Safety Officer: Hospitalist Support of Safety Practices on a Pediatric Surgical Unit.

IF 2.1 Q1 Nursing
Rachita Gupta, Lauren R Anderson, Heather J Bennett, Richele Koehler, Jonathan P Roach, Michelle Fennell, Jacquelyn Scarberry, Miriam Conant, Jason Zamkoff, Jessica Thysens, Justin M Lockwood
{"title":"Safety Officer: Hospitalist Support of Safety Practices on a Pediatric Surgical Unit.","authors":"Rachita Gupta, Lauren R Anderson, Heather J Bennett, Richele Koehler, Jonathan P Roach, Michelle Fennell, Jacquelyn Scarberry, Miriam Conant, Jason Zamkoff, Jessica Thysens, Justin M Lockwood","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2024-008006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A quality improvement initiative targeting emergency transfer (ET) rate reduction resulted in the development and implementation of the safety officer (SO) intervention. SO leveraged on-site pediatric hospitalists to promote institutional safety practices around care escalation for all patients admitted to the target unit, including those admitted to surgical subspecialty services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An interdisciplinary team developed the SO intervention, which included ad hoc support of communication algorithms and attendance at all Rapid Response Team (RRT) activations on the target unit. To evaluate SO implementation, we applied the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We obtained data through postimplementation surveys, manual case review, and electronic health record reporting. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and clinical data using statistical process control charts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most SOs completed training (85%). The survey response rate was 30%; 40% were hospitalist clinicians, 24% were RRT participants, 18% were surgeons, and 18% were bedside nurses. Many respondents believed SO improved the unit's safety culture (56%). Nurses reported improved ability to escalate care (94%), and intensive care unit clinicians reported enhanced RRT practices. SO involvement in RRTs increased from 0% to 78%. Non-SO clinicians did not believe SO detracted from ownership of their patients (97%), and SOs felt they could effectively balance competing responsibilities (92%). We did not observe a change in ET rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By implementing the SO intervention, we successfully integrated hospitalists for managing care escalations and improved perceived safety culture. Further study is needed to evaluate whether SO can improve rare adverse events like ETs.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2024-008006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: A quality improvement initiative targeting emergency transfer (ET) rate reduction resulted in the development and implementation of the safety officer (SO) intervention. SO leveraged on-site pediatric hospitalists to promote institutional safety practices around care escalation for all patients admitted to the target unit, including those admitted to surgical subspecialty services.

Methods: An interdisciplinary team developed the SO intervention, which included ad hoc support of communication algorithms and attendance at all Rapid Response Team (RRT) activations on the target unit. To evaluate SO implementation, we applied the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We obtained data through postimplementation surveys, manual case review, and electronic health record reporting. We analyzed survey data using descriptive statistics and clinical data using statistical process control charts.

Results: Most SOs completed training (85%). The survey response rate was 30%; 40% were hospitalist clinicians, 24% were RRT participants, 18% were surgeons, and 18% were bedside nurses. Many respondents believed SO improved the unit's safety culture (56%). Nurses reported improved ability to escalate care (94%), and intensive care unit clinicians reported enhanced RRT practices. SO involvement in RRTs increased from 0% to 78%. Non-SO clinicians did not believe SO detracted from ownership of their patients (97%), and SOs felt they could effectively balance competing responsibilities (92%). We did not observe a change in ET rates.

Conclusion: By implementing the SO intervention, we successfully integrated hospitalists for managing care escalations and improved perceived safety culture. Further study is needed to evaluate whether SO can improve rare adverse events like ETs.

安全官员:儿科外科安全实践的住院医师支持。
导言:一项旨在降低紧急转移(ET)率的质量改进倡议导致了安全官员(SO)干预措施的发展和实施。SO利用现场儿科医院医生,围绕目标单位收治的所有患者(包括接受外科亚专科服务的患者)的护理升级,促进机构安全实践。方法:一个跨学科团队开发了SO干预,其中包括对通信算法的特别支持和参加目标单位的所有快速反应小组(RRT)激活。为了评估SO实现,我们应用了Reach、有效性、采用、实现和维护框架。我们通过实施后调查、手工病例审查和电子健康记录报告获得数据。我们使用描述性统计分析调查数据,使用统计过程控制图分析临床数据。结果:大多数SOs完成了培训(85%)。调查回复率为30%;40%是住院医师,24%是RRT参与者,18%是外科医生,18%是床边护士。许多受访者认为SO改善了单位的安全文化(56%)。护士报告提高了升级护理的能力(94%),重症监护病房临床医生报告加强了RRT实践。SO参与RRTs的比例从0%增加到78%。非SO临床医生不认为SO会减损患者的所有权(97%),SO认为他们可以有效地平衡相互竞争的责任(92%)。我们没有观察到ET率的变化。结论:通过实施SO干预,我们成功地整合了医院管理护理升级和改善感知安全文化。需要进一步的研究来评估SO是否可以改善罕见的不良事件,如et。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信