Dataset Information

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report.

ABSTRACT: There is renewed interest in patient engagement in clinical and research settings, creating a need for documenting and publishing lessons learned from efforts to meaningfully engage patients. This article describes early lessons learned from the development of OCHIN's Patient Engagement Panel (PEP). OCHIN supports a national network of more than 300 community health centers (CHCs) and other primary care settings that serve over 1.5 million patients annually across nearly 20 states. The PEP was conceived in 2009 to harness the CHC tradition of patient engagement in this new era of patient-centered outcomes research and to ensure that patients were engaged throughout the life cycle of our research projects, from conception to dissemination. Developed by clinicians and researchers within our practice-based research network, recruitment of patients to serve as PEP members began in early 2012. The PEP currently has a membership of 18 patients from 3 states. Over the past 24 months, the PEP has been involved with 12 projects. We describe developing the PEP and challenges and lessons learned (eg, recruitment, funding model, creating value for patient partners, compensation). These lessons learned are relevant not only for research but also for patient engagement in quality improvement efforts and other clinical initiatives.

SUBMITTER: Arkind J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4904782 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep-Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report.

Arkind Jill J Likumahuwa-Ackman Sonja S Warren Nate N Dickerson Kay K Robbins Lynn L Norman Kathy K DeVoe Jennifer E JE

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 20150901 5

There is renewed interest in patient engagement in clinical and research settings, creating a need for documenting and publishing lessons learned from efforts to meaningfully engage patients. This article describes early lessons learned from the development of OCHIN's Patient Engagement Panel (PEP). OCHIN supports a national network of more than 300 community health centers (CHCs) and other primary care settings that serve over 1.5 million patients annually across nearly 20 states. The PEP was c ...[more]

PMID: 26355135

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned.DesignA self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation.ParticipantsForty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured.Key resultsMost (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs.ConclusionsPCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Project description:The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Project description:BackgroundAlport syndrome is a hereditary kidney disease characterized by hematuria and proteinuria. Although there have been reports of autosomal dominant COL4A4 variants, this is likely an underdiagnosed condition. Improved access to affordable genetic testing has increased the diagnosis of Alport syndrome. As genetic testing becomes ubiquitous, it is imperative that clinical nephrologists understand the benefits and challenges associated with clinical genetic testing.Case presentationWe present a family of Mexican descent with a heterozygous COL4A4 variant (c.5007delC, ClinVar accession numbers: SCV001580980.2, SCV001993731.1) not previously discussed in detail in the literature. The proband received a biopsy diagnosis suggestive of Fabry disease 18 years after she first developed hematuria and progressed to chronic kidney disease stage III. One year later, the proband was provisionally diagnosed with Alport syndrome after a variant of uncertain significance in the COL4A4 gene was identified following targeted family variant testing of her daughter. Upon review of the medical histories of the proband's children and niece, all but one had the same variant. Of the four with the variant, three display clinical symptoms of hematuria, and/or proteinuria. The youngest of the four, only months old, has yet to exhibit clinical symptoms. Despite these findings there was a considerable delay in synthesizing this data, as patients were tested in different commercial genetic testing laboratories. Subsequently, understanding this family's inheritance pattern, family history, and clinical symptoms, as well as the location of the COL4A4 variant resulted in the upgrade of the variant's classification. Although the classification of this variant varied among different clinical genetic testing laboratories, the consensus was that this variant is likely pathogenic.ConclusionsThis COL4A4 variant (c.5007delC) not yet discussed in detail in the literature is associated with Alport syndrome. The inheritance pattern is suggestive of autosomal dominant inheritance. This report highlights the intricacies of variant interpretation and classification, the siloed nature of commercial genetic testing laboratories, and the importance of a thorough family history for proper variant interpretation. Additionally, the cases demonstrate the varied clinical presentations of Alport syndrome and suggest the utility of early screening, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment.

Project description:BackgroundPatient safety is a worldwide problem, and the patient contribution to mitigate the risk of patient harm is now recognized as a cornerstone to its solution. In order to understand the nature of integrating patients into patient safety and healthcare organizations and to monitor their integration, a Canadian survey tool has been co-constructed by patients, researchers and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI). This questionnaire has been adapted from the French version of the patient engagement (PE) in patient safety (PS) questionnaire created for the province of Quebec, Canada.MethodologyThe pan-Canadian PE in PS survey tool was developed in a five-step process: (1) a literature review and revision of the initial tool developed in the province of Quebec; (2) translation of the French questionnaire into an English version tool; (3) creation of a Canadian expert advisory group; (4) adaptation of the English version tool based on feedback from the expert advisory group (assessment and development of the construct's dimensions, wording assessment and adaptation for pan-Canadian use, technical testing of the online platform for the survey); and (5) pilot testing and pre-validation of the tool before pan-Canadian use.Results and conclusionEight pan-Canadian PE in PS surveys were completed from five Canadian provinces by the expert advisory group and six surveys were completed during the pilot project by participants from different provinces in Canada. This survey tool comprises 5 sections: (1) demographic identification of the participants (Q1 to Q5); (2) general questions (Q6 to Q17); (3) the patient engagement process (experience level of participants and organizational incentives for PE in general) (Q18 to Q33); (4) PE in PS processes, such as current activities, strategies, structures, resources and factors (Q34 to Q67); and (5) the context and impact of PE in PS initiatives in Canadian healthcare organizations (CHOs) (Q68 to Q75), including outcome identification, improvement mechanisms and strategies, evaluation mechanisms, and indicators.

Dataset Information

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report.

Publications

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets