Bringing I-PASS to the Bedside: A Communication Bundle to Improve Patient Safety and Experience

Our primary outcome was the rate of medical errors, including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors. Medical errors and adverse events were measured per 1000 patient-days before and after implementation of Patient and Family Centered I-PASS using an established systematic safety surveillance methodology. Trained research clinicians reviewed patient medical charts, hospital incident reports, family safety interviews, and staff reports for potential errors and adverse events. Trained physician-reviewers blinded to pre- vs. post-intervention status then categorized all suspected incidents as either adverse events, non-harmful errors, or exclusions. Adverse events that were clearly caused by a medical error were subsequently deemed preventable and all other cases were categorized as non-preventable.

An additional measure of interest was the rate of non-preventable adverse events. Medical errors and adverse events were measured per 1000 patient-days before and after implementation of Patient and Family Centered I-PASS using an established systematic safety surveillance methodology. Trained research clinicians reviewed patient medical charts, hospital incident reports, family safety interviews, and staff reports for potential errors and adverse events. Trained physician-reviewers blinded to pre- vs. post-intervention status then categorized all suspected incidents as either adverse events, non-harmful errors, or exclusions. Adverse events that were clearly caused by a medical error were subsequently deemed preventable and all other cases were categorized as non-preventable.

Family experience before and after implementation. Experience was measured using a 10-15 minute survey verbally administered prior to discharge. Parents were asked to rate various aspects of their experience with care. This included experience during and after rounds, experience with written communication, experience with physicians and nurses, and overall hospital experience. The survey was developed, cognitively tested, and piloted at a non-intervention site (Boston Children's Hospital) and translated into Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. We compared percent top-box experience ratings pre- vs. post-intervention using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response for the given survey item (e.g., 5=Extremely; 5=Excellent). Missing data was accounted for through use of multiple imputations appropriate for missing data in clustered studies.

Changes in quality of communication during rounds processes were assessed before and after implementation based on: (a) real-time structured direct observations of rounds (n=653) and (b) post-hoc analyses of audio-recordings of a subset of rounds observations (n=164). Research assistants conducted 1-hour weekly in-person rounds observation sessions per site, simultaneously completing a real-time assessment tool for each patient and audio-recording rounds. Site research clinicians blinded to pre- vs. post-intervention status conducted post-hoc analyses of a subset of rounds audio recordings using a structured assessment tool to measure rounding team adherence. Percent top-box ratings pre- vs. post-intervention were compared using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response (e.g., 5=Excellent). Missing data were accounted for through use of multiple imputations.

Shared understanding between parent, resident, and nurse was measured before and after implementation of the Patient and Family Centered I-PASS intervention.