intubations performed by a historical cohort of first-year residents who did not receive the training intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Student's t-test and w 2 -test as appropriate, and analysis of variance.Result: Thirteen residents participated in the educational session. Mean pre-intervention CL score was 65.4 ± 18% (s.d.) and GRS was 3±0.7 (s.d.). Performance improved following the intervention with post-training CL score of 93 ± 5% (P<0.0001) and GRS of 3.92 ± 0.4 (P ¼ 0.0003). These trainees performed 40 intubations during their subsequent NICU rotation, with a success rate of 67.5% compared with 63.15% in the cohort group (NS). However, mean CL score for the study trainees during the NICU rotation was 64.6 ± 20%, significantly lower than their post-training CL score (P<0.001), and significantly lower than the historical cohort score of 82.5 ± 15.4% (P ¼ 0.001). In the intervention group, there were no significant differences between the pre-intervention and real-life CL scores of 65 ± 18% and 64.63 %, respectively, and the pre-intervention and real-life GRS of 3.0 ± 0.7 and 2.95 ± 0.86, respectively. Conclusion:Trainees showed significant improvement in intubation skills immediately post intervention, but this did not translate into improved-clinical performance, with performance returning to baseline. In fact, significantly higher CL scores were demonstrated by the cohort group. These data suggest that improved performance in the simulation environment may not be transferable to the clinical setting. They also support the evidence that although concurrent feedback may lead to improved performance immediately post training intervention, this do...

No abstract

Paralleling the fast growth and integration of SBT, fellowship training opportunities have grown rapidly in the United States, Canada, and beyond. This study highlights potential areas for standardization and accreditation of simulation fellowships which would allow measurable competencies in graduates.