Search

Problem: COVID‐19 created new research, clinical, educational, and personal challenges, while simultaneously separating work teams who were under work‐from‐home restrictions. Addressing these challenges required new forms of collaborative groups. Approach: To support the department community and the rapid sharing of new research, educational, clinical, and personal efforts, a Core Team from the Department of Learning Health Sciences at the University of Michigan developed a meeting series called the COVID Conversations. This Experience Report shares the organizational structure of the COVID Conversations, proposes a comparison to traditional Learning Communities, and reports the results of a questionnaire that gathered details about department members' COVID‐related activities. Outcomes: We identify and describe salient similarities and differences between the COVID Conversations and the characteristics of Learning Communities. We also developed and piloted a taxonomy for characterizing LHS research projects that may be further developed for use in Learning Community planning, in conjunction with other maturity grids and ontologies. We propose the term "Meta‐Learning Community" to describe the structure and function of the COVID Conversations. Next Steps: In academic medicine, remote work, telemedicine, and virtual learning may be here to stay. The COVID Conversations constitute a distinct and innovative form of collaborative work in which separate teams addressing distinct goals, yet sharing a common passion to tackle the issues brought by the pandemic, are able to share experiences and learn from one other. The challenges of COVID‐19 have made evident the need for multiple forms of organizing teamwork, and our study contributes the notion of a "Meta"‐Learning Community as a new form of collaborative work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The rapid response to COVID‐19 has necessitated infrastructural development and reorientation in order to safely meet patient care needs. Methods: A qualitative case study was constructed within a larger ethnographic field study. Document collection and fieldnotes and recordings from nonparticipant observation of network activities were compiled and chronologically ordered to chart the network's response to changes in epilepsy care resulting from COVID‐19 and the rapid transition to telemedicine. Results: The network's response to COVID‐19 was characterized by a predisposition to action, the role of sharing as both a group practice and shared value, and the identification of improvement science as the primary contribution of the group within the larger epilepsy community's response to COVID‐19. The findings are interpreted as an example of how group culture can shape action via a transparent and mundane shared infrastructure. Conclusions: The case of one multi‐stakeholder epilepsy Learning Network provides an example of the use of infrastructure that is shaped by the group's culture. These findings contribute to the development of a social theory of infrastructure within Learning Health Systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ongoing experience and emerging evidence suggest that Collaborative Learning Health Systems (CLHSs) are a promising approach to transforming population outcomes and organizational care processes. As implied in their name, this type of Learning Health System both promotes and relies upon collaboration to achieve its aims. However, to realize the promise of the Collaborative Learning Health System, a better understanding of engagement as a catalyst for collaboration is necessary. In this commentary, we elaborate the phenomenon of engagement. We define engagement in the context of CLHSs, consider dimensions of engagement, and further explore the role of engagement as a catalyst of network functioning. We conclude by offering an agenda for research and practice intended to develop an understanding of engagement so as to further advance the theory and practice of CLHS efforts and ultimately promote the uptake of the CLHS model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Methods Results Conclusion Sharing patient health information and biospecimens can improve health outcomes and accelerate breakthroughs in medical research. But patients generally lack understanding of how their clinical data and biospecimens are used or commercialized for research. In this mixed methods project, we assessed the impact of communication materials on patient understanding, attitudes, and perceptions.Michigan Medicine patients were recruited for a survey (n = 480) or focus group (n = 33) via a web‐based research study portal. The survey assessed the impact of mode of communication about health data and biospecimen sharing (via an informational poster vs. a news article) on patient perceptions of privacy, transparency, comfort, respect, and trust. Focus groups provided in‐depth qualitative feedback on three communication materials, including a poster, FAQ webpage, and a consent form excerpt.Among survey respondents, the type of intervention (poster vs. news) made no statistically significant difference in its influence on any characteristic. However, 95% preferred that Michigan Medicine tell them about patient data and biospecimen research sharing versus hearing it from the news. Focus group participants provided additional insights, discussing values and perceptions of altruism and reciprocity, concerns about commercialization, privacy, and security; and the desire for consent, control, and transparency.Developing our understanding of patient data‐sharing practices and integrating patient preferences into health system policy, through this work and continued exploration, contributes to building infrastructure that can be used to support the development of a learning health system across hospital systems nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]