BackgroundThe paradigm is shifting from separating family members from their children during resuscitation to one of patient-and family-centered care. However, widespread acceptance is still lacking. Objective To measure attitudes, behaviors, and experiences of family members of pediatric patients during the resuscitation phase of trauma care, including family members who were present and those who were not. Methods An observational mixed-methods study using structured interviews and focus groups was conducted at 3 level 1 pediatric trauma centers. Family members of children who met trauma team activation criteria (N = 126; 99 present, 27 not present) were interviewed; 25 also participated in focus groups. Results Mean attitude scores indicated a positive attitude about being present during the resuscitation phase of trauma care (3.65; SD, 0.37) or wanting to be present (3.2; SD, 0.60). Families present reported providing emotional support (94%) for their child and health care information (92%) to the medical team. Being present allowed them to advocate for their child, understand their child's condition, and provide comfort. Families in both groups felt strongly that the choice was their right but was contingent upon their bedside behavior. Conclusions Study findings demonstrated compelling family benefits for presence during pediatric trauma care. This study is one of the first to report on family members who were not present. The practice of family presence should be made a priority at pediatric trauma centers.

Background Errors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm due to mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence. Methods Errors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission, and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared. Results Thirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range 2–26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n=93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n=135) and commission (n=106) were more common than errors of selection (n=96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p=0.03 and p=0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p=0.004 and p=0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features. Conclusions Errors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE VI STUDY TYPE prognostic