Implementing a Family-Centered Rounds Intervention Using Novel Mentor-Trios.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient and Family Centered I-PASS (PFC I-PASS) emphasizes family and nurse engagement, health literacy, and structured communication on family-centered rounds organized around the I-PASS framework (Illness severity-Patient summary-Action items-Situational awareness-Synthesis by receiver). We assessed adherence, safety, and experience after implementing PFC I-PASS using a novel "Mentor-Trio" implementation approach with multidisciplinary parent-nurse-physician teams coaching sites. METHODS: Hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation study from 2/29/19-3/13/22 with ≥3 months of baseline and 12 months of postimplementation data collection/site across 21 US community and tertiary pediatric teaching hospitals. We conducted rounds observations and surveyed nurses, physicians, and Arabic/Chinese/English/Spanish-speaking patients/parents. RESULTS: We conducted 4557 rounds observations and received 2285 patient/family, 1240 resident, 819 nurse, and 378 attending surveys. Adherence to all I-PASS components, bedside rounding, written rounds summaries, family and nurse engagement, and plain language improved post-implementation (13.0%-60.8% absolute increase by item), all P < .05. Except for written summary, improvements sustained 12 months post-implementation. Resident-reported harms/1000-resident-days were unchanged overall but decreased in larger hospitals (116.9 to 86.3 to 72.3 pre versus early- versus late-implementation, P = .006), hospitals with greater nurse engagement on rounds (110.6 to 73.3 to 65.3, P < .001), and greater adherence to I-PASS structure (95.3 to 73.6 to 72.3, P < .05). Twelve of 12 measures of staff safety climate improved (eg, "excellent"/"very good" safety grade improved from 80.4% to 86.3% to 88.0%), all P < .05. Patient/family experience and teaching were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals successfully used Mentor-Trios to implement PFC I-PASS. Family/nurse engagement, safety climate, and harms improved in larger hospitals and hospitals with better nurse engagement and intervention adherence. Patient/family experience and teaching were not affected.

Engaging GME Learners in Health System-Aligned Improvement Work in the Clinical Learning Environment.

Alignment between graduate medical education (GME) and health system priorities is foundational to meaningful engagement of residents and fellows in systems improvement work within the clinical learning environment. The Residents and Fellows Leading Interprofessional Continuous Improvement Teams program at the University of California San Francisco was designed over a decade ago to address barriers to trainee participation in health system-based improvement work. The program provides structure and support for health system-aligned trainee-led improvement projects in the clinic learning environment. Project champions (residents/fellows) from GME programs attend workshops where they learn improvement methodologies and develop proposals for health system-based improvement projects for their training programs. Proposals are supported by local faculty mentors and are reviewed and approved by GME and health systems' leaders. During the academic year, teams share their progress using visual management boards and interactive leader rounds. The health system provides a modest financial incentive for successful projects. Since the program's inception, thousands of trainees from 58 residency and fellowship programs have participated either as champions or participants in the program at least once, and in total over 300 projects have been implemented. Approximately three-quarters of the specific improvement goals were met, all projects meaningfully engaged residents and fellows, and many projects continued after the learners graduated. This active partnership between GME and a health system created a symbiotic relationship; trainees received education and support to complete improvement projects, while the health system reaped additional benefits from the alignment and impact of the projects. This partnership continues to grow with steady increases in participating programs, spread to partner health systems, and scholarship for trainees and faculty.

Analyzing Linguistic Disparities in Telehealth Care Outcomes at a Multidisciplinary Craniofacial Center.

OBJECTIVE: To examine linguistic disparities between English- and Spanish-speaking patients in access to care, satisfaction, and telehealth appointment attendance. DESIGN: Retrospective study recording demographics for non-attendance analysis and conducting phone surveys assessing satisfaction with telehealth. SETTING: Data was collected between March and December 2020 at the UCSF Craniofacial Center (CFC), a multidisciplinary pediatric clinic. Patients: English- and Spanish-speaking patients with a telehealth appointment. Interventions: The CFC offered language-concordant outreach, assistance with the telehealth platform, and interpreters at all telehealth appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics and patient-reported satisfaction with telehealth, barriers, and instruction clarity. RESULTS: Medicaid insurance was the only predictor of non-attendance. Surveys revealed that Spanish-speakers had 12.4 times the odds of lacking access to telehealth technology and 10.7 times the odds of needing help with logging on compared to English-speakers. There were no significant differences in satisfaction outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We attribute this equity in satisfaction to our language-concordant outreach efforts.

Identifying Value Factors in Institutional Leaders' Perspectives on Investing in Health Professions Educators.

Importance: Investing in educators, educational innovation, and scholarship is essential for excellence in health professions education and health care. Funds for education innovations and educator development remain at significant risk because they virtually never generate offsetting revenue. A broader shared framework is needed to determine the value of such investments. Objective: To explore the value factors using the value measurement methodology domains (individual, financial, operational, social or societal, strategic or political) that health professions leaders placed on educator investment programs, including intramural grants and endowed chairs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with participants from an urban academic health professions institution and its affiliated systems that were conducted between June and September 2019 and were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes with a constructivist orientation. Participants included 31 leaders at multiple levels of the organization (eg, deans, department chairs, and health system leaders) and with a range of experience. Individuals who did not respond initially were followed up with until a sufficient representation of leader roles was achieved. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes include value factors defined by the leaders for educator investment programs across the 5 value measurement methodology domains: individual, financial, operational, social or societal, and strategic or political. Results: This study included 29 leaders (5 [17%] campus or university leaders; 3 [10%] health systems leaders; 6 [21%] health professions school leaders; 15 [52%] department leaders). They identified value factors across the 5 value measurement methods domains. Individual factors emphasized the impact on faculty career, stature, and personal and professional development. Financial factors included tangible support, the ability to attract additional resources, and the importance of these investments as a monetary input rather than output. Operational factors identified educational programs and faculty recruitment or retention. Social and societal factors showcased scholarship and dissemination benefits to the external community beyond the organization and to the internal community of faculty, learners, and patients. Strategic and political factors highlighted impact on culture and symbolism, innovation, and organizational success. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that health sciences and health system leaders find value in funding educator investment programs in multiple domains beyond direct financial return on investment. These value factors can inform program design and evaluation, effective feedback to leaders, and advocacy for future investments. This approach can be used by other institutions to identify context-specific value factors.

Disparities in Timing of Alveolar Bone Grafting and Dental Reconstruction in Patients With Clefts.

This study sought to identify disparities in the timing of alveolar bone grafting (ABG) surgery and the replacement strategy for missing maxillary lateral incisors for patients with clefts.A retrospective record review identified patients who underwent ABG. Multivariable regression analyzed the independent contribution of each variable.This institutional study was performed at the University of California, San Francisco.Patients who presented under age 12 and underwent secondary ABG between 2012 and 2020 (n = 160).The age at secondary ABG and the recommended dental replacement treatment for each patient, either dental implantation or canine substitution.The average age at ABG was 10.8 ± 2.1 years, 106 (66.3%) patients were not White, and 80 (50.0%) had private insurance. Independent predictors of older age at ABG included an income below $ 50 000 as estimated from ZIP code (ß = 15.0 months, 95% CI, 5.7-24.3, P = .002) and identifying as a race other than White (ß = 10.1 months, 95% CI, 2.1-18.0, P = .01). After ABG, patients were more likely to undergo dental implantation over canine substitution if they were female (odds ratio [OR] = 4.3, 95% CI, 1.3-17.1, P = .02) or had private insurance (OR = 12.5, 95% CI, 2.2-143.2, P = .01).Patients who were low-income or not White experienced delays in ABG, whereas dental implantation was more likely to be recommended for patients with private insurance. Understanding the sources of disparities in dental reconstruction of cleft deformities may reveal opportunities to improve equity.

Where Is the Digitally Silent Provider? Development and Validation of a Team-Centered Electronic Health Record Attribution Model for Supervising Residents.

PROBLEM: Providing trainees with data and benchmarks on their own patient populations is an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core residency requirement. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) for this purpose relies on correctly attributing patients to the trainees responsible for their care. EHR activity logs are useful for attributing interns to inpatients but not for attributing supervising residents, who often have no inpatient EHR usage obligations, and therefore may generate no digital "footprints" on a given patient-day from which to ascertain attribution. APPROACH: The authors developed and tested a novel team-centered binary logistic regression model leveraging EHR activity logs from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, for pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) supervising residents at the University of California, San Francisco. Unlike patient-centered models that determine daily attribution according to the trainee generating the greatest relative activity in individual patients' charts, the team-centered approach predicts daily attribution based on the trainee generating EHR activity across the greatest proportion of a team's patients. To assess generalizability, the authors similarly modeled supervising resident attribution in adult hospital medicine (AHM) and orthopedic surgery (OS). OUTCOMES: For PHM, AHM, and OS, 1,100, 1,399, and 803 unique patient encounters and 29, 62, and 10 unique supervising residents were included, respectively. Team-centered models outperformed patient-centered models for the 3 specialties, with respective accuracies of 85.4% versus 72.4% (PHM), 88.7% versus 75.4% (AHM), and 69.3% versus 51.6% (OS; P < .001 for all). AHM and PHM models demonstrated relative generalizability to one another while OS did not. NEXT STEPS: Validation at other institutions will be essential to understanding the potential for generalizability of this approach. Accurately attributed data are likely to be trusted more by trainees, enabling programs to operationalize feedback for use cases including performance measurement, case mix assessment, and postdischarge opportunities for follow-up learning.

Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: A multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Handoff miscommunications are a leading source of medical errors. Harmful medical errors decreased in pediatric academic hospitals following implementation of the I-PASS handoff improvement program. However, implementation across specialties has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To determine if I-PASS implementation across diverse settings would be associated with improvements in patient safety and communication. DESIGN: Prospective Type 2 Hybrid effectiveness implementation study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents from diverse specialties across 32 hospitals (12 community, 20 academic). INTERVENTION: External teams provided longitudinal coaching over 18 months to facilitate implementation of an enhanced I-PASS program and monthly metric reviews. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Systematic surveillance surveys assessed rates of resident-reported adverse events. Validated direct observation tools measured verbal and written handoff quality. RESULTS: 2735 resident physicians and 760 faculty champions from multiple specialties (16 internal medicine, 13 pediatric, 3 other) participated. 1942 error surveillance reports were collected. Major and minor handoff-related reported adverse events decreased 47% following implementation, from 1.7 to 0.9 major events/person-year (p < .05) and 17.5 to 9.3 minor events/person-year (p < .001). Implementation was associated with increased inclusion of all five key handoff data elements in verbal (20% vs. 66%, p < .001, n = 4812) and written (10% vs. 74%, p < .001, n = 1787) handoffs, as well as increased frequency of handoffs with high quality verbal (39% vs. 81% p < .001) and written (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) patient summaries, verbal (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) and written (24% vs. 73%, p < .001) contingency plans, and verbal receiver syntheses (31% vs. 83%, p < .001). Improvement was similar across provider types (adult vs. pediatric) and settings (community vs. academic).

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Prompt Craniosynostosis Workup and Treatment.

The purpose of this study was to identify racial and socioeconomic disparities in craniosynostosis evaluation and treatment, from referral to surgery. Patients diagnosed with craniosynostosis between 2012 and 2020 at a single center were identified. Chart review was used to collect demographic variables, age at referral to craniofacial care, age at diagnosis, age at surgery, and surgical technique (open versus limited incision). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models with lasso regularization assessed the independent effect of each variable. A total of 298 patients were included. Medicaid insurance was independently associated with a delay in referral of 83 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 4-161, P=0.04]. After referral, patients were diagnosed a median of 21 days later (interquartile range 7-40), though this was significantly prolonged in patients who were not White (ß 23 d, 95% CI 9-38, P=0.002), had coronal synostosis (ß 24 d, 95% CI 2-46, P=0.03), and had multiple suture synostosis (ß 47 d, 95% CI 27-67, P<0.001). Medicaid insurance was also independently associated with diagnosis over 3 months of age (risk ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, P=0.002) and undergoing surgery over 1 year of age (risk ratio 3.9, 95% CI 1.1-9.4, P=0.04). In conclusion, Medicaid insurance was associated with a 3-month delay in referral to craniofacial specialists and increased risk of diagnosis over 3 months of age, limiting surgical treatment options in this group. Patients with Medicaid also faced a 4-fold greater risk of delayed surgery, which could result in neurodevelopmental sequelae.

Family, nurse, and physician beliefs on family-centered rounds: A 21-site study.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in family-centered rounds (FCR). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand patient/family and clinician FCR beliefs/attitudes and practices to support implementation efforts. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients/families and clinicians at 21 geographically diverse US community/academic pediatric teaching hospitals participated in a prospective cohort dissemination and implementation study. INTERVENTION: We inquired about rounding beliefs/attitudes, practices, and demographics using a 26-question survey coproduced with family/nurse/attending-physician collaborators, informed by prior research and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Out of 2578 individuals, 1647 (64%) responded to the survey; of these, 1313 respondents participated in FCR and were included in analyses (616 patients/families, 243 nurses, 285 resident physicians, and 169 attending physicians). Beliefs/attitudes regarding the importance of FCR elements varied by role, with resident physicians rating the importance of several FCR elements lower than others. For example, on adjusted multivariable analysis, attending physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.2-7.8) and nurses (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.4) were much more likely than resident physicians to report family participation on rounds as very/extremely important. Clinician support for key FCR elements was higher than self-reported practice (e.g., 88% believed family participation was important on rounds; 68% reported it often/always occurred). In practice, key elements of FCR were reported to often/always occur only 23%-70% of the time. RESULT: Support for nurse and family participation in FCR is high among clinicians but varies by role. Physicians, particularly resident physicians, endorse several FCR elements as less important than nurses and patients/families. The gap between attitudes and practice and between clinician types suggests that attitudinal, structural, and cultural barriers impede FCR.

Family Input for Quality and Safety (FIQS): Using mobile technology for in-hospital reporting from families and patients.

OBJECTIVE: Despite three decades of effort, ensuring inpatient safety remains elusive. Patients and family members are a potential source of safety observations, but systems gathering these are limited. Our goal was to test a system to gather safety observations from hospitalized patients and their family members via a real-time mobile health tool. METHODS: We developed a mobile-responsive website for reporting safety observations. We piloted the tool during June 2017-April 2018 on the medical-surgical unit of a children's hospital. Participants were English-speaking family members and patients ≥13 years. We sent a daily text with a website link. We assessed: (1) face validity by comparing observations to incident reporting (IR) criteria and to hospital IRs and (2) associations between the number of safety observations/100 patient-days and participant characteristics using Poisson regression. RESULTS: We enrolled 235 patients (43.8% of 537 reviewed for eligibility), resulting in 8.15 safety reports/100 patient-days, most frequently regarding medications (29% of reports) and communication (20% of reports). Fifty-one (40% of 125) met IR criteria; only one (1.1%) had been reported via the IR system. Latinx participants submitted fewer observations than White participants (3.9 vs. 10.1, p = .002); participants with more prior hospitalizations submitted more observations (p < .001). In adjusted analyses, including measures of preference in decision making, and patient activation, the difference between Latinx and White participants diminished substantially (6.4 vs. 11.3, p = .16). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of real-time patient and family-member technology-enabled safety observation reporting and elicited reports not otherwise identified. Variation in reporting may potentially exacerbate disparities in safety if not addressed.

Improving ondansetron use and oral rehydration instructions for pediatric acute gastroenteritis.

In paediatric patients with acute gastroenteritis (AGE), ondansetron use decreases the need for intravenous fluids, reduces hospitalisations and shortens illness duration. Oral rehydration is also known to have excellent outcomes for mild to moderate dehydration secondary to AGE. Although these interventions are recommended in guidelines from international professional societies, baseline data at our clinic showed that <2% of these patients were offered ondansetron, and that few patients received appropriately detailed rehydration instructions. Therefore, we engaged residents and fellows as teachers and leaders in our university clinic's quality improvement programme to promote evidence-based practice for paediatric AGE. Our gap analysis identified opportunities for interventions including educating paediatricians and paediatrics residents on the safety and utility of the medication. We created standardised oral rehydration after-visit instructions and implemented a trainee-led educational approach that encouraged appropriate medication use. We used a follow-up survey to uncover provider concerns and tailor future interventions. The process metrics included: proportion of paediatric patients appropriately treated with ondansetron (goal of 80%), and proportion of patients given appropriate oral rehydration instructions. The outcome metric was 7-day representation rates. To achieve sustainability, we restructured our process to have senior residents take ownership of teaching and data collection. Trainee-driven interventions increased ondansetron prescription rates to a median of 66.6%. Patients prescribed ondansetron were less likely to represent to care, although representation rate was low overall. Postintervention data suggests that prescription rates decreased without continued interventions and additional systems redesign may help sustain impact.

Improving Diversity in Pediatric Residency Selection: Using an Equity Framework to Implement Holistic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many programs struggle to recruit, select, and match a diverse class of residents, and the most effective strategies for holistic review of applications to enhance diversity are not clear. OBJECTIVE: We determined if holistic pediatric residency application review guided by frameworks that assess for bias along structural, interpersonal, and individual levels would increase the number of matched residents from racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine (UiM). METHODS: Between 2017 and 2020, University of California San Francisco Pediatrics Department identified structural, interpersonal, and individual biases in existing selection processes and developed mitigation strategies in each area. Interventions included creating a shared mental model of desirable qualities in residents, employing a new scoring rubric, intentional inclusion of UiM faculty and trainees in the selection process, and requiring anti-bias training for everyone involved with recruitment and selection. RESULTS: Since implementing these changes, the percentage of entering interns who self-identify as UIM increased from 11% in 2015 to 45% (OR 6.8, P = .008) in 2019 and to 35% (OR 4.6, P = .035) in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Using an equity framework to guide implementation of a pediatric residency program's holistic review of applications increased the numbers of matched UiM residents over a 3-year period.

Transitioning Multidisciplinary Craniofacial Care to Telehealth during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single Center Experience.

Craniofacial clinics are composed of multidisciplinary teams of providers to deliver coordinated and comprehensive patient care. The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted this model, as social distancing guidelines have precluded in-person patient appointments and forced clinics to reconsider their method of care delivery. The University of California, San Francisco, Craniofacial Center has continued to serve patients during this acute period, adopting a hybrid model in which the vast majority of patients are seen through telehealth and a limited number of patients are evaluated in-person. Surveyed patients and families reported high rates of satisfaction, with time savings cited as a particular benefit. Furthermore, most felt comfortable using the video technology required for their appointment. This experience has demonstrated to us that multidisciplinary craniofacial evaluations can be effectively delivered in a telehealth format and has informed our conception of idealized clinic structure. Moving forward, we intend to utilize telehealth visits for selected components of craniofacial evaluations in an effort to maximize efficiency and minimize burden, including addressing barriers to accessing care. Benefits of a hybrid model will include decongestion of clinics and waiting areas, allowing social distancing, addressing clinic space limits, and increased efficiency by eliminating the need for patient and family movement. Demonstration of the safety and efficacy of telehealth visits, combined with regulatory reform that improves reimbursement and allows for appointments across state lines, will be critical for this model to persist beyond the pandemic.

I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum: Frontline Provider Training Materials.

Introduction: The I-PASS Handoff Program is a comprehensive handoff curriculum that has been shown to decrease rates of medical errors and adverse events during patient handoffs. Frontline providers are the key individuals participating in handoffs of patient care. It is important they receive robust handoff training. Methods: The I-PASS Mentored Implementation Handoff Curriculum frontline provider training materials were created as part of the original I-PASS Study and adapted for the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program. The adapted materials embrace a flipped classroom approach with an emphasis on adult learning theory principles. The training includes an overview of I-PASS handoff techniques, TeamSTEPPS team communication strategies, verbal handoff simulation scenarios, and a printed handoff document exercise. Results: As part of the SHM I-PASS Mentored Implementation Program, 2,735 frontline providers were trained at 32 study sites (16 adult and 16 pediatric) across North America. At the end of their training, 1,762 frontline providers completed the workshop evaluation form (64% response rate). After receiving the training, over 90% agreed/strongly agreed that they were able to distinguish a good- from a poor-quality handoff, articulate the elements of the I-PASS mnemonic, construct a high-quality patient summary, advocate for an appropriate environment for handoffs, and participate in handoff simulations. Universally, the training provided them with knowledge and skills relevant to their patient care activities. Discussion: The I-PASS frontline training materials were rated highly by those trained and are an integral part of a successful I-PASS Handoff Program implementation.

Trainee and Program Director Perspectives on Meaningful Patient Attribution and Clinical Outcomes Data.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specifies that trainees must receive clinical outcomes and quality benchmark data at specific levels related to institutional patient populations. Program directors (PDs) are challenged to identify meaningful data and provide them in formats acceptable to trainees. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand what types of patients, data/metrics, and data delivery systems trainees and PDs prefer for supplying trainees with clinical outcomes data. METHODS: Trainees (n = 21) and PDs (n = 12) from multiple specialties participated in focus groups during academic year 2017-2018. They described key themes for providing clinical outcomes data to trainees. RESULTS: Trainees and PDs differed in how they identified patients for clinical outcomes data for trainees. Trainees were interested in encounters where they felt a sense of responsibility or had autonomy/independent decision-making opportunities, continuity, or learned something new; PDs used broader criteria including all patients cared for by their trainees. Both groups thought trainees should be given trainee-level metrics and consistently highlighted the importance of comparison to peers and/or benchmarks. Both groups found value in "push" and "pull" data systems, although trainees wanted both, while PDs wanted one or the other. Both groups agreed that trainees should review data with specific faculty. Trainees expressed concern about being judged based on their patients' clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Trainee and PD perspectives on which patients they would like outcomes data for differed, but they overlapped for types of metrics, formats, and review processes for the data.

Jump-Starting Faculty Development in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Education: A Team-Based Approach.

PROBLEM: Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) are cornerstones of health care delivery. Accreditation organizations increasingly require that learners engage in QIPS. For many faculty, these are new domains. Additional faculty development is needed for them to teach and mentor trainees. Existing programs, such as the Association of American Medical Colleges Teaching for Quality (Te4Q) program, target individual faculty and thus accommodate only limited participants at a time, which is problematic for institutions that need to train many faculty to support their learners. APPROACH: The authors invited diverse stakeholders from across the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine and related health systems to participate in a team-based adaptation of the Te4Q program. The teams completed 5 projects based on previously identified priority areas to increase local capacity for QIPS teaching: (1) online modules for faculty new to QIPS, (2) a tool kit for graduate medical education programs, (3) a module for medical school clerkship directors, (4) guidelines for faculty to integrate early learners into QI projects, and (5) a "Teach-for-UCSF" certificate program in teaching QIPS. OUTCOMES: Thirty-five faculty members participated in the initial Te4Q workshop in January 2015, and by fall 2016, all projects were implemented. These projects led to additional faculty development initiatives and a rapidly expanding number of faculty across campus with expertise in teaching QIPS. NEXT STEPS: Further collaborations between faculty focused on QIPS in care delivery and those focused on QIPS education to promote QIPS teaching have resulted from these initial projects.