Exploring the lived experience of patients and families who speak language other than English (LOE) for healthcare: developing a qualitative study

Abstract Background Patients who use Languages other than English (LOE) for healthcare communication in an English-dominant region are at increased risk for experiencing adverse events and worse health outcomes in healthcare settings, including in pediatric hospitals. Despite the knowledge that individuals who speak LOE have worse health outcomes, they are often excluded from research studies on the basis of language and there is a paucity of data on ways to address these known disparities. Our work aims to address this gap by generating knowledge to improve health outcomes for children with illness and their families with LEP. Body We describe an approach to developing a study with individuals marginalized due to using LOE for healthcare communication, specifically using semi-structured qualitative interviews. The premise of this study is participatory research—our overall goal with this systematic inquiry is to, in collaboration with patients and families with LOE, set an agenda for creating actionable change to address the health information disparities these patients and families experience. In this paper we describe our overarching study design principles, a collaboration framework in working with different stakeholders and note important considerations for study design and execution. Conclusions We have a significant opportunity to improve our engagement with marginalized populations. We also need to develop approaches to including patients and families with LOE in our research given the health disparities they experience. Further, understanding lived experience is critical to advancing efforts to address these well-known health disparities. Our process to develop a qualitative study protocol can serve as an example for engaging this patient population and can serve as a starting point for other groups who wish to develop similar research in this area. Plain English Summary Providing high-quality care that meets the needs of marginalized and vulnerable populations is important to achieving an equitable, high-quality health care system. Children and families who use a Language other than English (LOE) in English dominant regions for healthcare have worse health outcomes including a significantly increased risk of experiencing adverse events, longer lengths of stay in hospital settings, and receiving more unnecessary tests and investigations. Despite this, these individuals are often excluded from research studies and the field of participatory research has yet to meaningfully involve them. This paper aims to describe an approach to conducting research with a marginalized population of children and families due to using a LOE. We detail protocol development for a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients and families who use a LOE during hospitalization. We aim to share considerations when conducting research within this population of families with LOE. We highlight learning applied from the field of patient-partner and child and family-centred research and note specific considerations for those with LOE. Developing strong partnerships and adopting a common set of research principles and collaborative framework underlies our approach and initial learnings, which we hope spark additional work in this area

Implementation of a central-line bundle: a qualitative study of three clinical units

Abstract Background Evidence for the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) bundle effectiveness remains mixed, possibly reflecting implementation challenges and persistent ambiguities in how CLABSIs are counted and bundle adherence measured. In the context of a tertiary pediatric hospital that had reduced CLABSI by 30% as part of an international safety program, we aimed to examine unit-based socio-cultural factors influencing bundle practices and measurement, and how they come to be recognized and attended to by safety leaders over time in an organization-wide bundle implementation effort. Methods We used an interpretivist qualitative research approach, based on 74 interviews, approximately 50 h of observations, and documents. Data collection focused on hospital executives and safety leadership, and three clinical units: a medical specialty unit, an intensive care unit, and a surgical unit. We used thematic analysis and constant comparison methods for data analysis. Results Participants had variable beliefs about the central-line bundle as a quality improvement priority based on their professional roles and experiences and unit setting, which influenced their responses. Nursing leaders were particularly concerned about CLABSI being one of an overwhelming number of QI targets for which they were responsible. Bundle implementation strategies were initially reliant on unit-based nurse education. Over time there was recognition of the need for centralized education and reinforcement tactics. However, these interventions achieved limited impact given the influence of competing unit workflow demands and professional roles, interactions, and routines, which were variably targeted in the safety program. The auditing process, initially a responsibility of units, was performed in different ways based on individuals’ approaches to the process. Given concerns about auditing reliability, a centralized approach was implemented, which continued to have its own variability. Conclusions Our findings report on a contextualized, dynamic implementation approach that required movement between centralized and unit-based approaches and from a focus on standardization to some recognition of a role for customization. However, some factors related to bundle compliance and measurement remain unaddressed, including harder to change socio-cultural factors likely important to sustainability of the CLABSI reductions and fostering further improvements across a broader safety agenda

Applying an equity lens to hospital safety monitoring: a critical interpretive synthesis protocol

Introduction Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems.Methods and analysis This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications.Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences

Pediatric ventilator-associated events before and after a multicenter quality improvement initiative

Importance:Pediatric ventilator-associated events (PedVAEs, defined as a sustained worsening in oxygenation after a baseline period of stability or improvement) are useful for surveillance of complications from mechanical ventilation. It is unclear whether interventions to mitigate known risk factors can reduce PedVAE rates. Objective:To assess whether adherence to 1 or more test factors in a quality improvement bundle was associated with a reduction in PedVAE rates. Design, setting, and participants:This multicenter quality improvement study obtained data from 2017 to 2020 for patients who were mechanically ventilated and cared for in neonatal, pediatric, and cardiac intensive care units (ICUs). These ICUs were located in 95 hospitals participating in the Children\u27s Hospitals\u27 Solutions for Patient Safety (SPS) network in North America. Data analyses were performed between September 2021 and April 2023. Intervention:A quality improvement bundle consisted of 3 test factors: multidisciplinary apparent cause analysis, daily discussion of extubation readiness, and daily discussion of fluid balance goals. This bundle was distributed to a subgroup of hospitals that volunteered to participate in a collaborative PedVAE prevention initiative under the SPS network guidance in July 2018. Main outcomes and measures:Each SPS network hospital submitted monthly PedVAE rates from January 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020, and test factor data were submitted from July 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. Analyses focused on hospitals that reliably submitted PedVAE rate data, defined as outcomes data submission through May 31, 2020, for at least 80% of the baseline and postbaseline periods. Results:Of the 95 hospitals in the SPS network that reported PedVAE data, 21 were grouped in the Pioneer cohort and 74 in the non-Pioneer cohort. Only 12 hospitals (57%) from the 21 Pioneer hospitals and 33 (45%) from the 74 non-Pioneer hospitals were considered to be reliable reporters of outcome data. Among the 12 hospitals, the PedVAE rate decreased from 1.9 to 1.4 events per 1000 ventilator days (absolute rate difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.7; P \u3c .001). No significant change in the PedVAE rate was seen among the 33 hospitals that reliably submitted PedVAE rates but did not implement the bundle. Of the 12 hospitals, 3 that reliably performed daily discussion of extubation readiness had a decrease in PedVAE rate from 2.6 to 1.2 events per 1000 ventilator days (absolute rate difference, -1.4; 95% CI, -1.0 to -1.7; P \u3c .001), whereas the other 9 hospitals that did not implement this discussion did not have a decrease. Conclusions and relevance:This study found that a multicenter quality improvement intervention targeting PedVAE risk factors was associated with a substantial reduction in the rate of PedVAEs in hospital ICUs. The findings suggest that ICU teams seeking to reduce PedVAEs incorporate daily discussion of extubation readiness during morning rounds

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance

ImportanceMedical 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsWe 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%; κ, 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 measuresError and AE rates.ResultsOverall, 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 relevanceFamilies 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