Search

The mission of the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) is to enhance the quality of VHA health care by implementing clinical research findings into routine care. This paper presents lessons that QUERI investigators have learned through their initial attempts to pursue the QUERI mission. The lessons in this paper represent those that were common across multiple QUERI projects and were mutually agreed on as having substantial impact on the success of implementation. While the lessons are consistent with commonly recognized ingredients of successful implementation efforts, the examples highlight the fact that, even with a thorough knowledge of the literature and thoughtful planning, unexpected circumstances arise during implementation efforts that require flexibility and adaptability. The findings stress the importance of utilizing formative evaluation techniques to identify barriers to successful implementation and strategies to address these barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Over the course of the last decade, interest in the use of large data repositories for clinical research in orthopedic and spine surgery has grown substantially. Detractors maintain that the clinical relevance of research conducted using large registries is limited, and that the academic influence of such studies is minimal. Such contentions have not been empirically evaluated.Purpose: This study sought to perform a systematic review of spinal research conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).Study Design: This is a systematic review.Outcome Measures: Impact factor (IF) of the journal of publication and number of citations of published articles conducted using the NSQIP.Methods: Orthopedic and spine-specific NSQIP articles published from January 1, 2007 to July 31, 2015, were identified through a query of PubMed or Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus. Articles were classified by journal of publication, year of publication, study topic, study purpose, and method of statistical analysis. Spine surgical publications were compared with other orthopedic research conducted using the NSQIP. The primary dependent variables for the purposes of statistical testing were IF of the journal in which the article was published and the number of citations for each publication. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the characteristics of papers associated with increased IF and number of citations.Results: Of the 1,525 articles identified in the initial search, 114 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The average IF for the journals publishing orthopedic NSQIP articles was 2.75 (standard deviation [SD] 1.22, range 0-5.28), whereas it was 2.52 (SD 0.81, range 1.38-5.28) for spinal research. The average number of citations per article was 6.08 (SD 10.9, range 0-69) and 6.4 (SD 12.0, range 0-69) for spine-specific studies. Following negative binomial regression, only IF (regression coefficients [RC] 0.31; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.08, 0.55) and the year of publication (RC -1.29; 9% CI -1.64, -0.95) were found to have a statistically significant association with number of citations. Among spine-specific research articles, only the year of publication was found to influence the number of citations (RC -1.29; 95% CI -1.94, -0.64).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the academic impact of orthopedic and spine surgical research conducted using NSQIP is highly variable, with most publications found to have relatively low impact. As our evaluation of study characteristics associated with high-impact publications and increased citations were unable to uncover factors that are likely translatable, we suggest following research design guidelines that highlight best practices when using large datasets for orthopedic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Burn Model System (BMS) program of research has been funded since 1993 by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). The overarching aim of this program is to improve outcomes and quality of life for people with burns in the areas of health and function, employment, and community living and participation. This review reports on BMS contributions that have affected the lives of individuals with a significant burn injury using case reports to associate BMS contributions with recovery. In January 2020, current BMS grantee researchers assessed peer-reviewed BMS publications from 1994 to 2020. Using case report methodology, contributions were linked to three individuals treated at one of the four Burn Model System institutions. With over 25 years of NIDILRR funding, unique BMS contributions to patient recovery were identified and categorized into one of several domains: treatment, assessment measures, sequelae, peer support, employment, and long-term functional outcomes. A second review for significant results of BMS research that add to the understanding of burn injury, pathophysiology, and recovery research was identified and categorized as injury recovery research. The case study participants featured in this review identified select NIDILRR research contributions as having direct, personal benefit to their recovery. The knowledge generation and clinical innovation that this research program has contributed to our collective understanding of recovery after burn injury is considerable. Using case study methodology with three adult burn survivors, we highlight the impact and individual significance of program findings and reinforce the recognition that the value of any clinical research must have relevance to the lives of the study population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Multi-institutional quality improvement registries (QI registries) are a promising approach to quality improvement. They are also used for clinical research, public quality reporting and other valuable purposes. The aim of this study was to identify elements and outcomes of national policies to promote registries in Sweden and to compare them with recent policies in the USA.Methods: This case study draws on previous studies of Swedish registries and on interviews, observations and document studies conducted in Sweden and the USA.Results: In Sweden, registries are fostered by favourable patient data regulation and an indirect control approach combining government funding with soft regulation and professional self-governance. This enables the development of high-quality QI registries which are used for improvements by engaged clinicians, for clinical research and for decision support for practitioners and stakeholders. For example, Riks-HIA/Swedeheart achieved improved outcomes in cardiac intensive care, SCAAR/Swedeheart was used in a unique registry-based randomized trial, and the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register provides a Web interface for patient encounters and clarifies adverse effects of biologic drugs. Still, the system has persistent limitations, especially the administrative burden on participants. In the USA, Medicare's programme for qualified clinical data registries and other recent changes mirror Swedish policies. Automated data capture is a US advantage, but uncertain funding and complex data regulations stall registry development in the USA.Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that tailor-made data regulation and a soft regulatory policy approach foster high-quality QI registries with multiple meaningful uses. These findings offer a framework for further cross-country comparative study to evaluate registry policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]