<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Diagnostic excellence is an important domain of healthcare quality. Delays in diagnosis have been described in 20-30% of children with abusive injuries. Despite the well characterized epidemiology, improvement strategies remain elusive. We sought to assess the applicability of diagnostic improvement instruments to cases of non-accidental trauma and to identify potential opportunities for system improvement in child physical abuse diagnosis.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We purposefully sampled 10 cases identified as having potential for system level interventions and in which the child had prior outpatient encounters to review. Experts in pediatrics, child abuse, and diagnostic improvement independently reviewed each case and completed SaferDx, a validated instrument used to evaluate the diagnostic process. Cases were subsequently discussed to map potential opportunities for improving the diagnostic process to the DEER Taxonomy, which classifies opportunities by type and phase of the diagnostic process.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The most frequent improvement opportunities identified by the SaferDx were in recognition of potential alarm symptoms and in expanding differential diagnosis (5 of 10 cases). The most frequent DEER taxonomy process opportunities were in history taking (8 of 10) and hypothesis generation (7 of 10). Discussion elicited additional opportunities in reconsideration of provisional diagnoses, understanding biopsychosocial risk, and addressing information scatter within the electronic health record (EHR).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Applying a diagnostic excellence framework facilitated identification of systems opportunities to improve recognition of child abuse including integration of EHR information to support recognition of alarm symptoms, collaboration to support vulnerable families, and communication about diagnostic reasoning.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Event debriefing has established benefit, but its adoption is poorly characterized among pediatric ward providers. To improve patient safety, our hospital restructured its debriefing process for ward deterioration events culminating in ICU transfer. The aim of this study was to describe this process' implementation.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>In the restructured process, multidisciplinary ward providers are expected to debrief all ICU transfers. We conducted a multimethod analysis using facilitative guides completed by debriefing participants. Monthly debriefing completion served as an adoption metric.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Between March 2019 and February 2020, providers across 9 wards performed debriefing for 134 of 312 PICU transfers (43%). Bedside nurses participated most frequently (117 debriefings [87%]). There was no significant difference in debriefing by unit, acuity, season, or nurse staffing. Compared with units fully staffed by rotational frontline clinicians (FLCs; eg, resident physicians), units with dedicated FLCs whose responsibilities are primarily limited to that unit (eg, oncology hospitalists) completed significantly more monthly debriefings (average [SD] 57% [30%] vs 33% [28%] of PICU transfers; = .004). FLC participation was also higher on these units (50% of debriefings [37%] vs 24% [37%]; = .014). Through qualitative analysis, we identified distinct debriefing themes, with teaming activities such as communication cited most often.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Implementation of a multidisciplinary debriefing process for ward deterioration events culminating in ICU transfer was associated with differential adoption across providers and FLC staffing models but not acuity or nurse staffing. Teaming activities were a debriefing priority. Future study will assess patient safety outcomes.</p>