Dataset Information

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.

ABSTRACT: How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as inquisition. Consequently, there is very little experience or literature on auditing and assessments in the complex preclinical biomedical research environment. To gain some insight into which audit approaches might best suit biomedical research in academia, in this study we have applied a number of them in a typical academic neuroscience environment consisting of twelve research groups with about 100 researchers, students and technicians, utilizing the full gamut of state-of-the-art methodology. Several types of assessments and internal as well as external audits (including the novel format of a peer audit) were systematically explored by a team of quality management specialists. An experimental design template was developed (and is provided here) that takes into account and mitigates difficulties, risks and systematic errors that may occur during the course of a study. All audits were performed according to a pre-defined workflow developed by us. Outcomes were assessed qualitatively. We asked for feedback from participating employees in every final discussion of an audit and documented this in the audit reports. Based on these reports follow-up audits were improved. We conclude that several realistic options for auditing exist which have the potential to improve preclinical biomedical research in academia, and have listed specific recommendations regarding their benefits and provided practical resources for their implementation (e.g. study design and audit templates, audit workflow).

SUBMITTER: Kurreck C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7561085 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.

Kurreck Claudia C Castaños-Vélez Esmeralda E Freyer Dorette D Blumenau Sonja S Przesdzing Ingo I Bernard Rene R Dirnagl Ulrich U

PloS one 20201015 10

How much can we rely on whether what was reported in a study was actually done? Systematic and independent examination of records, documents and processes through audits are a central element of quality management systems. In the context of current concerns about the robustness and reproducibility of experimental biomedical research audits have been suggested as a remedy a number of times. However, audits are resource intense and time consuming, and due to their very nature may be perceived as i ...[more]

PMID: 33057427

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompelling evidence has demonstrated that a large proportion of investment in biomedical research is wasted; this waste is avoidable. Academic institutions have, thus far, shown limited response to recommendations for increasing value and reducing waste. We formulated an academic response by (i) achieving consensus across a wide range of stakeholder groups on a comprehensive framework for quality of patient-oriented clinical research and (ii) highlighting first successful examples of its operationalization to facilitate waste-reducing strategies at academic institutions.Methods and findingsBased on a systematic review of quality definitions, concepts, and criteria in the medical literature (systematic MEDLINE search up to February 15, 2015, with independent and in duplicate article selection) and on stakeholder websites from 13 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States), we systematically developed a comprehensive framework for the quality of clinical research. We identified websites through personal contacts with experts in clinical research or public health who also suggested, for each country, websites of the following 7 stakeholder groups: patient organizations; academic research infrastructures; governmental bodies; regulatory agencies; ethics committees; the pharmaceutical industry; and funding agencies. In addition, we searched websites of inter- or supranational bodies involved in clinical research until no further insights emerged. After consolidation of the identified definitions, concepts, and criteria of quality in a basic framework structure, we conducted 4 rounds of an adapted online Delphi process among the same 7 stakeholder groups from 16 countries. The Delphi process ultimately achieved consensus on structure and content. The framework addresses 5 study stages (concept, planning and feasibility, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and reporting and knowledge translation) and includes the following dimensions: (i) protection of patient safety and rights, (ii) relevance/patient centeredness and involvement, (iii) minimization of bias (internal validity), (iv) precision, (v) transparency/access to data, and (vi) generalizability (external validity) of study results. These dimensions interact with 2 promoters-infrastructure and sustainability through education-that include a set of factors that may enhance all listed quality dimensions. Each quality dimension contains specific questions and explanatory items that guide quality assessment at each research stage from conceptualization of the research question through reporting and knowledge translation of study results. In the last survey round, Delphi participants from 9 countries (Austria, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and US) agreed on the structure, content, and wording of the research stages, quality dimensions, specific questions, and descriptive examples of the final framework. In Switzerland, INQUIRE has resulted in a roadmap that guides initiatives to increase value within the Swiss Clinical Trial Organization network and through affiliated researchers.ConclusionsWe present a framework based on a consensus of different stakeholder groups guiding the practical assessment of clinical research quality at all stages of a research project. Operationalization of this common structure will support the increase of value by guiding academic institutions and researchers in developing quality enhancement initiatives, from posing the right research question to the transparent publication of results.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) affects over 26 million people worldwide. Multidisciplinary management strategies that include symptom monitoring and patient self-care support reduce HF hospitalization and mortality rates. Ideally, HF follow-up and self-care support includes lifestyle-change recommendations and remote monitoring of weight and HF symptoms. Providing these via a digital solution may be ideal for improving HF disease outcomes and reducing the burden on providers and healthcare systems. This study's main objective was to assess the feasibility of a digital solution including remote monitoring, lifestyle-change, and self-care support for HF outpatients in Iceland.MethodsTwenty HF patients (mean age 57.5 years, 80% males) participated in an 8-week study. They were provided with a digital solution (SK-141), including lifestyle-change and disease self-care support, a remote symptom monitoring system, and a secure messaging platform between healthcare providers and patients. This feasibility study aimed to assess patient acceptability of this new intervention, retention rate, and to evaluate trends in clinical outcomes. To assess the acceptability of SK-141, participants completed a questionnaire about their experience after the 8-week study. Participants performed daily assigned activities (missions), including self-reporting symptoms. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at the study's beginning and end with an online survey.ResultsOf the 24 patients invited, 20 were elected to participate. The retention rate of participants throughout the 8-week period was high (80%). At the end of the 8 weeks, thirteen participants completed a questionnaire about their experience and acceptability of the SK-141. They rated their experience positively including on questions whether they would recommend the solution to others (6.8 on a scale of 1-7), whether the solution had improved their life and well-being (5.7 on a scale of 1-7), and whether it was user friendly (5.5 on a scale of 1-7). Many of the clinical parameters studied exhibited a promising trend towards improvement over the 8-week period.ConclusionThe digital solution, SK-141, was very acceptable to patients and also showed promising clinical results in this small feasibility study. These results encourage us to conduct a longer, more extensive, adequately powered, randomized-controlled study to assess whether this digital solution can improve the quality of life and clinical outcomes among HF patients.

Project description:BackgroundRegular screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, has a regional screening programme offering faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) or colonoscopy. Participation in the screening programme has been low, particularly among complex patients. Patient navigation has strong evidence for increasing the CRC screening rate.Design and objectiveThis feasibility study tested patient navigation performed by medical assistants for complex patients at an academic primary care practice.Baseline measurementsA review of 328 patients' medical charts revealed that 51% were up-to-date with screening (16% within the programme), 24% were ineligible, 5% had a documented refusal and 20% were not up-to-date, of whom 58 (18%) were complex patients. INTERVENTION FEBRUARY 2023 TO MAY 2023: We tried to help complex patients participate in the screening programme using either in-person or telephone patient navigation. Each intervention was piloted by a physician-researcher and then performed by a medical assistant. Based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework, we collected: Intervention participation and refusal, screening acceptance and completion and both patients and medical assistant acceptability (ie, qualitative interviews).ResultsOnly 4/58 (7%) patients participated in the in-person patient navigation test phase due to scheduling problems. All four patients accepted a prescription and 2/4 (50%) completed their test. We piloted a telephone intervention to bypass scheduling issues but all patients refused a telephone discussion with the medical assistant. At two months after the last intervention, the proportion of patients up-to-date increased from 51% to 56%.ConclusionOur overall approach was resource-intensive and had little impact on the overall participation rate. It was likely not sustainable. New approaches and reimbursement for a specific patient navigator role are needed to increase CRC screening of complex patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression is associated with a loss of productivity and noticeable personal, social, and economic decline; it affects more than 350 million people worldwide. Behavioral activation (BA), derived from cognitive behavioral therapy, has drawn increasingly more interest as a means of treatment for major depressive disorder due to its relative cost-effectiveness and efficacy. In this study, we disseminate findings from a feasibility study evaluating barriers to implementing a group BA program for major depressive disorder. The purpose of this feasibility study is to assess both patient and clinician perceptions on components of a group-based behavioral activation (BA) program. In particular, this feasibility study provides in-depth evaluation of the acceptability of BA prior to the design and implementation of a randomized trial to investigate BA effectiveness. Findings from this study directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study. METHODS:This qualitative study was completed through the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. The authors of this study used data from two focus group sessions, one consisting of an interdisciplinary group of clinicians working in the Mood Disorders Program, and the other of registered outpatients of the Mood Disorders Program with a confirmed clinical diagnosis of depression. The benefits of offering this program in a group format, mainly social skill development opportunities and the use of technology such as activity tracking device, smart phones, and tablets during the therapy sessions, are a major focus of both the clinician and patient groups. Both groups emphasized the importance of offering sustainable activation. RESULTS:Differences in opinions existed between staff and patient groups regarding the use of technology in the program, though ultimately it was agreed upon that technology could be useful as a therapeutic aid. All participants agreed that behavioral activation was essential to the development of positive habits and routines necessary for recovery from depression. Patients agreed the program looked sustainable and stressed the potential benefit for improving depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Discussions from clinician and patient-centered focus groups directly informed decisions regarding the design and implementation of BA during the pilot trial. Specific components of BA were assessed and modified based on the results of this study. These findings provide insight for clinicians providing behavioral activation programming, and will serve as a framework for the development of the Out of the Blues program, a group-based BA program to be piloted in the Mood Disorders Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials registration number NCT02045771.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.Data sources and study settingThis project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.Study designExpert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.Data collection/extraction methodsPriority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.Principal findingsHealth care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.ConclusionsAs the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Dataset Information

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.

Publications

Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets