Search

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 As of this writing, I-PASS Study Group members have directly worked with more than 50 hospitals to facilitate implementation of I-PASS. To further disseminate I-PASS, Study Group members delivered hundreds of academic presentations, including plenaries at scientific meetings, workshops, and institutional Grand Rounds. Some 3,563 individuals, representing more than 500 institutions in the 50 states in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 57 other countries, have requested access to I-PASS materials. Most recently, the I-PASSSM 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.

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%; 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 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.