Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the patient-safety hazards of current medication labeling standards for immigrant and language-minority families. SUMMARY: The Latino population in the United States has increased by more than 40% over the past decade and the total child population born to Latino parents will surpass one-half of the population in many states. With recent health care and immigration policies, this demographic shift has a disproportional effect on the Latino families. Research shows that recent Latin American immigrants face disparities when encountering the U.S. pharmacy system. A review of these disparities shows how new policies should be informed when considering new pharmacy regulations to better address the cultural needs of recent Latin American families to improve medication understanding and adherence. CONCLUSION: To date, research and regulatory requirements for medication safety in the United States have attended insufficiently to the patient-safety risk inherent in providing complex English-language labels to non-English-speaking families, many of whom have limited literacy in their native language. As families move, this patient-safety risk is increased by shifts in pharmacies, which often have different medication-labeling standards. It is important to examine how recent immigrant parents are addressing the medication needs for their children based on their cultural norms and how those cultural practices and acculturation into the U.S. health care system may affect their risk for injury. New research and policy efforts may help to address these barriers to safe medication use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poorly designed labels and packaging are key contributors to medication errors. To identify attributes of labels and dosing tools that could be improved, we examined the extent to which dosing error rates are affected by tool characteristics (ie, type, marking complexity) and discordance between units of measurement on labels and dosing tools; along with differences by health literacy and language. METHODS: Randomized controlled experiment in 3 urban pediatric clinics. English- or Spanish-speaking parents (n = 2110) of children 20% deviation; large error defined as > 2 times the dose). RESULTS: A total of 84.4% of parents made >/=1 dosing error (21.0% >/=1 large error). More errors were seen with cups than syringes (adjusted odds ratio = 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.1) across health literacy and language groups (P < .001 for interactions), especially for smaller doses. No differences in error rates were seen between the 2 syringe types. Use of a teaspoon-only label (with a milliliter and teaspoon tool) was associated with more errors than when milliliter-only labels and tools were used (adjusted odds ratio = 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Recommending oral syringes over cups, particularly for smaller doses, should be part of a comprehensive pediatric labeling and dosing strategy to reduce medication errors.

BACKGROUND: More than half of parents underestimate their overweight child's weight; however, previous research focuses on children older than 2 years of age. The objective of this study was to assess whether parents of 2- to 12-month-old infants are able to accurately perceive their children's weight status. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from the Greenlight study, a cluster randomized obesity prevention trial, at 4 pediatric clinics serving diverse and low-income populations. Infants' length and weight were measured at well-child checks, and parents completed questionnaires including demographic characteristics and perception of their children's weight. Weight-for-length (WFL) percentile at the fifth to 95th was considered overweight. We used chi-squared tests to compare accuracy according to weight category and performed logistic regression analysis to assess accuracy at each time point. RESULTS: Approximately 85% to 90% of infants (n = 853 at 2 months, n = 563 at 12 months) were at a healthy WFL at all measurement times, and parents of these infants were more likely to have an accurate perception of their child's weight (accuracy 89%-95%) than overweight children (accuracy 7%-26%; P < .001 across time points). Approximately 10% of healthy weight infants were perceived as underweight by their parents at all time points. At 12 months, mothers who were overweight were significantly more likely to underestimate their child's weight status (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: In our diverse and low-income sample, parents of overweight infants infrequently know that their infants are overweight. Future studies should examine how perception is related to feeding habits and weight status over time.

BACKGROUND: Formula-fed infants may be at greater risk for overfeeding and rapid weight gain. Different size bottles are used for feeding infants, although little is known about whether bottle size is related to weight gain in bottle-fed infants. METHODS: Data from the Greenlight Intervention Study, a cluster randomized trial to prevent childhood obesity at 4 pediatric resident clinics, were used to analyze the exposure to regular (<6 oz) or large (>/=6 oz) bottle size at the 2-month visit on changes in weight, weight-for-age z score (WAZ), and weight-for-length z score (WLZ) at the 6-month visit. Using multivariable regression, we adjusted for potential confounders (birth weight, gender, age, weight measures at 2 months, parent race/ethnicity, education, household income and size, time between 2- and 6-month visits, and first child status). RESULTS: Forty-five percent (n = 386; 41% black, 35% Hispanic, 23% white, 2% other) of infants at the 2-month visit were exclusively formula-fed, and 44% used large (>/=6 oz) bottles. Infants whose parents fed with large bottles had 0.21 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.37) more weight change, 0.24 U (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.41) more change in WAZ, and 0.31 U (95% CI: 0.08 to 0.54) more change in WLZ during this period than infants fed with regular bottles. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large bottle in early infancy independently contributed to greater weight gain and change in WLZ at the 6-month visit. Although growth in infancy is complex, bottle size may be a modifiable risk factor for rapid infant weight gain and later obesity among exclusively formula-fed infants.

INTRODUCTION: African American and Latino children experience higher rates of traumatic injury and mortality, but the extent to which parents of different races and ethnicities disparately enact injury prevention behaviors has not been fully characterized. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between caregiver race/ethnicity and adherence to injury prevention recommendations. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of caregiver-reported baseline data from the Greenlight study, a cluster-randomized pediatric obesity prevention trial. Data were collected between 2010 and 2012 in four academic pediatric practices and analyzed in 2015. Non-adherence to injury prevention recommendations was based on five domains: car seat safety, sleeping safety, fire safety, hot water safety, and fall prevention. RESULTS: Among 864 caregiver-infant pairs (17.7% white, non-Hispanic; 49.9% Hispanic; 27.7% black, non-Hispanic; 4.7 % other, non-Hispanic), mean number of non-adherent injury prevention behaviors was 1.8 (SD=0.9). In adjusted regression, Hispanic caregivers had higher odds of non-adherence to car seat safety (AOR=2.1, 95% CI=1.2, 3.8), and lower odds of non-adherence with fall prevention (AOR=0.4, 95% CI=0.3, 0.7) compared with whites. Black, non-Hispanic caregivers had higher odds of non-adherence to car seat safety (AOR=2.4, 95% CI=1.3, 4.4) and sleeping safety (AOR=2.1, 95% CI=1.3, 3.2), but lower odds of fall prevention non-adherence (AOR=0.5, 95% CI=0.3, 0.8) compared with whites. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of non-adherence to recommended injury prevention behaviors is common across racial/ethnic categories for caregivers of infants among a diverse sample of families from low-SES backgrounds.