A Multisite Electronic Health Record Integrated Remote Monitoring Intervention for Hypertension Improvement: Protocol for a Randomized Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major contributor to various adverse health outcomes. Although previous studies have shown the benefits of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring over office-based measurements, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of whether a BP monitor integrated into the electronic health record is superior to a nonintegrated BP monitor. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic multisite implementation of a quality improvement initiative directly comparing integrated to nonintegrated BP monitors for hypertension improvement. METHODS: We will conduct a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial at 3 large academic health centers across California. The 3 sites will enroll a total of 660 participants (approximately n=220 per site), with 330 in the integrated BP monitor arm and 330 in the nonintegrated BP control arm. The primary outcome of this study will be the absolute difference in systolic BP in mm Hg from enrollment to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include binary measures of hypertension (controlled vs uncontrolled), hypertension-related health complications, hospitalizations, and death. The list of possible participants will be generated from a central data warehouse. Randomization will occur after enrollment in the study. Participants will use their assigned BP monitor and join site-specific hypertension interventions. Cross-site learning will occur at regular all-site meetings facilitated by the University of California, Los Angeles Value-Based Care Research Consortium. A pre- and poststudy questionnaire will be conducted to further evaluate participants' perspectives regarding their BP monitor. Linear mixed effects models will be used to compare the primary outcome measure between study arms. Mixed effects logistic regression models will be used to compare secondary outcome measures between study arms. RESULTS: The study will start enrolling participants in the second quarter of 2023 and will be completed by the first half of 2024. Results will be published by the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial will contribute to the growing field of chronic care management using remote monitoring by answering whether a hypertension intervention coupled with an electronic health record integrated home BP monitor improves patients' hypertension better than a hypertension intervention with a nonintegrated BP monitor. The outcomes of this study may help health system decision makers determine whether to invest in integrated BP monitors for vulnerable patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05390502; clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05390502. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45915.

Assessment of a Cellular Host Response Test as a Sepsis Diagnostic for Those With Suspected Infection in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. A reliable, rapid, and early indicator can help improve efficiency of care and outcomes. To assess the IntelliSep test, a novel in vitro diagnostic that quantifies the state of immune activation by measuring the biophysical properties of leukocytes, as a rapid diagnostic for sepsis and a measure of severity of illness, as defined by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores and the need for hospitalization. DESIGN SETTING SUBJECTS: Adult patients presenting to two emergency departments in Baton Rouge, LA, with signs of infection (two of four systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, with at least one being aberration of temperature or WBC count) or suspicion of infection (a clinician order for culture of a body fluid), were prospectively enrolled. Sepsis status, per Sepsis-3 criteria, was determined through a 3-tiered retrospective and blinded adjudication process consisting of objective review, site-level clinician review, and final determination by independent physician adjudicators. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 266 patients in the final analysis, those with sepsis had higher IntelliSep Index (median = 6.9; interquartile range, 6.1-7.6) than those adjudicated as not septic (median = 4.7; interquartile range, 3.7-5.9; p < 0.001), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 and 0.83 when compared with unanimous and forced adjudication standards, respectively. Patients with higher IntelliSep Index had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (3 [interquartile range, 1-5] vs 1 [interquartile range, 0-2]; p < 0.001) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II (7 [interquartile range, 3.5-11.5] vs 5 [interquartile range, 2-9]; p < 0.05) and were more likely to be admitted to the hospital (83.6% vs 48.3%; p < 0.001) compared with those with lower IntelliSep Index. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting to the emergency department with signs or suspicion of infection, the IntelliSep Index is a promising tool for the rapid diagnosis and risk stratification for sepsis.

Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported implementation science for over a decade. We explore the application of implementation science across the cancer control continuum, including prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship. METHODS: We reviewed funding trends of implementation science grants funded by the NCI between 2000 and 2012. We assessed study characteristics including cancer topic, position on the T2-T4 translational continuum, intended use of frameworks, study design, settings, methods, and replication and cost considerations. RESULTS: We identified 67 NCI grant awards having an implementation science focus. R01 was the most common mechanism, and the total number of all awards increased from four in 2003 to 15 in 2012. Prevention grants were most frequent (49.3%) and cancer treatment least common (4.5%). Diffusion of Innovations and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) were the most widely reported frameworks, but it is unclear how implementation science models informed planned study measures. Most grants (69%) included mixed methods, and half reported replication and cost considerations (49.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science in cancer research is active and diverse but could be enhanced by greater focus on measures development, assessment of how conceptual frameworks and their constructs lead to improved dissemination and implementation outcomes, and harmonization of measures that are valid, reliable, and practical across multiple settings.

Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a framework for research and programs in low- and middle-income countries.

Implementation science is a set of tools, principles, and methodologies that can be used to bring scientific evidence into action, improve health care quality and delivery, and improve public health. As the burden of cancer increases in low- and middle-income countries, it is important to plan cancer control programs that are both evidence based and delivered in ways that are feasible, cost-effective, contextually appropriate, and sustainable. This review presents a framework for using implementation science for cancer control planning and implementation and discusses potential areas of focus for research and programs in low- and middle-income countries interested in integrating research into practice and policy.

Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy.

PURPOSE: To summarize key issues in the eHealth field from an implementation science perspective and to highlight illustrative processes, examples and key directions to help more rapidly integrate research, policy and practice. METHODS: We present background on implementation science models and emerging principles; discuss implications for eHealth research; provide examples of practical designs, measures and exemplar studies that address key implementation science issues; and make recommendations for ways to more rapidly develop and test eHealth interventions as well as future research, policy and practice. RESULTS: The pace of eHealth research has generally not kept up with technological advances, and many of our designs, methods and funding mechanisms are incapable of providing the types of rapid and relevant information needed. Although there has been substantial eHealth research conducted with positive short-term results, several key implementation and dissemination issues such as representativeness, cost, unintended consequences, impact on health inequities, and sustainability have not been addressed or reported. Examples of studies in several of these areas are summarized to demonstrate this is possible. CONCLUSIONS: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers. We outline an alternative development and assessment model, summarize implementation science findings that can help focus attention, and call for different types of more rapid and relevant research and funding mechanisms.