Learning health system benefits: Development and initial validation of a framework.

Introduction: Implementation of research findings in clinical practice often is not realized or only partially achieved, and if so, with a significant delay. Learning health systems (LHSs) hold promise to overcome this problem by embedding clinical research and evidence-based best practices into care delivery, enabling innovation and continuous improvement. Implementing an LHS is a complex process that requires participation and resources of a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare leaders, clinical providers, patients and families, payers, and researchers. Engaging these stakeholders requires communicating clear, tangible value propositions. Existing models identify broad categories of benefits but do not explicate the full range of benefits or ways they can manifest in different organizations. Methods: To develop such a framework, a working group with representatives from six Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs reviewed existing literature on LHS characteristics, models, and goals; solicited expert input; and applied the framework to their local LHS experiences. Results: The Framework of LHS Benefits includes six categories of benefits (quality, safety, equity, patient satisfaction, reputation, and value) relevant for a range of stakeholders and defines key concepts within each benefit. Applying the framework to five LHS case examples indicated preliminary face validity across varied LHS approaches and revealed three dimensions in which the framework is relevant: defining goals of individual LHS projects, facilitating collaboration based on shared values, and establishing guiding tenets of an LHS program or mission. Conclusion: The framework can be used to communicate the value of an LHS to different stakeholders across varied contexts and purposes, and to identify future organizational priorities. Further validation will contribute to the framework's evolution and support its potential to inform the development of tools to evaluate LHS impact.

Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT: the RELIANT pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy has recently emerged as an alternative to electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy for the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions. While robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is proposed to have several advantages, such as an easier learning curve, it is unclear if it has comparable diagnostic utility as electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. METHODS: Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT (RELIANT) is an investigator-initiated, single-center, open label, noninferiority, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in two operating rooms at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Each operating room (OR) is assigned to either robotic-assisted or electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy each morning, with each OR day considered one cluster. All patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy for evaluation of a peripheral pulmonary lesion in one of the two operating rooms are eligible. Schedulers, patients, and proceduralists are blinded to daily group allocations until randomization is revealed for each operating room each morning. The primary endpoint is the diagnostic yield defined as the proportion of cases yielding lesional tissue. Secondary and safety endpoints include procedure duration and procedural complications. Enrolment began on March 6, 2023, and will continue until 202 clusters have been accrued, with expected enrolment of approximately 400 patients by the time of completion in March of 2024. DISCUSSION: RELIANT is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will compare the diagnostic yield of the two most commonly used bronchoscopic approaches for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions. This will be the first known cluster randomized pragmatic trial in the interventional pulmonology field and the first randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT05705544) on January 30, 2023.

Robotic versus Electromagnetic Bronchoscopy for Pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT: the RELIANT pragmatic randomized trial.

Background: Robotic assisted bronchoscopy has recently emerged as an alternative to electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy for the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions. While robotic assisted bronchoscopy is proposed to have several advantages, such as an easier learning curve, it is unclear if it has comparable diagnostic utility as electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. Methods: Robotic versus Electromagnetic Bronchoscopy for Pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT (RELIANT) is an investigator-initiated, single-center, open label, noninferiority, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in two operating rooms at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Each operating room is assigned to either robotic assisted or electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy each morning, with each OR day considered one cluster. All patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy for evaluation of a peripheral pulmonary lesion in one of the two operating rooms are eligible. Schedulers, patients and proceduralists are blinded to daily group allocations until randomization is revealed for each operating room each morning. The primary endpoint is the diagnostic yield defined as the proportion of cases yielding lesional tissue. Secondary and safety endpoints include procedure duration and procedural complications. Enrolment began on March 6, 2023, and will continue until 202 clusters have been accrued, with expected enrolment of approximately 400 patients by the time of completion in March of 2024. Discussion: RELIANT is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will compare the diagnostic yield of the two most commonly used bronchoscopic approaches for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions. This will be the first known cluster randomized pragmatic trial in the interventional pulmonology field and the first randomized controlled trial of robotic assisted bronchoscopy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT05705544) on January 30, 2023.

Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.

A fully automated Drosophila olfactory classical conditioning and testing system for behavioral learning and memory assessment.

BACKGROUND: Aversive olfactory classical conditioning has been the standard method to assess Drosophila learning and memory behavior for decades, yet training and testing are conducted manually under exceedingly labor-intensive conditions. To overcome this severe limitation, a fully automated, inexpensive system has been developed, which allows accurate and efficient Pavlovian associative learning/memory analyses for high-throughput pharmacological and genetic studies. NEW METHOD: The automated system employs a linear actuator coupled to an odorant T-maze with airflow-mediated transfer of animals between training and testing stages. Odorant, airflow and electrical shock delivery are automatically administered and monitored during training trials. Control software allows operator-input variables to define parameters of Drosophila learning, short-term memory and long-term memory assays. RESULTS: The approach allows accurate learning/memory determinations with operational fail-safes. Automated learning indices (immediately post-training) and memory indices (after 24h) are comparable to traditional manual experiments, while minimizing experimenter involvement. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: The automated system provides vast improvements over labor-intensive manual approaches with no experimenter involvement required during either training or testing phases. It provides quality control tracking of airflow rates, odorant delivery and electrical shock treatments, and an expanded platform for high-throughput studies of combinational drug tests and genetic screens. The design uses inexpensive hardware and software for a total cost of ∼$500US, making it affordable to a wide range of investigators. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the design, construction and testing of a fully automated Drosophila olfactory classical association apparatus to provide low-labor, high-fidelity, quality-monitored, high-throughput and inexpensive learning and memory behavioral assays.