Zia Bismilla

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program

BACKGROUND Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS 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.).

Prospective Evaluation of Residents On Call: Before and After Duty-Hour Reduction

BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2009, in Ontario the maximum period of continuous duty that residents were permitted to work was reduced from 28 to 24 hours. We evaluated the effect of regulation on residents in 3 eras: 2 before (2005 and early 2009) and 1 after (late 2009) the duty-hour reduction. METHODS: On-call pediatric residents on pediatric medicine rotations prospectively recorded the numbers of patients (assigned and admitted) and the durations of direct patient care, documentation, staff supervision, and education attended. Sleep was measured with actigraphy. RESULTS: The 51 residents worked 180 duty periods, were assigned a median of 6 (interquartile range: 4 –12) daytime patients and 24 (interquartile range: 19–30) overnight patients. Residents reported spending means of 239 minutes providing direct patient care, 235 minutes documenting, and 243 minutes sleeping and receiving 73 minutes of staff supervision and 52 minutes of education. From early 2009 to after duty-hour reduction, residents provided 47 fewer (19.6%) minutes of direct patient care (P = .056) and received 44 fewer minutes (60.3%) of supervision (P = .0005) but spent similar times documenting, receiving education, and sleeping. In early 2009, residents provided 73 more minutes (30.5%) of direct patient care (P = .0016), spent 63 more minutes (26.8%) documenting, and slept 105 fewer minutes (43.0%) (P = .0062) than in 2005. DISCUSSION: After duty-hour reduction in 2009, we found reduced supervision and direct patient care. Comparison of the 2 periods before duty-hour reduction showed less sleep and longer patient contact in early 2009, which suggests that changes occurred without regulation.

The Creation of Standard-Setting Videos to Support Faculty Observations of Learner Performance and Entrustment Decisions.

Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) provide a framework to standardize medical education outcomes and advance competency-based assessment. Direct observation of performance plays a central role in entrustment decisions; however, data obtained from these observations are often insufficient to draw valid high-stakes conclusions. One approach to enhancing the reliability and validity of these assessments is to create videos that establish performance standards to train faculty observers. Little is known about how to create videos that can serve as standards for assessment of EPAs. The authors report their experience developing videos that represent five levels of performance for an EPA for patient handoffs. The authors describe a process that begins with mapping the EPA to the critical competencies needed to make an entrustment decision. Each competency is then defined by five milestones (behavioral descriptors of performance at five advancing levels). Integration of the milestones at each level across competencies enabled the creation of clinical vignettes that were converted into video scripts and ultimately videos. Each video represented a performance standard from novice to expert. The process included multiple assessments by experts to guide iterative improvements, provide evidence of content validity, and ensure that the authors successfully translated behavioral descriptions and vignettes into videos that represented the intended performance level for a learner. The steps outlined are generalizable to other EPAs, serving as a guide for others to develop videos to train faculty. This process provides the level of content validity evidence necessary to support using videos as standards for high-stakes entrustment decisions.

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance

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%; &kgr;, 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.

Resident Experiences With Implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Bundle

BACKGROUND The I-PASS Handoff Study found that introduction of a handoff bundle (handoff and teamwork training for residents, a mnemonic, a handoff tool, a faculty development program, and a sustainability campaign) at 9 pediatrics residency programs was associated with improved communication and patient safety. OBJECTIVE This parallel qualitative study aimed to understand resident experiences with I-PASS and to inform future implementation and sustainability strategies. METHODS Resident experiences with I-PASS were explored in focus groups (N = 50 residents) at 8 hospitals throughout 2012-2013. A content analysis of transcripts was conducted following the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS Residents generally accepted I-PASS as an ideal format for handoffs, and valued learning a structured approach. Across all sites, residents reported full adherence to I-PASS when observed, but selective adherence in usual practice. Residents adhered more closely when patients were complex, teams were unfamiliar, and during evening handoff. Residents reported using elements of the I-PASS mnemonic variably, with Illness Severity and Action Items most consistently used, but Synthesis by Receiver least used, except when observed. Most residents were receptive to the electronic handoff tool, but perceptions about usability varied across sites. Experiences with observation and feedback were mixed. Concern about efficiency commonly influenced attitudes about I-PASS. CONCLUSIONS Residents generally supported I-PASS implementation, but adherence was influenced by patient type, context, and individual and team factors. Our findings could inform future implementation, particularly around the areas of resident engagement in change, sensitivity to resident level, perceived efficiency, and faculty observation.

Essentials of Scenario Building for Simulation- Based Education

Scenario building, also referred to as scenario design, is a fundamental component of simulation-based medical education. When done effectively, the scenario can reliably meet the needs of the curriculum and the learners. This chapter explores the rationale for utilizing a formal scenario-building process, outlines many of the theoretical underpinnings important to the endeavor, and describes a practical, six-step approach to designing scenarios. Some of the topics explored in depth include curriculum design, teamwork/interprofessional education, fidelity/realism, the use of distraction, and confederates. The six-step approach involves identifying the target audience, learning objectives and simulator modalities, building a case summary, procuring staging needs (such as moulage, confederates, and adjuncts), writing the script, preprogramming the scenario where appropriate, and finally practicing or pilot-testing the scenario. A sample template is provided and common pitfalls are discussed.