Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:How health care professionals address health literacy as part of the provider-client relationship is important for prevention and promoting self-management and symptom management. Research usually focuses on patients' health literacy and fails to examine provider practices, thus leaving a gap in the literature and patient outcomes analyses. Objective/UNASSIGNED:The study tested the reliability and validity of a series of questions developed to evaluate health care provider health literacy promotion practices on an interprofessional sample. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This exploratory cross-sectional study took place between 2013 and 2015. Participants included graduate level health professions students from nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, and social work. Exploratory factor analyses with varimax rotation examined the reliability and validity of the instrument as a measure of health literacy promotion practices. Key Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the participants in the programs, 198 completed the health literacy questions in the online survey. Exploratory factor analysis showed that questions loaded on two factors connected with either individual or organizational characteristics that facilitated health literacy promotion practices. The Cronbach's alpha for the instrument was 0.95. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:. Plain Language Summary/UNASSIGNED:We sought to develop a survey instrument people could use to assess how health care providers help patients understand their health better. After getting responses from 198 health care providers, we ran statistical tests to check the quality of the questions for measuring provider practices. We found the questions were good at evaluating provider practices around promoting patient understanding of health issues.

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.

BACKGROUND:In 2009 the I-PASS Study Group was formed by patient safety, medical education, health services research, and clinical experts from multiple institutions in the United States and Canada. When the I-PASS Handoff Program, which was developed by the I-PASS Study Group, was implemented in nine hospitals, it was associated with a 30% reduction in injuries due to medical errors and significant improvements in handoff processes, without any adverse effects on provider work flow. METHODS:To effectively disseminate and adapt I-PASS for use across specialties and disciplines, a series of federally and privately funded dissemination and implementation projects were carried out following the publication of the initial study. The results of these efforts have informed ongoing initiatives intended to continue adapting and scaling the program. RESULTS:Patient Safety Institute has developed a virtual immersion training platform, mobile handoff observational tools, and processes to facilitate further spread of I-PASS. CONCLUSION:Implementation of I-PASS has been associated with substantial improvements in patient safety and can be applied to a variety of disciplines and types of patient handoffs. Widespread implementation of I-PASS has the potential to substantially improve patient safety in the United States and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: To describe infant activity at 3 months old and to test the efficacy of a primary care-based child obesity prevention intervention on promoting infant activity in low-income Hispanic families. METHODS: This study was a randomized controlled trial (n = 533) comparing a control group of mother-infant dyads receiving standard prenatal and pediatric primary care with an intervention group receiving "Starting Early," with individual nutrition counseling and nutrition and parenting support groups coordinated with prenatal and pediatric visits. Outcomes included infant activity (tummy time, unrestrained floor time, time in movement-restricting devices). Health literacy was assessed using the Newest Vital Sign. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-six mothers completed 3-month assessments. Infant activity results were: 82.6% ever practiced tummy time; 32.0% practiced tummy time on the floor; 34.4% reported unrestrained floor time; 56.4% reported >/=1 h/d in movement-restricting devices. Inadequate health literacy was associated with reduced tummy time and unrestrained floor time. The intervention group reported more floor tummy time (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.44-3.23) and unrestrained floor time (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.14-2.49) compared to controls. No difference in the time spent in movement-restricting devices was found. CONCLUSIONS: Tummy time and unrestrained floor time were low. Primary care-based obesity prevention programs have potential to promote these activities.

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.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Effective communication with primary care physicians is important yet incompletely understood for Spanish-speaking parents. We predicted lower satisfaction among Spanish-speaking compared to English-speaking Latino and non-Latino parents. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis at 2-month well visits within the Greenlight study at 4 pediatric resident clinics. Parents reported satisfaction with 14 physician communication items using the validated Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). High satisfaction was defined as "excellent" on each CAT item. Mean estimations compared satisfaction for communication items among Spanish- and English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. We used generalized linear regression modeling, adjusted for parent age, education, income, and clinic site. Among Spanish-speaking parents, we compared visits conducted in Spanish with and without an interpreter, and in English. RESULTS: Compared to English-speaking Latino (n = 127) and non-Latino parents (n = 432), fewer Spanish-speaking parents (n = 303) reported satisfaction with 14 communication items. No significant differences were found between English-speaking Latinos and non-Latinos. Greatest differences were found in the use of a greeting that made the parent comfortable (59.4% of Spanish-speaking Latinos endorsing "excellent" vs 77.5% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01) and discussing follow-up (62.5% of Spanish-speaking Latinos vs 79.8% English-speaking Latinos, P < .01). After adjusting for parent age, education, income, and study site, Spanish-speaking Latinos were still less likely to report high satisfaction with these communication items. Satisfaction was not different among Spanish-speaking parents when the physician spoke Spanish versus used an interpreter. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with physician communication was associated with language but not ethnicity. Spanish-speaking parents less frequently report satisfaction with communication, and innovative solutions to enhance communication quality are needed.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Some experts recommend eliminating "teaspoon" and "tablespoon" terms from pediatric medication dosing instructions, as they may inadvertently encourage use of nonstandard tools (i.e. kitchen spoons), which are associated with dosing errors. We examined whether use of "teaspoon" or "tsp" on prescription labels affects parents' choice of dosing tools, and the role of health literacy and language. METHODS: Analysis of data collected as part of a controlled experiment (SAFE Rx for Kids study), which randomized English/Spanish-speaking parents (n=2110) of children <8 years old to 1 of 5 groups which varied in unit of measurement pairings on medication labels/dosing tools. Outcome assessed was parent self-reported choice of dosing tool. Parent health literacy measured using the Newest Vital Sign. RESULTS: 77.0% had limited health literacy (36.0% low, 41.0% marginal); 35.0% completed assessments in Spanish. Overall, 27.7% who viewed labels containing either "tsp" or "teaspoon" units (alone or with "mL") chose nonstandard dosing tools (i.e. kitchen teaspoon, kitchen tablespoon), compared to 8.3% who viewed "mL"-only labels (AOR=4.4[95%CI: 3.3-5.8]). Odds varied based on whether "teaspoon" was spelled out or abbreviated ("teaspoon"-alone: AOR=5.3[3.8-7.3]); "teaspoon" with mL: AOR=4.7[3.3-6.5]; "tsp" with mL (AOR=3.3[2.4-4.7]); p<0.001)). Similar findings were noted across health literacy and language groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of teaspoon units ("teaspoon" or "tsp) on prescription labels is associated with increased likelihood of parent choice of nonstandard dosing tools. Future studies may be helpful to examine the real-world impact of eliminating teaspoon units from medication labels, and identify additional strategies to promote the safe use of pediatric liquid medications.