Family-centered Rounds Research Articles

Using Quality Improvement Methodology to Increase Communication of Discharge Criteria on Rounds.

Clear communication about discharge criteria with families and the interprofessional team is essential for efficient transitions of care. Our aim was to increase the percentage of pediatric hospital medicine patient- and family-centered rounds (PFCR) that included discharge criteria discussion from a baseline mean of 32% to 75% over 1 year. We used the Model for Improvement to conduct a quality improvement initiative at a tertiary pediatric academic medical center. Interventions tested included (1) rationale sharing, (2) PFCR checklist modification, (3) electronic discharge SmartForms, (4) data audit and feedback and (5) discharge criteria standardization. The outcome measure was the percentage of observed PFCR with discharge criteria discussed. Process measure was the percentage of PHM patients with criteria documented. Balancing measures were rounds length, length of stay, and readmission rates. Statistical process control charts assessed the impact of interventions. We observed 700 PFCR (68 baseline PFCR from July to August 2019 and 632 intervention period PFCR from November 2019 to June 2021). At baseline, discharge was discussed during 32% of PFCR. After rationale sharing, checklist modification, and criteria standardization, this increased to 90%, indicating special cause variation. The improvement has been sustained for 10 months.At baseline, there was no centralized location to document discharge criteria. After development of the SmartForm, 21% of patients had criteria documented. After criteria standardization for common diagnoses, this increased to 71%. Rounds length, length of stay, and readmission rates remained unchanged. Using quality improvement methodology, we successfully increased verbal discussions of discharge criteria during PFCR without prolonging rounds length.

Ireito de participação da criança e do adolescente na qualidade e na segurança do seu cuidado: estratégias para sua implementação

OBJECTIVES: Safety is part of the healthcare quality domain. Child and adolescent participation concerning their own safety in their healthcare and its overall quality is a poorly investigated issue. This study aims at developing theoretical and practical research methods to analyze the subject. METHODS: A theoretical study, which included literature review using the keywords “child” AND (“safety” OR “quality”) AND “patient rights”, secondary search and critical analysis of the papers found; with subsequent analysis of legislation regarding the theme and the authors scientific publications. RESULTS: According to legislation focused on this theme, The Child Rights Convention (CRC) recognizes children as rights holders as patients. Each child must be evaluated with respect to the possibility of participating in their healthcare, but this does not usually occur. Strategies that incorporate healthcare literacy, effective communication, patient-centered care may help to engage children in their healthcare process. We point out family and patient centered rounds, therapeutic play, stories telling and interactive technologies as practice tools for implementing this strategy. CONCLUSION: Child and adolescent participation in the quality and safety of their healthcare is an established right and there is need to incorporate this theme in healthcare education. There are strategies that can be implemented in daily practice with the help of healthcare professionals, that reflect positively on quality and safety in Pediatric care.

Physician Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Family-Centered Rounds.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has required modifications to family-centered rounds (FCR), although the specific changes and the effects on patients, families, and providers are not well known. In this study, we explore physician perspectives on changes made to FCR during the initial wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and recommendations for the future. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 20 pediatric attending and resident physicians who cared for hospitalized patients between March and May 2020 on pediatric hospital medicine and subspecialty services that typically perform FCR. Transcripts were reviewed by using principles of framework analysis to iteratively develop a codebook. Review of coded segments, with attention to code co-occurrences, was used to clarify themes in the data relating to the research objective and the conceptual framework. The rounding format changed for all providers and varied on the basis of clinical service and phase of the pandemic. Themes highlighted specific areas of change: (1) the process of FCR, (2) reaching consensus with families, (3) collaboration with members of the medical team, and (4) resident education, modeling, and supervision. Participants offered recommendations, including standardization of rounds, intentional involvement of nursing staff, and inclusion of families through virtual or small-group bedside rounds. The pandemic led to a variety of modifications to FCR, and these changes had varied effects on communication and education. These findings provide insight into the state of FCR during the pandemic and may frame future recommendations for the development of shared guidelines for circumstances requiring limited bedside rounding.

Beyond satisfaction: evaluating understanding in PICU family centered rounds

ABSTRACT Background Many hospitals have adopted Family Centered Rounds (FCR), as a means to optimize communication. While studies show FCR improves family satisfaction, research on the impact on family understanding of their child’s care has been conflicting. Understanding is particularly important when families are asked to share in complex decision making, as occurs in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). This study explores families’ experiences of FCR in the PICU and examines how FCR impacts their understanding of their child’s care. Methods We conducted surveys and interviews of family members after they attended FCR in two PICUs. The survey assessed families’ satisfaction with rounds and their understanding across three domains: the child’s illness, treatments, and prognosis. Physicians completed a similar survey to examine concordance with families’ understanding. In interviews we explored underlying factors. We identified themes from transcripts through thematic analysis. Results Twenty-five family members completed the survey and participated in interviews. The majority (82%) rated their satisfaction with FCR highly. Discordance between families and physicians in understanding was common, especially in the prognosis domain, with concordance rates as low as 27%. We identified four themes from interviews that shed light on families’ experiences and the relationship between FCR and understanding: Jargon, Feeling Part of the Team, Rounds as Overwhelming and Competing Purposes of Rounds. Conclusion Families in our study had similar satisfaction with FCR as previously reported, yet our findings suggest that FCR can be optimized to achieve family understanding. Our findings provide insights into potential ways to accomplish this.

Who Speaks First? Promoting Senior Resident Autonomy on Family-Centered Rounds: A QI Initiative.

Graduated autonomy is fundamental as trainees transition to independent practice. Family-centered rounds (FCR), the leading model of inpatient rounding in pediatrics, is an opportunity for trainees to demonstrate their competence in leading a health care team, which is an entrustable professional activity for all pediatric residents. At our institution, senior residents (SRs) at baseline performed at a novice level on the basis of the Senior Resident Empowerment Actions 21 (SREA-21), a validated tool that is used to assess SR autonomy during FCR. Our objective for this study was to increase the median percentage of SREA-21 domains in which SRs perform at a competent level from 38% to 75% within 6 months. Researchers observed 4 FCR encounters weekly and calculated SREA-21 scores after 2 weeks on the basis of actions promoting SR autonomy performed by the SR-hospitalist dyad. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of SREA-21 domains in which the SR achieved a competent score on the SREA-21. We used the model for improvement to identify key drivers and test proposed interventions using serial plan-do-study-act cycles. Interventions included creation of unified inpatient SR expectations, introduction of a SR-hospitalist pre-FCR huddle, auditing of FCR interruptions, and direct feedback to the SR-hospitalist dyad after FCR. Run charts were used to track SR and hospitalist scores on the SREA-21. After multiple plan-do-study-act cycles, there was special cause improvement with a desirable shift upward in the centerline to 100%, which correlated with the project's interventions and surpassed our goal. Using quality improvement methodology, we improved SR autonomy during FCR, as measured by the SREA-21.

The Effect of Sitting Versus Standing on Family Perceptions of Family-Centered Rounds.

Previous studies reveal improved perception of time spent, as well as overall experience, for patients when their inpatient provider is seated during an encounter. With our study, we aim to establish whether family experience and perception of time is improved when a pediatric inpatient provider team sits for patient and family-centered rounds. From February 2017 to November 2017, 99 inpatient encounters were randomly assigned to either a sitting or standing rounding team. Mean total time spent on rounds, family perception of time spent on rounds, and overall family experience with rounds (by using top-box analysis of physician communication questions) were compared between the 2 groups. Total time spent on rounds was similar between the 2 groups (14.2 minutes in the sitting group and 12.7 minutes in the standing group; P = .23), and families in general overestimated the time spent with physicians in both groups (15.9 minutes in sitting group and 14.8 minutes in the standing group; P = .45). There were no significant differences in top-box experience responses (62% in sitting and 55% in standing; P = .12). Sitting during the patient and family-centered rounds encounter did not affect actual or perceived time spent during rounds. Families may have a slightly more positive experience with seated rounds, but the difference in this study did not reach a level of statistical significance.

Meet the Team: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Family Knowledge of Their Care Team.

Hospitalized families often have poor knowledge of care team members, which can negatively impact communication. Local baseline data revealed that few families had knowledge of team members. Our primary aim was to increase the percentage of families able to identify a member of their team to 75% over 1 year and sustain use of our improvement tools over 6 months. We conducted a quality improvement initiative at a tertiary pediatric academic center. Plan-do-study-act cycles were used to implement and test 3 main interventions: (1) a "Meet the Team" form (MTTF), a visual handout outlining care team members; (2) verbal introductions at the start of patient- and family-centered rounds (PFCR); and (3) data sharing regarding family feedback about tool use. The outcome measure was the percentage of families successfully identifying team members. Process measures were the percentage of families who received the MTTF and the percentage of PFCR that included verbal introductions. Balancing measures included rounds length. We conducted structured interviews of 141 families and observed 11 597 PFCR events. There was an increase in the percentage of families who could identify a team member from 10% to 84%. The percentage of PFCR events that included verbal introductions revealed special cause variation, increasing from 40% to 80%. Rounds length held steady at ∼11 minutes per patient. Implementing paired interventions of MTTF distribution and verbal team introductions was associated with increased family knowledge of team members and no change in rounds length.

102 Virtual family-centered rounds: A collaborative necessity during COVID-19 and beyond

Primary Subject areaHospital PaediatricsBackgroundFamily-centered rounds (FCR) are the cornerstone of pediatric hospital care and have many proven benefits including improved patient outcomes, satisfaction, communication and safety. Traditionally, FCR take place in the patient’s room; however, due the COVID-19 pandemic, entering patient rooms was no longer advisable in order to maintain physical distancing and preserve personal protective equipment (PPE). Therefore, it became clear early in our pandemic response that a new process was required to ensure the benefits of FCR were maintained given their paramount importance to safe and quality patient care.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to virtualize the in-person FCR process used by our pediatric inpatient medicine teams to improve safety and reduce PPE costs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/MethodsWe quickly identified available hardware (laptops, tablets) and video conferencing software, assembled a multidisciplinary project team and secured administrative and quality improvement support. Quality improvement methodology and participatory design were used to develop and refine our virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR) standard work, and on April 6, 2020 we launched our first vFCR. Over the next 3 months we engaged in a series of plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles to iteratively improve our process: nurse auditors attended vFCR daily then met with our project team to review data and observations, and real-time feedback was sought from patients and caregivers.ResultsData collected on 1792 vFCR between April 6 and July 31, 2020 revealed 74% of nurses, physicians and trainees were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR and 88% felt they had a good understanding of the patient care plan after vFCR. 79% of patients and caregivers were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR and 88% of caregivers felt like a valued member of their child’s care team. We met our target of 10 minutes per patient in 74% of vFCR with an average transition time of <3 minutes between patients. Patients and caregivers felt vFCR were collaborative, more private and less intimidating than in-person FCR, and some even preferred the virtual approach.ConclusionDuring this pilot, we achieved a standardized vFCR workflow that is safe, feasible, efficient and confidential, with high levels of stakeholder satisfaction and support. vFCR was highly valued by families and yielded unanticipated benefits. Based on current usage, vFCR are saving ~$36,000 monthly in PPE. The importance of this work during the COVID-19 pandemic is clear, but also has benefits in non-pandemic times, including allowing caregivers to participate in FCR when they cannot be at the bedside, enhancing FCR confidentiality, and improving communication and care for isolated patients. Furthermore, the vFCR process is easily adaptable to other inpatient workflows such as consults and multi-disciplinary meetings. We believe this virtual care model is both highly relevant and transferable to a variety of health care settings across Canada and beyond.

Training the Next Generation of Pediatrician-Advocates: A New Focus on the Inpatient Setting.

Training the Next Generation of Pediatrician-Advocates: A New Focus on the Inpatient Setting.

Flying Solo: Effectiveness of Attendingless Family-Centered Rounds on Improving Resident Autonomy

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that residents demonstrate increasing autonomy during their training. Although residents report a better educational environment with hospitalists present during family-centered rounds (FCRs), there is a concern that attending presence may reduce resident autonomy. We aim to determine the effect of FCRs without an attending during rounds on senior residents' sense of autonomy. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, preintervention-postintervention study at 5 children's hospitals to evaluate the effect of rounding without an attending on senior residents' self-efficacy, using a questionnaire developed by using Bandura's principles of self-efficacy and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education milestones. Questions addressed skills of diagnosis and/or management, communication, teaching, and team management. We compared preintervention and postintervention results using paired t tests and Wilcoxon rank tests. One-way analysis of variance tests were used to compare means among >2 groups. 116 (82% response rate) of 142 eligible senior residents completed the questionnaire, which yielded a high reliability (α = 0.80) with a 1-factor score. The average composite score of self-efficacy significantly improved after intervention compared with the preintervention score (66.71 ± 6.95 vs 60.91 ± 6.82; P < .001). Additional analyses revealed meaningful improvement of each individual item postintervention. The highest gain was reported in directing bedside teaching (71.8% vs 42.5%; P < .001) and answering learner questions on rounds (70.7% vs 47.0%; P < .001). Conducting FCRs without an attending increases resident reported self-efficacy regarding core elements of patient care and team leadership. In future studies, researchers should examine the impact of rounding without the attending on other stakeholders, such as students, interns, patients and/or families.

Characterization of sleep-disordered breathing in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria vs disease-specific criteria: what are the differences?

Individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) frequently develop sleep-disordered breathing. Noninvasive ventilation is often prescribed for sleep-disordered breathing treatment based on the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria. In 2018, DMD disease-specific criteria for sleep-disordered breathing were established. Our study aimed to examine the clinical interpretation differences using these different criteria. We performed a multicenter, retrospective chart review of children with DMD followed at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, and Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, California, who underwent polysomnography from August 1, 2012, to February 29, 2020. Baseline characteristics and polysomnography data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Agreement for the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing evaluated by kappa statistics and sensitivity/specificity analysis was assessed. One hundred five male children with DMD (mean ± SD age: 12.1 ± 3.8 years; body mass index z score: 0.2 ± 2.3) were included. The proportions of children with DMD that met at least 1 AASM criterion and at least 1 DMD criterion were 45.7% and 67.6%, respectively. We found that 32.4% of children met neither AASM nor DMD criteria. Overall agreement between AASM and DMD criteria was moderate (k = 0.57). There was almost perfect agreement in sleep apnea diagnosis (k = 0.90); however, there was only slight agreement in hypoventilation diagnosis (k = 0.12) between AASM and DMD criteria. There were more children with DMD diagnosed with nocturnal hypoventilation and prescribed noninvasive ventilation using DMD criteria compared with AASM criteria. Future studies should address whether the prescription of noninvasive ventilation for children with DMD based on both criteria is associated with different clinical outcomes. Hurvitz MS, Sunkonkit K, Massicotte C, Li R, Bhattacharjee R, Amin R. Characterization of sleep-disordered breathing in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria vs disease-specific criteria: what are the differences? J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(2):609-615.

Trauma-Informed Care in Child Health Systems.

Trauma-Informed Care in Child Health Systems.

The Parent's Perspective: A Focus Group Study on Spanish Interpreter Services for Hospitalized Children

BackgroundThe US Census confirms a rise in Spanish-speakers, many of whom have limited English proficiency (LEP) and require interpreters. Parent perceptions of interpreter services throughout hospitalization are unknown. ObjectiveTo explore Spanish-speaking LEP parents’ views regarding roles of interpreters and providers (attending, resident, or nurse) during a hospital encounter, optimal modalities of interpretation, and barriers to services. MethodsSpanish-speaking LEP parents of children discharged from the hospital medicine service participated in focus groups. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed in Spanish, translated into English, and verified for translation accuracy. Qualitative methods were used for thematic analysis. ResultsFour sessions (n = 23 participants representing 15 families) were held. Parents felt the interpreter's primary role was to act as a conduit for word-for-word interpretation. They desired kind and trustworthy interpreters with medical knowledge. They saw providers as leaders of the encounter who should allot enough time for interpretation, not use Spanish unless they were fluent, and give frequent medical updates. In-person interpreters were preferred over telephone and video for their ability to convey body language and build relationships. Barriers to requesting interpreters included embarrassment and inability to directly request services, which resulted in using family members as interpreters. On family-centered rounds, parents preferred professional interpreters over bilingual providers. ConclusionsModifications are required to improve interpreter services to meet the needs of LEP families. Parents emphasized in-person interpreters’ social skills, frequent provider updates, and additional navigation support as essential components of effective care. Next steps include implementing guidelines and interventions to optimize interpreter services.

Implementing Family-Centered Rounds in Hospital Pediatric Settings: A Scoping Review.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and Institute for Patient and Family-Centered Care issued a joint policy statement in 2012 recommending family and nurse participation in rounds as a standard practice. To synthesize available evidence on the state of the implementation of family-centered rounds (FCRs), including identified barriers to stakeholder acceptance and participation in FCRs in pediatric inpatient settings and implementation strategies to increase adherence and related outcomes. PubMed and Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Observational and experimental studies from January 2009 to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened each study to determine eligibility and extract data. Initial evidence quality was evaluated on the basis of study design. A total of 53 studies were included in the final synthesis. FCRs are increasingly accepted by stakeholders, although participation lags. Structural barriers to nurse and family attendance persist. Limited high-quality evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of FCRs and related implementation strategies in improving patient outcomes. The lack of a clear, consistent definition of the elements that combine for a successful FCR encounter remains a significant barrier to measuring its effect. Standardized research methods for improving the quality and comparability of FCR studies are needed to enhance the existing guidelines for FCR use. Structural changes in care delivery may be required to ensure the rounding process remains amenable to the needs of patients and their families.

We Are All Learning, Together: An Imperative for Patient- and Family-Centered Rounds From the Patient and Family Perspective

As patients, family members, and health care providers serving on the Family Advisory Council (FAC) of the Patient and Family-Centered I-PASS Safer Communication On Round Every Time study,1,2 we read, with interest, the scoping review by Knighton and Bass3 on the implementation of family-centered rounds (FCRs). In their review, the authors highlighted several challenges in implementing and evaluating FCRs. They note that limited high-quality research exists to reveal what constitutes a successful FCR rounding encounter. They, additionally, describe the gaps regarding the clinical effectiveness of various interventions to improve FCRs as well as if and how FCRs lead to improvements patient safety and outcomes or changes in clinical decision-making. Although we look forward to further research to better target these gaps, we wish to first share our reflections on the current evidence and make suggestions for the future of patient- and family-centered rounds (PFCRs) from the patient and family viewpoint. As family members, the majority of us did not know what rounds were before we experienced them during an admission. The learning curve is steep, pressure is immense, and fears of somehow failing our children, appearing dumb, or seeming like an incompetent parent can almost paralyze you. As a result, it may appear that we are disengaged or do not value PFCR. It would help us prepare for PFCRs if were to learn what it constitutes at the time of admission, instead of as the team is walking through the door. A brief orientation to PFCRs by the admitting team is highly valued, and, just like your trainees, it may take us several iterations of PFCR to learn how to best participate. But we quickly see that PFCRs are an essential point of communication to engage with providers, share our expertise, and understand the medical plan …

Patient- and Family-centered Rounding: A Single-site Look into the Room.

Introduction:The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends Patient- and Family-centered Rounds (PFCRs) to improve communication between the healthcare team and families while allowing the latter to participate in medical decision-making. PFCRs have a secondary goal of increasing rounds’ efficiency and providing a positive learning environment for residents and students. There are many published best practices for PFCR. Our study provides an observational evaluation of PFCR in an academic tertiary medical center using a checklist created from such published best practices.Methods:We created a standardized observation checklist based on published guidelines. Study members observed 200 individual rounding encounters using this instrument. All inpatient, nonsurgical rounding teams in the fall of 2014 were included and analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results:The average rounding encounter included 9 team members, lasted 9 minutes and 24 seconds, with the medical team entering the patient room for 80.0% of encounters. Families were invited to participate in 60% of the encounters. Lay language was utilized in 62% of the encounters, although 99.5% of the encounters staff used medical terminology. Nursing was present in 64.5% of encounters but presented in only 13.5% of those encounters. The teaching-attending modeled patient interaction behaviors such as eye contact, nodding, and leaning forward in 31%–51% of encounters.Conclusions:Despite published best practices, medical teams at a large tertiary care center did not adhere to many components of published PCFR guidelines. Future studies should focus on family and physician experience to identify improvement strategies for rounds.

Pediatric Family-Centered Rounds and Humanism: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-analysis.

Pediatric family-centered rounds (FCRs) have been shown to have benefits in staff satisfaction, teaching, and rounding efficiency, but no systematic review has been conducted to explicitly examine the humanistic impact of FCRs. The objective with this review is to determine if FCRs promote the core values of humanism in medicine by answering the question, "Do FCRs promote humanistic pediatric care?" Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Dissertation Abstracts for peer-reviewed pediatric studies through January 1, 2020. We used search terms including FCRs, communication, humanism, and the specific descriptors in the Gold Foundation's definition of humanism. Abstracts (n = 1003) were assessed for 5 primary outcomes: empathy, enhanced communication, partnership, respect, and satisfaction and service. We evaluated 158 full-text articles for inclusion, reconciling discrepancies through an iterative process. Data abstraction, thematic analysis, and conceptual synthesis were conducted on 29 studies. Pediatric family-centered rounds (FCRs) improved humanistic outcomes within all 5 identified themes. Not all studies revealed improvement within every category. The humanistic benefits of FCRs are enhanced through interventions targeted toward provider-family barriers, such as health literacy. Patients with limited English proficiency or disabilities or who were receiving intensive care gained additional benefits. Pediatric FCRs promote humanistic outcomes including increased empathy, partnership, respect, service, and communication. Limitations included difficulty in defining humanism, variable implementation, and inconsistent reporting of humanistic outcomes. Future efforts should include highlighting FCR's humanistic benefits, universal implementation, and adapting FCRs to pandemics such as coronavirus disease 2019.

Say What? Quantifying and Classifying Jargon Use During Inpatient Rounds

Although plain language is recognized as essential for effective communication, research reveals that medical providers regularly use jargon terminology that may be misunderstood by patients. Little is known, however, about the types and frequency of jargon used in the pediatric inpatient setting. We aimed to quantify jargon use by medical team members during inpatient family-centered rounds (FCRs) and to identify the most common categories of jargon used. One of 3 trained medical students audited FCRs on a general pediatric service once weekly for 12 weeks, recording and categorizing jargon used with a published classification framework. Jargon usage was classified by category and quantified by using descriptive statistics. Rates were calculated by patient encounter and per minute. Feedback was provided to rounding teams after each observation. During 70 observed FCR patient encounters, there were a total of 443 jargon words or phrases spoken, of which 309 (70%) were not explicitly defined to the patient or family by the health care provider team. The mean number of undefined jargon words or phrases used per patient was 4.3 (±1.7), with a mean of 0.4 (±0.1) uses of undefined jargon per minute. The most common categories of undefined jargon used include technical terminology (eg, bronchiolitis), medical vernacular (eg, cultures), and abbreviations and acronyms (eg, NPO for "nothing by mouth") at 34%, 30%, and 17%, respectively. Undefined medical jargon was used frequently by health care providers during pediatric FCRs. We found it was feasible to measure provider jargon use and to use a jargon classification scheme to provide real-time, concrete feedback.

Virtual Family-Centered Rounds in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

To measure the feasibility, reach, and potential impact of a virtual family-centered rounds (FCR) intervention in the neonatal intensive care unit. We conducted a randomized controlled pilot trial with a 2:1 intervention-to-control arm allocation ratio. Caregivers of intervention arm neonates were invited to participate in virtual FCR plus standard of care. We specified 5 feasibility objectives. We profiled intervention usage by neonatal and maternal characteristics. Exploratory outcomes included FCR caregiver attendance, length of stay, breast milk feeding at discharge, caregiver experience, and medical errors. We performed descriptive analyses to calculate proportions, means, and rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included 74 intervention and 36 control subjects. Three of the five feasibility objectives were met based on the point estimates. The recruitment and intervention uptake objectives were not achieved. Among intervention arm subjects, recruitment of a caregiver occurred for 47 (63.5%, 95% CI 51.5%-74.4%) neonates. Caregiver use of the intervention occurred for 36 (48.6%, 95% CI 36.8%-60.6%) neonates in the intervention arm. Feasibility objectives assessing technical issues, burden, and data collection were achieved. Among the attempted virtual encounters, 95.0% (95% CI 91.5%-97.3%) had no technical issues. The survey response rate was 87.5% (95% CI 78.2%-93.8%). Intervention arm neonates had 3.36 (95% CI 2.66%-4.23) times the FCR caregiver attendance rate of subjects in the control arm. A randomized trial to compare virtual FCR to standard of care in neonatal subjects is feasible and has potential to improve patient and caregiver outcomes.

Health Care Provider Practices and Perceptions During Family-Centered Rounds With Limited English-Proficient Families.

To increase understanding of current practices and perceptions of family-centered rounds (FCR) by providers for limited English-proficient (LEP) families relative to English-proficient families. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted ethnographic observations of FCR for LEP and English-proficient families on the pediatric wards at an urban teaching hospital. Focused coding of observation fieldnotes was performed independently, followed by regular group meetings to discuss discrepancies, refine codes, and identify theoretical direction. Data informed development of an interview guide used to conduct interviews with pediatric physicians, nurses, and interpreters. The iterative analysis process continued with interview transcriptions. FCR of 36 unique patient families were observed, of which 10 were LEP families. We conducted 20 interviews with 7 residents, 3 attendings, 5 nurses, and 5 interpreters. Major themes included: 1) standardization of FCR is needed to address equity issues for LEP families, 2) redefining the roles of medical interpreters would enhance the interpersonal interactions and relationships between families and health care providers, and 3) improving resources to allow interpreters to be used consistently will increase equity for LEP families. Many differences exist in FCR for LEP versus English-proficient families. FCR for LEP families may be optimized with standardization and training, redefining the interpreters' roles, and improving access to interpreters.