Dataset Information

The PBRN initiative: transforming new technologies to improve patient care.

ABSTRACT: The NIDCR-supported Practice-based Research Network initiative presents dentistry with an unprecedented opportunity by providing a pathway for modifying and advancing the profession. It encourages practitioner participation in the transfer of science into practice for the improvement of patient care. PBRNs vary in infrastructure and design, and sustaining themselves in the long term may involve clinical trial validation by regulatory agencies. This paper discusses the PBRN concept in general and uses the New York University College of Dentistry's Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network as a model to improve patient outcomes. The PEARL Network is structured to ensure generalizability of results, data integrity, and to provide an infrastructure in which scientists can address clinical practitioner research interests. PEARL evaluates new technologies, conducts comparative effectiveness research, participates in multidisciplinary clinical studies, helps evaluate alternative models of healthcare, educates and trains future clinical faculty for academic positions, expands continuing education to include "benchmarking" as a form of continuous feedback to practitioners, adds value to dental schools' educational programs, and collaborates with the oral health care and pharmaceutical industries and medical PBRNs to advance the dental profession and further the integration of dental research and practice into contemporary healthcare (NCT00867997, NCT01268605).

SUBMITTER: Curro FA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3383104 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The PBRN initiative: transforming new technologies to improve patient care.

Curro F A FA Vena D D Naftolin F F Terracio L L Thompson V P VP

Journal of dental research 20120701 7 Suppl

The NIDCR-supported Practice-based Research Network initiative presents dentistry with an unprecedented opportunity by providing a pathway for modifying and advancing the profession. It encourages practitioner participation in the transfer of science into practice for the improvement of patient care. PBRNs vary in infrastructure and design, and sustaining themselves in the long term may involve clinical trial validation by regulatory agencies. This paper discusses the PBRN concept in general and ...[more]

PMID: 22699662

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWith the growing prevalence of value-based contracts, health systems are incentivized to consider population approaches to service delivery, particularly for chronic conditions like depression. To this end, UW Medicine implemented the Depression-Population Approach to Health (PATH) program in primary care (PC) as part of a system-wide Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) quality improvement (QI) initiative.AimTo examine the feasibility of a pilot PATH program and its impact on clinical and process-of-care outcomes.SettingA large, diverse, geographically disparate academic health system in Western Washington State including 28 PC clinics across five networks.Program descriptionThe PATH program was a population-level, centralized, measurement-based care intervention that utilized a clinician to provide remote monitoring of treatment progress via chart review and facilitate patient engagement when appropriate. The primary goals of the program were to improve care engagement and increase follow-up PHQ-9 assessments for patients with depression and elevated initial PHQ-9 scores.Program evaluationWe employed a prospective, observational study design, including commercially insured adult patients with new depression diagnoses and elevated initial PHQ-9 scores. The pilot intervention group, consisting of accountable care network (ACN) self-enrollees (N = 262), was compared with a similar commercially insured cohort (N = 2527) using difference-in-differences analyses adjusted for patient comorbidities, initial PHQ-9 score, and time trends. The PATH program was associated with three times the odds of PHQ-9 follow-up (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.79-5.99), twice the odds of a follow-up PC clinic visit (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99-3.08), and twice the odds of treatment response, defined as reduction in PHQ-9 score by ≥ 50% (OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.97-4.21).DiscussionOur results demonstrate that a centralized, remote care management initiative is both feasible and effective for large academic health systems aiming to improve depression outcome ascertainment, treatment engagement, and clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, an important component of healthcare transformation in the United States, is an approach to primary care delivery with the goal of improving population health and the patient care experience while reducing costs. PCMH research most often focuses on system level indicators including healthcare use and cost; descriptions of patient and provider experience with PCMH are relatively sparse and commonly limited in scope. This study, part of a mixed-methods evaluation of a multi-year New York State initiative to refine and expand the PCMH model, describes patient and provider experience with New York State PCMH and its key components.MethodsThe qualitative component of the evaluation included focus groups with patients of PCMH practices in 5 New York State counties (n = 9 groups and 67 participants) and interviews with providers and practice administrators at New York State PCMH practices (n = 9 interviews with 10 participants). Through these focus groups and interviews, we elicited first-person descriptions of experiences with, as well as perspectives on, key components of the New York State PCMH model, including accessibility, expanded use of electronic health records, integration of behavioral health care, and care coordination.ResultsThere was evident progress and some satisfaction with the PCMH model, particularly regarding integrated behavioral health and, to some extent, expanded use of electronic health records. There was less evident progress with respect to improved access and reasonable wait times, which caused patients to continue to use urgent care or the emergency department as substitutes for primary care.ConclusionsIt is critical to understand the strengths and limitations of the PCMH model, so as to continue to improve upon and promote it. Strengths of the model were evident to participants in this study; however, challenges were also described. It is important to note that these challenges are difficult to separate from wider healthcare system issues, including inadequate incentives for value-based care, and carry implications for PCMH and other models of healthcare delivery.

Project description:BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Dataset Information

The PBRN initiative: transforming new technologies to improve patient care.

Publications

The PBRN initiative: transforming new technologies to improve patient care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets