Search

OBJECTIVES Clinical event debriefing (CED) can improve patient care and outcomes, but little is known about CED across inpatient settings, and participant experiences have not been well described. In this qualitative study, we sought to characterize and compare staff experiences with CED in 2 hospital units, with a goal of generating recommendations for a hospital-wide debriefing program. METHODS We conducted 32 semistructured interviews with clinical staff who attended a CED in the previous week. We explored experiences with CED, with a focus on barriers and facilitators. We used content analysis with constant comparative coding to understand priorities identified by participants. We used inductive reasoning to develop a set of CED practice recommendations to match participant priorities. RESULTS Three primary themes emerged related to CED barriers and facilitators. (1) Factors affecting attendance: most respondents voiced a need for frontline staff inclusion in CED, but they also cited competing clinical duties and scheduling conflicts as barriers. (2) Factors affecting participant engagement: respondents described factors that influence participant engagement in reflective discussion. They described that the CED leader must cultivate a psychologically safe environment in which participants feel empowered to speak up, free from judgment. (3) Factors affecting learning and systems improvement: respondents emphasized that the CED group should generate a plan for improvement with accountable stakeholders. Collectively, these priorities propose several recommendations for CED practice, including frontline staff inclusion. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we propose recommendations for CED that are derived from first-hand participant experiences. Future study will explore implementation of CED practice recommendations.

OBJECTIVES The facilitated discussion of events through clinical event debriefing (CED) can promote learning and wellbeing, but resident involvement is often limited. Although the graduate medical education field supports CED, interventions to promote resident involvement are limited by poor insight into how residents experience CED. The objective of this study was to characterize pediatric resident experiences with CED, with a specific focus on practice barriers and facilitators. METHODS We conducted this qualitative study between November and December 2020 at a large, free-standing children’s hospital. We recruited pediatric residents from postgraduate years 1 to 4 to participate in virtual focus groups. Focus groups were digitally recorded, deidentified, and transcribed. Transcripts were entered into coding software for analysis. We analyzed the data using a modified grounded theory approach to identify major themes. RESULTS We conducted 4 mixed-level focus groups with 26 residents. Our analysis identified multiple barriers and facilitators of resident involvement in CED. Several barriers were logistical in nature, but the most salient barriers were derived from unique features of the resident role. For example, residents described the transience of their role as a barrier to both participating and engaging in CED. However, they described advancing professional experience and the desire for reflective learning as facilitators. CONCLUSIONS Residents in this study highlighted many factors affecting their participation and engagement in CED, including barriers related to the unique features of their role. On the basis of resident experiences, we propose several recommendations for CED practice that graduate medical education programs and hospitals should consider for supporting resident involvement in CED.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES To inform efforts to reduce violent restraint use, we examined risk factors for restraint use among hospitalized children with known behavior concerns. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of restraint events in all hospitalizations from 2017 to 2019 on a 10-bed medical-surgical unit with dedicated mental health clinician support. We examined characteristics of restraint events, used adjusted logistic regression models to identify independent risk factors for restraint use, and used an adjusted Poisson regression model to determine the adjusted rate of restraint events per hospital day. RESULTS The sample included 1507 hospitalizations representing 1235 patients. Among included hospitalizations, 48% were for a psychiatric indication awaiting transfer to an inpatient psychiatric unit, and 52% were for a primary medical or surgical problem. Sixteen percent had a restraint event. Patient demographic characteristics were not associated with risk of a restraint event. Having a psychiatric indication for hospitalization was an independent risk factor for restraint use (odds ratio: 2.85; 95% confidence interval: 2.06–3.94). Rate of restraint use per day decreased as length of stay increased; hospitalizations lasting 9 days or longer had a 58% lower rate of restraint use per day than 1- to 2-day hospitalizations (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Interventions to reduce restraint use may benefit from incorporating information about a patient’s psychiatric risk factors, including type and number of diagnoses and reason for hospitalization. Future efforts could investigate whether providing enhanced behavior supports during the first several days of a patient’s hospitalization reduces violent restraint use.