Background

Behavior change is notoriously difficult to achieve within health care systems. Successful implementation of the I-PASS handoff bundle with subsequent decreases in medical errors and preventable adverse events represents an example of successful transformational change within academic medical centers.

Objective

We designed a campaign to support and enhance uptake of the I-PASS handoff bundle at 9 study sites from 2011 to 2013.

Methods

Following Kotter's model of transformational change, we established urgency using local data and institutional mandates, and site leaders built local guiding coalitions with institutional leaders, key faculty, and Chief Residents. We created and communicated our vision using a branded campaign and empowered others to act by soliciting and acting on feedback and supporting systems changes. Site leaders planned for and created short-term wins by recognizing residents who engaged with I-PASS, consolidated improvements, and institutionalized new approaches.

Results

Implementation of I-PASS was successful, with achievement of substantial improvements in rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events. Data from the initial I-PASS study have continued to drive a national campaign that has included national recognition by leaders in the field of patient safety and pediatrics. Momentum has increased significantly to support mentored implementation of the I-PASS handoff program at over 35 academic medical centers across North America.

Conclusions

I-PASS provides an example of transformational change achieved through a combination of educational interventions and change management to address resistance/barriers, supported by a robust campaign. We encourage others in academic medicine to consider using change models, including campaigns, to support health care improvement programs.

Background

Effective communication in transitions between healthcare team members is associated with improved patient safety and experience through a clinically meaningful reduction in serious safety events. Family-centered rounds (FCR) can serve a critical role in interprofessional and patient-family communication. Despite widespread support, FCRs are not utilized consistently in many institutions. Structured FCR approaches may prove beneficial in increasing FCR use but should address organizational challenges. The purpose of this study was to identify intervention, individual, and contextual determinants of high adherence to common elements of structured FCR in pediatric inpatient units during the implementation phase of a large multi-site study implementing a structured FCR approach.

Methods

We performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from September 2019 to October 2020 to evaluate the variation in structured FCR adherence across 21 pediatric inpatient units. We analyzed 24 key informant interviews of supervising physician faculty, physician learners, nurses, site administrators, and project leaders at 3 sites using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation in FCR use. We classified implementation determinants based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results

Provisional measurements of adherence demonstrated considerable variation in structured FCR use across sites at a median time of 5 months into the implementation. Consistent findings across all three sites included generally positive clinician beliefs regarding the use of FCR and structured rounding approaches, benefits to learner self-efficacy, and potential efficiency gains derived through greater rounds standardization, as well as persistent challenges with nurse engagement and interaction on rounds and coordination and use of resources for families with limited English proficiency.

Conclusions

Studies during implementation to identify determinants to high adherence can provide generalizable knowledge regarding implementation determinants that may be difficult to predict prior to implementation, guide adaptation during the implementation, and inform sustainment strategies.

Importance

Women account for only 28% of current US medical school deans. Studying the differences between women and men in their preparation to becoming deans might help to explain this discrepancy.

Objective

To identify differences in the leadership development experiences between women and men in their ascent to the medical school deanship.

Design, setting, and participants

In this qualitative study, volunteers from the roster of the Association of American Medical Colleges Council of Deans were solicited and interviewed from June 15 to November 9, 2023. Women deans were recruited first, then men who had been appointed to their deanships at a similar time to their women counterparts were recruited. Deans were interviewed on topics related to number of applications for deanships, prior leadership roles, leadership development, personal factors, and career trajectories. Interviews were coded, and themes were extracted through conventional content analysis.

Main outcome and measures

Career and leadership development experiences were elicited using a semistructured interview guide.

Results

We interviewed 17 women and 17 men deans, representing 25.8% (34 of 132) of the total population of US medical school deans. Most deans (23 [67.6%]) practiced a medicine-based specialty or subspecialty. No statistically significant differences were found between women and men with regard to years to attain deanship (mean [SD], 2.7 [3.4] vs 3.7 [3.7] years), years as a dean (mean [SD], 5.7 [5.2] vs 6.0 [5.0] years), highest salary during career (mean [SD], $525 769 [$199 936] vs $416 923 [$195 848]), or medical school rankings (mean [SD], 315.5 [394.5] vs 480.5 [448.9]). Their reports indicated substantive gender differences in their paths to becoming a dean. Compared with men, women deans reported having to work harder to advance, while receiving less support and opportunities for leadership positions by their own institutions. Subsequently, women sought leadership development from external programs. Women deans also experienced gender bias when working with search firms.

Conclusions and relevance

This qualitative study of US medical school deans found that compared with men, women needed to be more proactive, had to participate in external leadership development programs, and had to confront biases during the search process. For rising women leaders, this lack of support had consequences, such as burnout and attrition, potentially affecting the makeup of future generations of medical school deans. Institutional initiatives centering on leadership development of women is needed to mitigate the gender biases and barriers faced by aspiring women leaders.

Introduction

The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. I-PASS champions are a critical part of the implementation and sustainment of this curriculum, and therefore, a rigorous program to support their training is necessary.

Methods

The I-PASS Handoff champion training materials were created for the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach and adult learning theory. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, an opportunity to practice evaluating handoffs with the I-PASS observation tools using a handoff video vignette, and other key implementation principles.

Results

As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 366 champions were trained at 32 sites across North America and participated in a total of 3,491 handoff observations. A total of 346 champions completed the I-PASS Champion Workshop evaluation form at the end of their training (response rate: 94.5%). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that it provided them with knowledge or skills critical to their patient care activities and that they were able to distinguish the difference between high- and poor-quality handoffs, competently use the I-PASS handoff assessment tools, and articulate the importance of handoff observations.

Conclusion

The I-PASS champion training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Introduction

Communication failures during shift-to-shift handoffs of patient care have been identified as a leading cause of adverse events in health care institutions. The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff program that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events. As part of the spread and adaptation of this program, a comprehensive implementation guide was created to assist individuals in the implementation process.

Methods

The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide grew out of materials created for the original I-PASS Study, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) mentored implementation programs, and the experience of members of the I-PASS Study Group. The guide provides a comprehensive framework of all elements required to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program and contains detailed information on generating institutional support, training activities, a campaign, measuring impact, and sustaining the program.

Results

Thirty-two sites across North America utilized the guide as part of the SHM program. The guide served as a main reference for 477 hours of mentoring phone calls between site leads and their mentors. Postprogram surveys from wave 2 sites revealed that 85% (N = 34) of respondents felt the quality of the guide was very good/excellent. Site leads noted that they referenced the guide most often during the early part of the program and that they referenced the sections on the curriculum and handoff observations most often.

Discussion

The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Guide is an essential resource for those looking to implement the large-scale I-PASS Handoff Program at their institution.

Introduction

The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. Frontline providers are the key individuals participating in handoffs of patient care. It is important they receive robust handoff training.

Methods

The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum frontline provider training materials were created as part of the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach with an emphasis on adult learning theory principles. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, TeamSTEPPS team communication strategies, verbal handoff simulation scenarios, and a printed handoff document exercise.

Results

As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 2,735 frontline providers were trained at 32 study sites (16 adult and 16 pediatric) across North America. At the end of their training, 1,762 frontline providers completed the workshop evaluation form (64% response rate). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they were able to distinguish a good- from a poor-quality handoff, articulate the elements of the I-PASS mnemonic, construct a high-quality patient summary, advocate for an appropriate environment for handoffs, and participate in handoff simulations. Universally, the training provided them with knowledge and skills relevant to their patient care activities.

Discussion

The I-PASS frontline training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

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.

Importance

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 participants

We 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 design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.