• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
2
Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study.实施以家庭为中心的共同制定的沟通方案后患者的安全性:多中心干预前后研究。
BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4764. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4764.
3
Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.家庭作为医院差错与不良事件监测的合作伙伴。
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Apr 1;171(4):372-381. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.4812.
4
Implementing a Family-Centered Rounds Intervention Using Novel Mentor-Trios.实施以家庭为中心的查房干预措施,使用新型导师三人组。
Pediatrics. 2024 Jan 1;153(2). doi: 10.1542/peds.2023-062666.
5
The recent evolution of patient care rounds in pediatric teaching hospitals in the United States and Canada.美国和加拿大儿科教学医院患者护理查房的近期演变。
Hosp Pract (1995). 2021 Oct;49(sup1):431-436. doi: 10.1080/21548331.2021.1977561. Epub 2021 Sep 21.
6
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
7
Parent-Reported Errors and Adverse Events in Hospitalized Children.家长报告的住院儿童错误和不良事件
JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Apr;170(4):e154608. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4608. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
8
Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.交接方案实施后医疗差错的变化。
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1803-12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556.
9
An Evaluation of Family-Centered Rounds in the PICU: Room for Improvement Suggested by Families and Providers.儿科重症监护病房以家庭为中心的查房评估:家庭与医护人员提出的改进空间
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Nov;16(9):801-7. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000486.
10
Patient-Centered Structured Interdisciplinary Bedside Rounds in the Medical ICU.医学重症监护病房中以患者为中心的结构化跨学科床边查房
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46(1):85-92. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002807.

DOI:10.25302/8.2019.CDR.130603556
PMID:39133802
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Interventions to improve handoff communications between health care providers are associated with improved patient safety. The association between safety and interventions to improve communication between health care providers and patients and families is poorly understood, particularly in pediatrics.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if medical errors and adverse events (AEs) (primary outcomes), family experience, family and nurse engagement, and communication processes between health care providers and pediatric patients and families improve following implementation of a structured communication intervention (Patient- and Family-Centered I-PASS).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study of a patient and family-centered communication intervention, “Patient- and Family-Centered I-PASS,” implemented in a staggered fashion at 7 North American pediatric hospitals from December 2014-January 2017. The intervention included a health literacy-informed, structured communication framework for family-centered rounds (multidisciplinary bedside rounds that include families and integrate their perspectives into clinical decision-making); written rounds summaries for families; a staff training and learning program; and strategies to support teamwork and implementation. The primary outcome had 2 principal components: medical errors (ie, failures in care processes) and AEs (ie, harms to patients due to medical care). Rates of errors and AEs were measured using an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting. Family experience was measured through predischarge surveys. Communication processes (eg, family engagement, rounds duration, teaching on rounds) were assessed by means of direct observation. We used Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site to compare pre- vs postimplementation data. To inform the development of a reliable safety surveillance methodology incorporating patient/family input, we also conducted a subpopulation analysis of the first 4 study sites in the preintervention cohort to compare rates of errors/AEs: (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs providers, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports.

RESULTS

: Of a total 3106 patient admissions, the mean patient age was 7.1 years; 50.5% were female, 50.4% were non-White, and 8.0% had ≥2 complex chronic conditions (CCC). For parents, mean age was 36.2 years; 80.8% were female, 53.1% were non-White, most attended college, and roughly half reported annual household incomes <$50 000. : Harmful errors (preventable AEs) decreased 37.9% (20.7 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-days, = .01) and overall AEs decreased 45.6% (34.0 vs 18.5, = .002) following intervention implementation. The rate of overall medical errors did not change. Top-box (choosing the top-most response on a scale; eg, “excellent”) ratings for 6 out of 25 components of family-reported experience improved; none worsened. The percentages of rounds observations with top-box rated family engagement (55.6% vs 66.7%, = .04) and nurse engagement (20.4% vs 35.5%, = .03) scores on rounds improved. The percentages of families expressing concerns at start of rounds (18.3% vs 42.0%, = .02) and reading back plans (11.8% vs 32.4%, = .04) increased. Observed teaching on rounds (73.4% of rounding encounters vs 72.4%, = .78) and rounds duration (8.5 vs 10.2 minutes per patient, = .13), as well as shared understanding between parent, nurse, and physicians, remained unchanged. : Error rates in our preintervention only subpopulation analysis of the first 4 study sites were higher with family reporting than without (45.9 vs 39.7, < .001), as were rates of AEs (28.7 vs 26.1, = .003). Family-reported incident rates (errors, AEs) were similar to those of providers ( > .05 for both) and 5.0 times ( = .009; errors) and 2.9 times ( = .02; AEs) higher than those from hospital incident reports. More educated parents and parents of CCC had higher rates of family-reported errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a structured family-centered communication intervention was associated with improvements in patient safety, family experience, and multiple aspects of hospital communication processes, without negatively impacting teaching or rounds duration. Moreover, families provided unique information about hospital safety. Including families in hospital safety and communication has the potential to improve hospital safety and quality of care.

摘要