Dataset Information

Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS.

Methods

A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities.

Results

Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients).

Conclusions

The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.

SUBMITTER: Van Citters AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9219163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Our objective was to quantify short-term total within-person variability in standard and nontraditional kidney measures using national data.Repeated examination study of serum and urine kidney measures.Participants 18 years or older in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who had repeated blood and urine samples collected during visits occurring approximately 18 days apart.Standardized serum creatinine, standardized cystatin C, ?-trace protein (BTP), ?(2)-microglobulin (B2M), and urine albumin and creatinine. We calculated the within-person coefficient of variation (CV(w)), which includes both biological and analytical variability. We also evaluated the impact of variability on estimates of the prevalence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria.Serum cystatin C level demonstrated the lowest short-term within-person variability (CV(w) = 6.8%). Serum creatinine and B2M levels (CV(w) = 7.6% and 8.4%, respectively) also had low variability. BTP level had the most variability of the serum markers (CV(w) = 11.6%). As expected, urine albumin and urine creatinine measurements showed high variability (CV(w) >30% for both); however, albumin-creatinine ratio performed much better than either measure alone, with CV(w) of 11.3%. The effect of short-term variability on the prevalence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate was moderate, with an ~20% lower prevalence when defined based on single measurements compared to repeated application of the same test approximately 18 days apart. Repeated testing for albuminuria had a larger effect, showing a 33% lower prevalence of albuminuria when repeated testing was applied.Only 2 measurements available. General population with low prevalence of kidney disease.Our results suggest that creatinine, cystatin C, and B2M levels have similarly low short-term variability. BTP level was more variable compared with the other serum filtration markers. Urine albumin and creatinine levels were highly variable and may benefit from repeated assessments to reduce the misclassification of albuminuria.

Project description:BackgroundMental health care (MHC) needs to shift towards person-centered care to better meet people's individual needs. Open Dialogue (OD) is well-aligned with this perspective and brings it into practice. This study focuses on exploring the change process within a pilot project involving three MHC teams as they transition to a person-centered OD practice. Our aim is to identify and reflect on the challenges faced by MHC professionals in adopting person-centered care, and shedding light on the underlying complexity of these challenges. By gaining a better understanding of these obstacles, we hope to contribute to the adoption of the person-centered approach in MHC practice.MethodsOur research employed a qualitative design, involving a total of 14 semi-structured interviews with MHC professionals who were either trained in OD, OD trainees, or MHC professionals without OD training. To analyze the data, we utilized a hybrid approach that combined deductive - and inductive thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four distinctive challenges: (1) understanding and knowledge transfer, (2) (inter)personal process, (3) emotional discomfort, and (4) the need for multi-stakeholder participation and support. In practice, these challenges intersect and the appearance of and relationships between these challenges are not linear or disentangleable.ConclusionUpon careful consideration of these interdependent challenges, it became evident that embedding a person-centered approach like OD brings about systemic change, leading to an unfamiliar situation X. The research findings indicated that understanding and conveying the concept of person-centered care in practical settings poses significant challenges. The field of knowledge management helps to capture the complexity of understanding and transferring this knowledge. The change process necessitates an (inter)personal process and elicits emotional discomfort, as person-centered OD practice confronts a deeply entrenched paradigm in MHC. Achieving a shared understanding of person-centered care requires dedicated time and attention, while introducing this approach prompts broader discussions on underlying values and human rights in MHC. Current implementation efforts may underestimate or overlook these underlying values, but initiating an open dialogue can serve as an initial step in addressing the complexities.

Project description:Introduction:A major consideration for the implementation of a learning health system (LHS) is consent from participants to the use of their data for research purposes. The main objective of this paper was to identify in the literature which types of consent have been proposed for participation in research observational activities in a LHS. We were particularly interested in understanding which approaches were seen as most feasible and acceptable and in which context, in order to inform the development of a Quebec-based LHS. Methods:Using a scoping review methodology, we searched scientific and legal databases as well as the gray literature using specific terms. Full-text articles were reviewed independently by two authors on the basis of the following concepts: (a) LHS and (b) approach to consent. The selected papers were imported in NVivo software for analysis in the light of a conceptual framework that distinguishes various, largely independent dimensions of consent. Results:A total of 93 publications were analysed for this review. Several studies reach opposing conclusions concerning the best approach to consent within a LHS. However, in the light of the conceptual framework we developed, we found that many of these results are distorted by the conflation between various characteristics of consent. Thus, when these characteristics are distinguished, the results mainly suggest the prime importance of the communication process, by contrast to the scope of consent or the kind of action required by participants (opt-in/opt-out). We identified two models of consent that were especially relevant for our purpose: metaconsent and dynamic consent. Conclusions:Our review shows the importance of distinguishing carefully the various features of the consent process. It also suggests that the metaconsent model is a valuable model within a LHS, as it addresses many of the issues raised with regards to feasibility and acceptability. We propose to complement this model by adding the modalities of the information process to the dimensions relevant in the metaconsent process.