A Coproduced Family Reporting Intervention to Improve Safety Surveillance and Reduce Disparities.

OBJECTIVES: Examine family safety-reporting after implementing a parent-nurse-physician-leader coproduced, health literacy-informed, family safety-reporting intervention for hospitalized families of children with medical complexity. METHODS: We implemented an English and Spanish mobile family-safety-reporting tool, staff and family education, and process for sharing comments with unit leaders on a dedicated inpatient complex care service at a pediatric hospital. Families shared safety concerns via predischarge surveys (baseline and intervention) and mobile tool (intervention). Three physicians with patient safety expertise classified events. We compared safety-reporting baseline (via survey) versus intervention (via survey and/or mobile tool) with generalized estimating equations and sub-analyzed data by COVID-19-era and educational attainment. We also compared mobile tool-detected event rates with hospital voluntary incident reporting. RESULTS: 232 baseline and 208 intervention parents participated (78.2% consented); 29.5% of baseline families versus 38.2% of intervention families reported safety concerns (P = .09). Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of families reporting safety concerns intervention versus baseline was 1.6 (1.0-2.6) overall, 2.6 (1.3-5.4) for those with < college education, and 3.1 (1.3-7.3) in the COVID-19-era subgroup. Safety concerns reported via mobile tool (34.6% of enrolled parents) included 42 medical errors, 43 nonsafety-related quality issues, 11 hazards, and 4 other. 15% of mobile tool concerns were also detected with voluntary incident reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Family safety-reporting was unchanged overall after implementing a mobile reporting tool, though reporting increased among families with lower educational attainment and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The tool identified many events not otherwise captured by staff-only voluntary incident reporting. Hospitals should proactively engage families in reporting to improve safety, quality, and equity.

Applying Coproduction Methods to Research, Clinical Care, Quality Improvement, and Education in PHM.

Coproduction-actively collaborating with key partners and end-users toward a shared goal-challenges the traditional medical hierarchy. Each partner brings unique perspectives, knowledge, expertise, values, and preferences. In pediatric hospital medicine, coproduction involves collaborating with partners often excluded from research, clinical care, quality improvement, and medical education, including patients/families, nurses, and trainees. This article describes strategies for applying coproduction, using multiple pediatric coproduction initiatives as case examples, including efforts of the Patient and Family Centered I-PASS Study Group over the past decade to apply coproduction to studies to reduce harmful medical errors and implement family-centered rounds communication interventions. We describe how coproduction can be applied to (1) research (eg, codesigning instruments, measuring patient-reported outcomes), (2) clinical care (eg, improving treatment effectiveness, shared decision-making), (3) quality improvement (eg, measuring and improving adherence to intervention components), and (4) medical education (eg, training families, nurses, and trainees about communication, providing disease-specific education). Successful coproduction involves attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, engagement, compensation, and team management. Coproduction can lead to higher quality, safer, more equitable care, improved content development and delivery, refined methods and implementation, and more salient learning for all.

Communicating With Spanish-Speaking Families of Hospitalized Children With Medical Complexity.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized families who use languages other than English (LOE) for care encounter unique communication challenges, as do children with medical complexity (CMC). We sought to better understand communication challenges and opportunities to improve care of families who use LOE from the perspectives of hospital staff and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC. METHODS: This qualitative project involved secondary analysis of transcripts from a study on family safety reporting at 2 quaternary care children's hospitals and additional primary data collection (interviews) of staff and parents. Bilingual researchers conducted audio-recorded, semistructured interviews with staff and Spanish-speaking parents of CMC during/after hospitalization. We professionally transcribed and translated interviews and developed, iteratively refined, and validated a codebook. Three independent researchers coded interviews using qualitative descriptive methodology and identified emerging themes through thematic analysis. RESULTS: We coded 49 interviews (13 parents, 11 physicians, 13 nurses, 6 allied health professionals, 6 leaders). Five themes emerged: (1) assumptions and bias regarding specific groups who use LOE for care, (2) importance of trust and relationships, (3) importance of language-concordant care, (4) workarounds to address communication challenges, and (5) the "double-edged" sword of technology. Participant-suggested strategies to improve communication included increasing interpreter access for parents and staff, optimizing technology use, and minimizing bias and assumptions through training. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of CMC and staff identified challenges and opportunities related to communicating with hospitalized families who use LOE for care. Solutions to improve communication and safety for these families should be attuned to needs of all parties involved.

Creating Culturally Adapted Multilingual Materials for Research.

Patients who speak languages other than English are frequently excluded from research. This exclusion exacerbates inequities, biases results, and may violate federal regulations and research ethics. Language justice is the right to communicate in an individual's preferred language to address power imbalances and promote equity. To promote language justice in research, we propose a method to translate and culturally-adapt multifaceted research materials into multiple languages simultaneously. Our method involves a multistep approach, including professional translation, review by bilingual expert panels to refine and reach consensus, and piloting or cognitive interviews with patients and families. Key differences from other translation approaches (eg, the World Health Organization) include omitting back-translation, given its limited utility in identifying translation challenges, and limiting expert panelist and piloting-participant numbers for feasibility. We detail a step-by-step approach to operationalizing this method and outline key considerations learned after utilizing this method to translate materials into 8 languages other than English for an ongoing multicenter pediatric research study on family safety-reporting. Materials included family brochures, surveys, and intervention materials. This approach took ∼6 months overall at a cost of <$2000 per language (not including study personnel costs). Key themes across the project included (1) tailor scope to timeline, budget, and resources, (2) thoughtfully design English source materials, (3) identify and apply guiding principles throughout the translation and editing process, and (4) carefully review content and formatting to account for nuances across multiple languages. This method balances feasibility and rigor in translating participant-facing materials into multiple languages simultaneously, advancing language justice in research.

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.

How and why might interprofessional patient- and family-centered rounds improve outcomes among healthcare teams and hospitalized patients? A conceptual framework informed by scoping and narrative literature review methods.

Poor communication within healthcare contributes to inefficiencies, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. A promising model to improve outcomes resulting from poor communication in the inpatient hospital setting is Interprofessional Patient- and Family-Centered rounds (IPFCR). IPFCR brings two or more health professions together with hospitalized patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. A growing body of literature focuses on implementation and outcomes of IPFCR to improve healthcare quality and team and patient outcomes. Most studies report positive changes following IPFCR implementation. However, conceptual frameworks and theoretical models are lacking in the IPFCR literature and represent a major gap that needs to be addressed to move this field forward. The purpose of this two-part review is to propose a conceptual framework of how IPFCR works. The goal is to articulate a framework that can be tested in subsequent research studies. Published IPFCR literature and relevant theories and frameworks were examined and synthesized to explore how IPFCR works, to situate IPFCR in relation to existing models and frameworks, and to postulate core components and underlying causal mechanisms. A preliminary, context-specific, conceptual framework is proposed illustrating interrelationships between four core components of IPFCR (interprofessional approach, intentional patient and family engagement, rounding structure, shared development of a daily care plan), improvements in communication, and better outcomes.

Reduced Postdischarge Incidents After Implementation of a Hospital-to-Home Transition Intervention for Children With Medical Complexity.

OBJECTIVES: Prior research suggests that errors occur frequently for patients with medical complexity during the hospital-to-home transition. Less is known about effective postdischarge communication strategies for this population. We aimed to assess rates of 30-day (1) postdischarge incidents and (2) readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits before and after implementing a hospital-to-home intervention. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of children with medical complexity discharged at a children's hospital from April 2018 to March 2020. A multistakeholder team developed a bundled intervention incorporating the I-PASS handoff framework including a postdischarge telephone call, restructured discharge summary, and handoff communication to outpatient providers. The primary outcome measure was rate of postdischarge incidents collected via electronic medical record review and family surveys. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmissions and ED visits. RESULTS: There were 199 total incidents and the most common were medication related (60%), equipment issues (15%), and delays in scheduling/provision of services (11%). The I-PASS intervention was associated with a 36.4% decrease in the rate of incidents per discharge (1.51 versus 0.95, P = 0.003). There were fewer nonharmful errors and quality issues after intervention (1.27 versus 0.85 per discharge, P = 0.02). The 30-day ED visit rate was significantly lower after intervention (12.6% versus 3.4%, per 100 discharges, P = 0.05). Thirty-day readmissions were 15.8% versus 10.2% postintervention (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: A postdischarge communication intervention for patients with medical complexity was associated with fewer postdischarge incidents and reduced 30-day ED visits. Standardized postdischarge communication may play an important role in improving quality and safety in the transition from hospital-to-home for vulnerable populations.

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.

Effect of Patient and Family Centered I-PASS on adverse event rates in hospitalized children with complex chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) are at risk for adverse events (AEs) during hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: We compared the effect of Patient and Family Centered (PFC)I-PASS on AE rates in children with and without CCCs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients were drawn from the PFCI-PASS study, which included 3106 hospitalized children from seven North American pediatric hospitals between December 2014 and January 2017. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: An effect modification analysis did not show difference in the intervention on children with and without CCCs (RRR 0.81, 95% CI [0.59-1.10]; p = .2). RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, the adjusted incidence rate ratiofor AEs in children with CCCs was 0.5 (95% CI = 0.3-0.9, p = .01) with PFC I-PASS exposure; there was no statistically significant change in AEs for children without CCCs [IRR 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.2; p = .1)].

Family, nurse, and physician beliefs on family-centered rounds: A 21-site study.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study. INTERVENTION: We inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Out of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time. RESULT: Support for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.

Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program: Resident and Advanced Care Provider Training Materials.

Introduction: Patient and family-centered rounds (PFCRs) are an important element of family-centered care often used in the inpatient pediatric setting. However, techniques and best practices vary, and faculty, trainees, nurses, and advanced care providers may not receive formal education in strategies that specifically enhance communication on PFCRs. Methods: Harnessing the use of structured communication, we developed the Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS Safer Communication on Rounds Every Time (SCORE) Program. The program uses a standardized framework for rounds communication via the I-PASS mnemonic, principles of health literacy, and techniques for patient/family engagement and bidirectional communication. The resident and advanced care provider training materials, a component of the larger SCORE Program, incorporate a flipped classroom approach as well as interactive exercises, simulations, and virtual learning options to optimize learning and retention via a 90-minute workshop. Results: Two hundred forty-six residents completed the training and were evaluated on their knowledge and confidence regarding key elements of the curriculum. Eighty-eight percent of residents agreed/strongly agreed that after training they could activate and engage families and all members of the interprofessional team to create a shared mental model; 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they could discuss the roles/responsibilities of various team members during PFCRs. Discussion: The Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS SCORE Program provides a structured framework for teaching advanced communication techniques that can improve provider knowledge of and confidence with engaging and communicating with patients/families and other members of the interprofessional team during PFCRs.