How primary care research can be improved in clinical practice? An Italian case study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is considered essential for the sustainability of the Health System. Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRN) play a strategic role in translation of primary care research into practice. Research Capacity Building in primary care requires a improvement and development strategy and well-developed research infrastructures to support physicians. METHODS: We used the system development methodology referring to the Lean Thinking to create and support a research team in primary and pediatric care. In particular a "cascade" deployment model and the X-Matrix, a framework used in management studies to support strategy definition and management process. RESULTS: A research unit in primary and pediatric care has been created, by sharing vision, mission, core values, long-term strategies. The definition of a annual planning led to monitoring actions to guarantee the expected goals. CONCLUSIONS: Lean methodology is useful to adapt to various managerial and operational contexts, including healthcare. In our case it allowed team members to spread the culture of research, its importance and role to improve the health of patients, thank to the organizational support of a hospital IR, the Research and Innovation Department.

A feasibility exploratory study of a novel modality of using patient-reported outcomes (PROsEXPLOR) in the real world.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help clinicians better evaluate chemotherapy and immunotherapy toxicity based on patient perspectives. In this exploratory study, we tested a simplified PRO questionnaire (sPQ) in routine clinical practice and patient satisfaction with this tool. METHODS: We included 16 items related to the main toxicities of chemotherapy and immunotherapy to be filled in by patients. A baseline sPQ was completed by patients before starting treatment and then in the interval between courses for a total of 4 sPQs. Patients communicated the results to a data manager, who alerted the referral oncologist in case of replies differing from the basal or previous sPQ. According to the severity of symptoms, the patient was then referred to the team nurse, the general practitioner, or another specialist. A satisfaction survey was also completed. RESULTS: In a 3-month interval, 27 patients were enrolled. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequent symptoms reported as worsening during treatment. The oncologist was involved in the management of adverse events in 4 cases, home therapy variations were recommended by the dedicated nurse in 14 cases, additional visits were performed in 6 patients, and 1 patient was admitted to the oncology ward. None of the patients had unplanned visits to the emergency department or to the hospital. The sPQ was judged to be simple, useful, and satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: Using sPQs in routine clinical practice was feasible and well-accepted by patients. PROs allowed us to recognize and promptly manage adverse events, reducing unplanned emergency department or hospital visits to zero.