NCT03202888

Brief Summary

This project aims to create and evaluate a tool that gathers patient and family member feedback and makes it rapidly available to providers, enabling nimble and responsive safety and quality improvement efforts. Aim 1. Determine feasibility and acceptability of the patient data collection and provider dashboard tool. The investigators will conduct usability testing prior to study start, measure user (patients and providers) engagement over time, and gather feedback about the tool at study end. This will test the hypothesis that patient and caregiver characteristics will predict tool use. Aim 2. Assess whether reporting patient- and caregiver- observed processes of care to providers leads to changes over time. The investigators hypothesize that performance on structured items of interest will improve over time with rapidly available data presented to providers. Aim 3. Estimate tool implementation effect sizes, using a pre-post design, on medical errors.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
435

participants targeted

Target at P75+ for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Jun 2017

Shorter than P25 for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

June 20, 2017

Completed
6 days until next milestone

Study Start

First participant enrolled

June 26, 2017

Completed
3 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

June 29, 2017

Completed
10 months until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

April 27, 2018

Completed
Same day until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

April 27, 2018

Completed
Last Updated

October 26, 2018

Status Verified

October 1, 2018

Enrollment Period

10 months

First QC Date

June 20, 2017

Last Update Submit

October 24, 2018

Conditions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Change in rate of preventable medical errors or adverse events per 100 admissions

    This is a hospital unit-level outcome measure, assessing unit-level rate of adverse events and preventable medical errors in a time period before the intervention, and the unit-level rate at the end of the intervention. The investigators will apply standard definitions of medical errors as preventable failures in processes of care and adverse events as preventable and non-preventable unintended consequences of medical care that lead to patient harm. This is a composite measure and will be measured as total count of medical errors plus total count of adverse events per 100 admissions. The investigators will not track this measure across the same group of patients in the before and after periods. Participants will be included for the duration of their admission, which may vary. The rate will be measured cross-sectionally in both time periods.

    Measured cross-sectionally in the hospital unit at baseline for three months, and again for three months at the end of the intervention (months 10,11,12 of the intervention).

Study Arms (1)

Intervention

EXPERIMENTAL

After completing enrollment surveys, including measures of patient activation and medical knowledge, participants will be invited to use the novel IT. The technology is a mobile responsive website for survey data collection made by our technology vendor, QuesGen. Patients and family members will be able to access the website from any personal device with internet access: laptop, tablet, or smart phone. QuesGen will send a text message reminder to participants with a link to specific questionnaires at scheduled time intervals. Frequency of text messaging will likely be daily, but will ultimately reflect family and patient feedback in Aim 1. In addition to text reminders, participants will be able to answer questionnaires at-will by accessing the mobile responsive website.

Behavioral: Intervention

Interventions

InterventionBEHAVIORAL

QuesGen-created mobile responsive website tool, Family Input for Quality and Safety.

Intervention

Eligibility Criteria

Sexall
Healthy VolunteersYes
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

  • Patient and caregiver participants will be recruited from admitted patients and their family members on the medical-surgical units at UCSF's Benioff Children's Hospital during the study period.
  • Eligible providers will be the participating hospitalists during the study period.
  • All nurse managers on the units and the patient safety and quality managers for the units will be eligible. All nurses will be eligible on the participating units.

You may not qualify if:

  • Patients who are youth in the foster care system will not be eligible.
  • Patients or parents/guardians who do not have smart phones will not be eligible.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital

San Francisco, California, 94158, United States

Location

Related Publications (15)

  • James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013 Sep;9(3):122-8. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69.

    PMID: 23860193BACKGROUND
  • Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, Federico F, Frankel T, Kimmel N, Whittington JC, Frankel A, Seger A, James BC. 'Global trigger tool' shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):581-9. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0190.

    PMID: 21471476BACKGROUND
  • Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Wachter RM, Taylor SL, Dy SM, Foy R, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Ovretveit J, Rubenstein LV, Adams AS, Angood PB, Bates DW, Bickman L, Carayon P, Donaldson L, Duan N, Farley DO, Greenhalgh T, Haughom J, Lake ET, Lilford R, Lohr KN, Meyer GS, Miller MR, Neuhauser DV, Ryan G, Saint S, Shojania KG, Shortell SM, Stevens DP, Walshe K. Advancing the science of patient safety. Ann Intern Med. 2011 May 17;154(10):693-6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-10-201105170-00011.

    PMID: 21576538BACKGROUND
  • Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010 Nov 25;363(22):2124-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1004404.

    PMID: 21105794BACKGROUND
  • Chassin MR. Improving the quality of health care: what's taking so long? Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Oct;32(10):1761-5. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0809.

    PMID: 24101066BACKGROUND
  • Erasmus V, Daha TJ, Brug H, Richardus JH, Behrendt MD, Vos MC, van Beeck EF. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Mar;31(3):283-94. doi: 10.1086/650451.

    PMID: 20088678BACKGROUND
  • Conway PH, Mostashari F, Clancy C. The future of quality measurement for improvement and accountability. JAMA. 2013 Jun 5;309(21):2215-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4929. No abstract available.

    PMID: 23736730BACKGROUND
  • Blumenthal D, McGinnis JM. Measuring Vital Signs: an IOM report on core metrics for health and health care progress. JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1901-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.4862. No abstract available.

    PMID: 25919301BACKGROUND
  • Rossi P, Lipsey M, Freeman H. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 7th Edition ed: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2003.

    BACKGROUND
  • Bardach NS, Asteria-Penaloza R, Boscardin WJ, Dudley RA. The relationship between commercial website ratings and traditional hospital performance measures in the USA. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Mar;22(3):194-202. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001360. Epub 2012 Nov 23.

    PMID: 23178860BACKGROUND
  • Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, Darzi A, Majeed A, Wachter RM, Millett C. Associations between Web-based patient ratings and objective measures of hospital quality. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Mar 12;172(5):435-6. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1675. Epub 2012 Feb 13. No abstract available.

    PMID: 22331980BACKGROUND
  • Greaves F, Pape UJ, King D, Darzi A, Majeed A, Wachter RM, Millett C. Associations between Internet-based patient ratings and conventional surveys of patient experience in the English NHS: an observational study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jul;21(7):600-5. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000906. Epub 2012 Apr 20.

    PMID: 22523318BACKGROUND
  • Han E, Hudson Scholle S, Morton S, Bechtel C, Kessler R. Survey shows that fewer than a third of patient-centered medical home practices engage patients in quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):368-75. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1183.

    PMID: 23381530BACKGROUND
  • Clancy CM. Where we are a decade after To err is human. J Patient Saf. 2009 Dec;5(4):199-200. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3181c2114a. No abstract available.

    PMID: 22130210BACKGROUND
  • Guide to Patient and Family Engagement: Environmental Scan Report. October 2014; http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/final-reports/ptfamilyscan/ptfamilysum.html. Accessed June 10, 2015.

    BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Methods

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Investigative Techniques

Study Officials

  • Naomi Bardach, MD, MAS

    University of California, San Francisco

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
NA
Masking
NONE
Purpose
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Intervention Model
SINGLE GROUP
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

June 20, 2017

First Posted

June 29, 2017

Study Start

June 26, 2017

Primary Completion

April 27, 2018

Study Completion

April 27, 2018

Last Updated

October 26, 2018

Record last verified: 2018-10

Data Sharing

IPD Sharing
Will not share

Locations