Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether parents who use a low literacy, pictogram- and photograph-based written asthma action plan have a better understanding of child asthma management compared to parents using a standard plan. METHODS: Randomized controlled study in 2 urban pediatric outpatient clinics. INCLUSION CRITERIA: English/Spanish-speaking parents of 2-12 year old asthmatic children. Parents were randomized to receive a low literacy or standard asthma action plan (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology) for a hypothetical patient on controller and rescue medications. A structured questionnaire was used to assess whether there was an error in knowledge of 1)medications to give everyday and when sick, 2)need for spacer use, and 3)appropriate emergency response to give albuterol and seek medical help. Multiple logistic regression analyses performed adjusting for parent age, health literacy (Newest Vital Sign); child asthma severity, medications; site. RESULTS: 217 parents were randomized (109 intervention;108 control). Parents who received the low literacy plan were 1)less likely to make an error in knowledge of medications to take everyday and when sick compared to parents who received the standard plan (63.0 vs. 77.3%, p = 0.03; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.5[95% CI: 0.2-0.9]) and 2)less likely make an error regarding spacer use (14.0 vs. 51.1%, p<0.001; AOR = 0.1[0.06-0.3]). No difference in error in appropriate emergency response was seen (43.1 vs. 48.1%, p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a low literacy written asthma action plan was associated with better parent understanding of asthma management. Further study is needed to assess whether use of this action plan improves child asthma outcomes.

CONTEXT: Parents often manage complex instructions when their children are discharged from the inpatient setting or emergency department (ED); misunderstanding instructions can put children at risk for adverse outcomes. Parents' ability to manage discharge instructions has not been examined before in a systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature related to parental management (knowledge and execution) of inpatient and ED discharge instructions. DATA SOURCES: We consulted PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane CENTRAL (from database inception to January 1, 2017). STUDY SELECTION: We selected experimental or observational studies in the inpatient or ED settings in which parental knowledge or execution of discharge instructions were evaluated. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened potential studies for inclusion and extracted data from eligible articles by using a structured form. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met inclusion criteria; most (n = 48) were ED studies. Medication dosing and adherence errors were common; knowledge of medication side effects was understudied (n = 1). Parents frequently missed follow-up appointments and misunderstood return precaution instructions. Few researchers conducted studies that assessed management of instructions related to diagnosis (n = 3), restrictions (n = 2), or equipment (n = 1). Complex discharge plans (eg, multiple medicines or appointments), limited English proficiency, and public or no insurance were associated with errors. Few researchers conducted studies that evaluated the role of parent health literacy (ED, n = 5; inpatient, n = 0). LIMITATIONS: The studies were primarily observational in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Parents frequently make errors related to knowledge and execution of inpatient and ED discharge instructions. Researchers in the future should assess parental management of instructions for domains that are less well studied and focus on the design of interventions to improve discharge plan management.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poorly designed labels and dosing tools contribute to dosing errors. We examined the degree to which errors could be reduced with pictographic diagrams, milliliter-only units, and provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed volumes. METHODS: This study involved a randomized controlled experiment in 3 pediatric clinics. English- and Spanish-speaking parents (n = 491) of children 20% deviation), and large error (>2x dose). RESULTS: We found that 83.5% of parents made >/=1 dosing error (overdosing was present in 12.1% of errors) and 29.3% of parents made >/=1 large error (>2x dose). The greatest impact on errors resulted from the provision of tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes. For the 2-mL dose, the fewest errors were seen with the 5-mL syringe (5- vs 10-mL syringe: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 7.5 [5.7-10.0]). For the 7.5-mL dose, the fewest errors were with the 10-mL syringe, which did not necessitate measurement of multiple instrument-fulls (5- vs 10-mL syringe: aOR = 4.0 [3.0-5.4]; cup versus 10-mL syringe: aOR = 2.1 [1.5-2.9]). Milliliter/teaspoon was associated with more errors than milliliter-only (aOR = 1.3 [1.05-1.6]). Parents who received text only (versus text and pictogram) instructions or milliliter/teaspoon (versus milliliter-only) labels and tools made more large errors (aOR = 1.9 [1.1-3.3], aOR = 2.5 [1.4-4.6], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Provision of dosing tools more closely matched to prescribed dose volumes is an especially promising strategy for reducing pediatric dosing errors.

OBJECTIVE: We proposed and tested a theoretical framework for how use of Teach-back could influence communication during the pediatric clinical encounter. METHODS: Audio-taped pediatric primary care encounters with 44 children with asthma were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to measure patient-centered communication and affective engagement of the parent. A newly created Teach-back Loop Score measured the extent to which Teach-back occurred during the clinical encounter; parental health literacy was measured by Newest Vital Sign. Logistic regression was used to test the relationship between Teach-back and features of communication. Focus groups held separately with clinicians and parents elicited perceptions of Teach-back usefulness. RESULTS: Teach-back was used in 39% of encounters. Visits with Teach-back had more patient centered communication (p=0.01). Adjusting for parent health literacy, parent age, and child age, Teach-back increased the odds of both patient centered communication [proportional AOR (95% CI)=4.97 (4.47-5.53)]and negative affect [AOR (95% CI)=5.39 (1.68-17.31)]. Focus group themes common to clinicians and parents included: Teach-back is effective, could cause discomfort, should be used with children, and nurses should use it. CONCLUSIONS: Teach-back was associated with more patient-centered communication and increased affective engagement of parents. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Standardizing Teach-back use may strengthen patient-centered communication.

OBJECTIVE: Hispanic parents in the United States are disproportionately affected by low health literacy and limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined associations between health literacy, LEP, and liquid medication dosing errors in Hispanic parents. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a multisite randomized controlled experiment to identify best practices for the labeling/dosing of pediatric liquid medications (SAFE Rx for Kids study); 3 urban pediatric clinics. Analyses were limited to Hispanic parents of children aged 20% dose deviation. Predictor variables included health literacy (Newest Vital Sign) (limited = 0-3; adequate = 4-6) and LEP (speaks English less than "very well"). RESULTS: A total of 83.1% made dosing errors (mean [SD] errors per parent = 2.2 [1.9]). Parents with limited health literacy and LEP had the greatest odds of making a dosing error compared to parents with adequate health literacy who were English proficient (trials with errors per parent = 28.8 vs 12.9%; adjusted odds ratio = 2.2 [95% confidence interval 1.7-2.8]). Parents with limited health literacy who were English proficient were also more likely to make errors (trials with errors per parent = 18.8%; adjusted odds ratio = 1.4 [95% confidence interval 1.1-1.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Dosing errors are common among Hispanic parents; those with both LEP and limited health literacy are at particular risk. Further study is needed to examine how the redesign of medication labels and dosing tools could reduce literacy- and language-associated disparities in dosing errors.

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%; kappa, 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.