Search

Background Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) objectively measure health‐related quality of life and provide prognostic information. Advances in technology now allow for rapid, patient‐friendly PRO assessment and scoring, yet the adoption of PROs in clinic has been slow. We conducted a multicenter qualitative study of diverse providers to describe the barriers and facilitators of routine PRO use in heart failure clinics. Methods and Results Sixty heart failure providers from 5 institutions participated in 8 focus groups to explore provider perspectives on the use of heart failure‐specific and generic PROs in clinical practice. A qualitative editing approach was used to analyze the data, whereby a coding dictionary was iteratively developed and applied using the qualitative software program Altas.ti. Three main themes, supporting and impeding PRO use, emerged: (1) data collection; (2) presentation and interpretation; and (3) utility and value. For each construct, we identified perspectives that highlighted both barriers and facilitators. Providers identified burden, survey fatigue, and language/health literacy barriers as potentially impeding data collection. Optimal workflow, PRO frequency and length, use of PRO translations, and assistance of a patient's proxy were suggested as facilitators. Focus group discussions provided insight on how to display PROs to support its interpretability and sharing. Furthermore, the need to educate providers on the utility and value PROs over and above current clinical approaches emerged. Conclusions Overcoming the barriers and supporting facilitators of PRO adoption could potentially lead to more successful adoption of PROs in heart failure clinics.

Background: In the Next Accreditation System, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education outlines milestones for medical knowledge and requires regular didactic sessions in residency training. There are many challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences, and we need to better understand resident learning preferences and faculty perspectives on facilitating active learning. The goal of this study was to identify challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences, both through identifying specific implementation barriers and identifying differences in perspective between faculty and residents on effective teaching and learning strategies. Methods: The investigators invited core residency faculty to participate in focus groups. The investigators used a semistructured guide to facilitate discussion about learning preferences and teaching perspectives in the conference setting and used an ‘editing approach’ within a grounded theory framework to qualitative analysis to code the transcripts and analyze the results. Data were compared to previously collected data from seven resident focus groups. Results: Three focus groups with 20 core faculty were conducted. We identified three domains pertaining to facilitating active learning in resident conferences: barriers to facilitating active learning formats, similarities and differences in faculty and resident learning preferences, and divergence between faculty and resident opinions about effective teaching strategies. Faculty identified several setting, faculty, and resident barriers to facilitating active learning in resident conferences. When compared to residents, faculty expressed similar learning preferences; the main differences were in motivations for conference attendance and type of content. Resident preferences and faculty perspectives differed on the amount of information appropriate for lecture and the role of active participation in resident conferences. Conclusion: This study highlights several challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences and provides insights for residency faculty who seek to transform the conference learning environment within their residency program.

BackgroundAll federal agencies are required to support appropriation requests with evidence and evaluation (US Public Law 115-435; the Evidence Act). The StrAtegic PoLicy EvIdence-Based Evaluation CeNTer (SALIENT) is 1 of 6 centers that help the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) meet this requirement. ObjectiveWorking with the existing VA evaluation structure, SALIENT evaluations will contribute to (1) optimize policies and programs for veteran populations; (2) improve outcomes regarding health, equity, cost, and provider well-being; (3) advance the science of dissemination and knowledge translation; and (4) expand the implementation and dissemination science workforce. MethodsWe leverage the Lean Sprint methodology (iterative, incremental, rule-governed approach to clearly defined, and time-boxed work) and 3 cores to develop our evaluation plans collaboratively with operational partners and key stakeholders including veterans, policy experts, and clinicians. The Operations Core will work with evaluation teams to develop timelines, facilitate work, monitor progress, and guide quality improvement within SALIENT. The Methods Core will work with evaluation teams to identify the most appropriate qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches to address each evaluation, ensure that the analyses are conducted appropriately, and troubleshoot when problems with data acquisition and analysis arise. The Knowledge Translation (KT) Core will target key partners and decision makers using a needs-based market segmentation approach to ensure that needs are incorporated in the dissemination of knowledge. The KT Core will create communications briefs, playbooks, and other materials targeted at these market segments to facilitate implementation of evidence-based practices and maximize the impact of evaluation results. ResultsThe SALIENT team has developed a center infrastructure to support high-priority evaluations, often to be responsive to shifting operational needs and priorities. Our team has engaged in our core missions and operations to rapidly evaluate a high-priority areas, develop a comprehensive Lean Sprint systems redesign approach to training, and accelerate rapid knowledge translation. ConclusionsWith an array of interdisciplinary expertise, operational partnerships, and integrated resources, SALIENT has an established and evolving infrastructure to rapidly develop and implement high-impact evaluations. Projects are developed with sustained efficiency approaches that can pivot to new priorities as needed and effectively translate knowledge for key stakeholders and policy makers, while creating a learning health system infrastructure to foster the next generation of evaluation and implementation scientists. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/59830

BackgroundHealthcare experiences associated with perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among patients are poorly understood.ObjectiveIdentify domains of patient dissatisfaction associated with perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among patients with pain.DesignSemi-structured telephone surveys completed in 2013-2015.ParticipantsWhite, African American, and Latino participants who reported receiving pain management from 25 Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers.Main measuresSurveys included open-ended questions about healthcare satisfaction/dissatisfaction and a measure of perceived racial/ethnic-based discrimination while seeking VA healthcare. Binary indicators for ten qualitative domains of dissatisfaction were derived from open-ended questions. We used multilevel models to identify dissatisfaction domains associated with perceived discrimination, adjusting for patient characteristics and site. Within domains associated with discrimination, we identified the most frequent codes and examined whether patients primarily referenced clinical or non-clinical staff in their experiences.Key resultsOverall, 622 participants (30.4% White, 37.8% African American, 31.8% Latino; 57.4% female; mean age = 53.4) reported a median discrimination score of 1.0 (IQR: 1.0-1.3) on a scale of 1 to 5; 233 (37.5%) perceived any racial/ethnic discrimination in healthcare. Individually, 7 of 10 qualitative domains were significantly associated with perceived discrimination: dissatisfaction with care quality, facilities, continuity of care, interactions with staff, staff demeanor, unresolved pain, and pharmacy services (psConclusionNegative interpersonal experiences and unresolved pain are strong correlates of perceived racial/ethnic discrimination among patients with pain. Future studies should test whether interventions targeting these domains reduce patient perceptions of racial/ethnic discrimination in healthcare.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment has the potential to cure the leading cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. However, only those deemed eligible for treatment have the possibility of this cure. Therefore, understanding the determinants of HCV treatment eligibility is critical. Given that effective communication with and trust in healthcare providers significantly influences treatment eligibility decisions in other diseases, we aimed to understand patient-provider interactions in the HCV treatment eligibility process. This prospective cohort study was conducted in the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. Patients were recruited after referral for gastroenterology consultation for HCV treatment with interferon and ribavirin. Consented patients completed semi-structured interviews and validated measures of depression, substance and alcohol use, and HCV knowledge. Two coders analyzed the semi-structured interviews. Factors associated with patient eligibility for interferon-based therapy were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Of 339 subjects included in this analysis, only 56 (16.5%) were deemed eligible for HCV therapy by gastroenterology (GI) providers. In the multivariate logistic regression, patients who were older (OR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.92-0.99, p = .049), reported concerns about the GI provider (OR = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.10-0.87, p = 0.02) and had depression symptoms (OR = 0.32, 95%CI = 0.17-0.63, p = 0.001) were less likely to be eligible. Patients described barriers that included feeling stigmatized and poor provider interpersonal or communication skills. In conclusion, we found that patients' perceptions of the relationship with their GI providers were associated with treatment eligibility. Establishing trust and effective communication channels between patients and providers may lower barriers to potential HCV cure.