Search

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention. During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies. KEY LESSONS: Study teams often need to monitor, adapt, and respond to QI during design and the course of the trial. Routine collaboration between ePCT researchers and health systems stakeholders throughout the trial can help ensure research and QI are optimally aligned to support high-quality patient-centered care.

While conducting a set of large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials involving high-impact public health issues such as end-stage renal disease, opioid use, and colorectal cancer, there were substantial changes to both policies and guidelines relevant to the trials. These external changes gave rise to unexpected challenges for the trials, including decisions regarding how to respond to new clinical practice guidelines, increased difficulty in implementing trial interventions, achieving separation between treatment groups, and differential responses across sites. In this article, we describe these challenges and the approaches used to address them. When deliberating appropriate action in the face of external changes during a pragmatic clinical trial, we recommend considering the well-being of the participants, clinical equipoise, and the strength and quality of the evidence associated with the change; involving those charged with data and safety monitoring; and where possible, planning for potential external changes as the trial is being designed. Any solution must balance the primary obligation to protect the well-being of participants with the secondary obligation to protect the integrity of the trial in order to gain meaningful answers to important public health questions.

BackgroundThe clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.MethodsTo strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.ResultsIn this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.ConclusionA planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients' and clinicians' rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement-related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.

Background We previously conducted a concept elicitation study on the impact of S taphylococcus aureus and gram-negative bacterial bloodstream infections (SAB/GNB) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the patient's perspective and found significant impacts on HRQoL, particularly in the physical and functional domains. Using this information and following guidance on the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, we determined which combination of measures and items (ie, specific questions) would be most appropriate in a survey assessing HRQoL in bloodstream infections. Methods We selected a variety of measures/items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) representing different domains. We purposefully sampled patients ~6–12 weeks post-SAB/GNB and conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews to refine the survey by exploring patients' understanding of items and answer selection as well as relevance for capturing HRQoL. Results We interviewed 17 SAB/GNB patients. Based on the first round of cognitive interviews (n = 10), we revised the survey. After round 2 of cognitive interviewing (n = 7), we finalized the survey to include 10 different PROMIS short forms/measures of the most salient HRQoL domains and 2 adapted questions (41 items total) that were found to adequately capture HRQoL. Conclusions We developed a survey from well-established PRO measures that captures what matters most to SAB/GNB patients as they recover. This survey, uniquely tailored to bloodstream infections, can be used to assess these meaningful, important HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials and in patient care. Engaging patients is crucial to developing treatments for bloodstream infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports the design and conduct of 31 embedded pragmatic clinical trials, and many of these trials use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide valuable information about their patients' health and wellness. Often these trials enroll medically underserved patients, including people with incomes below the federal poverty threshold, racial or ethnically minoritized groups, or rural or frontier communities. In this series of trial case reports, we provide lessons learned about collecting PROMs in these populations. The unbiased collection of PROM data is critical to increase the generalizability of trial outcomes and to address health inequities. Use of electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital modes of PROM administration have gained traction. However, engagement with these modes is often low among disparities prone populations due to lessened digital proficiency, device access, and uptake of EHR portals and web interfaces. To maximize the completeness and representativeness of their trial outcome data, study teams tested a range of strategies to improve PROM response rates with emphasis on disparities prone and underserved patient groups. This manuscript describes the approaches, their implementation, and the targeted populations. Optimized PROM collection required hybrid approaches with multiple outreach modes, high-touch methods, creativity in promoting digital uptake, multi-modal participant engagement, and text messaging., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Introduction: Self-reporting by patients though the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been shown to use increase patient satisfaction with care, and improve patient-provider communication, symptom management, and health quality. Additionally, PROs are increasingly used in research to expand understanding regarding the relative risks, benefits, and burdens of interventions. While experience embedding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into registries and clinical workflow is growing, there is little in the literature to guide those interested in incorporating PROs into routine clinical care and for use in research., Case Descriptions: The NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory PRO Core interviewed investigators from seven programs to get their first-hand experiences on the incorporation of PROs for both care and research, and the investigators have contributed to this manuscript as authors., Findings: We use these case studies to present practical approaches to initiating and implementing PROS, including instrument selection, tips for integrating PRO collection systems into clinical workflow, considerations for user experience and data collection, and the methods to assess and monitor quality., Conclusion: Because the decision to initiate and implement PRO collection impacts many different stakeholders, the solution requires collaboration among the involved parties, careful planning, and integration into clinical workflow.

Acute coronary syndromes are deadly conditions that affect millions of people across the nation. As our data show, significant opportunities for quality improvement exist. Heathcare professionals, especially those involved in cardiovascular management, should spearhead quality improvement initiatives at their facilities. These efforts may result in decreased costs, increased patient satisfaction, and more importantly, decreased mortality.

Objectives: We sought to examine contemporary utilization patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requiring intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation., Background: Despite increasing experience with and broadened indications for intra-aortic counterpulsation, the current indications, associated complications, and clinical outcomes of IABP use in AMI are unknown., Methods: Between June 1996 and August 2001, data were prospectively collected from 22,663 consecutive patients treated with aortic counterpulsation at 250 medical centers worldwide; 5,495 of these patients had AMI., Results: Placement of an IABP in AMI patients was most frequently indicated for cardiogenic shock (27.3%), hemodynamic support during catheterization and/or angioplasty (27.2%) or prior to high-risk surgery (11.2%), mechanical complications of AMI (11.7%), and refractory post-myocardial infarction unstable angina (10.0%). Balloon insertions were successful in 97.7% of patients. Diagnostic catheterization was performed in 96% of patients, and 83% underwent coronary revascularization before hospital discharge. The in-hospital mortality rate was 20.0% (38.7% in patients with shock) and varied markedly by indication and use of revascularization procedures. Major IABP complications occurred in only 2.7% of patients, despite median use for three days, and early IABP discontinuation was required in only 2.1% of patients., Conclusions: With contemporary advances in device technology, insertion technique, and operator experience, IABP counterpulsation may be successfully employed for a wide variety of conditions in the AMI setting, providing significant hemodynamic support with rare major complications in a high-risk patient population.