Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Related PCORI Dissemination and Implementation Project
|Article Highlight: This project tested a program called I-PASS that includes parents as active participants in pediatric unit rounds at eight hospitals to see whether it would improve hospital safety. Reporting in The BMJ, the research team found that the program reduced harmful medical errors—preventable adverse events—by 38 percent. The research team now plans to expand the program to more hospitals through a second PCORI award.|
Engaging Parents to Help Reduce Medical Errors in the Hospital
Reporting in The BMJ, the research team in this study found that a family-centered communication program in pediatric departments directly improves hospital safety.
- Improving patient safety? Ask the patient
- Ensure that the family’s voice is heard first and last, and in their own words
Can Family-Centered Hospital Rounds Reduce Medical Errors?
Christopher Landrigan describes his team's examination of an intervention for reducing medical errors, which might be as high as the third leading cause of death in the US. His study’s intervention put family at the center of daily hospital rounds conversations at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:
Overall, the reviewers found the report to be well written and to have conclusions fully supported by the results. The reviewer critiques were primarily about adding detail or clarity to the report, specifically in the areas of stakeholder involvement, generalizability, and the delivery of interventions.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Individuals with Multiple Chronic/co-morbid Conditions
Low Health Literacy/Numeracy