A Hybrid Markov-SPC Approach to Assess Cost Differences in Urgent Care Utilization Using Patient-Reported Data in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cost is a key outcome in quality and value, but it is often difficult to estimate reliably and efficiently for use in real-time improvement efforts. We describe a method using patient-reported outcomes (PROs), Markov modeling, and statistical process control (SPC) analytics in a real-time cost-estimation prototype designed to assess cost differences between usual care and improvement conditions in a national multicenter improvement collaborative-the IBD Qorus Learning Health System (LHS). METHODS: The IBD Qorus Learning Health System (LHS) collects PRO data, including emergency department utilization and hospitalizations from patients prior to their clinical visits. This data is aggregated monthly at center and collaborative levels, visualized using Statistical Process Control (SPC) analytics, and used to inform improvement efforts. A Markov model was developed by Almario et al to estimate annualized per patient cost differences between usual care (baseline) and improvement (intervention) time periods and then replicated at monthly intervals. We then applied moving average SPC analyses to visualize monthly iterative cost estimations and assess the variation and statistical reliability of these estimates over time. RESULTS: We have developed a real-time Markov-informed SPC visualization prototype which uses PRO data to analyze and monitor monthly annualized per patient cost savings estimations over time for the IBD Qorus LHS. Validation of this prototype using claims data is currently underway. CONCLUSION: This new approach using PRO data and hybrid Markov-SPC analysis can analyze and visualize near real-time estimates of cost differences over time. Pending successful validation against a claims data standard, this approach could more comprehensively inform improvement, advocacy, and strategic planning efforts.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

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

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.

Development of Balanced Whole System Value Measures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care in the IBD Qorus Collaborative Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND: The IBD Qorus Collaborative aims to reduce variation and increase the value of care for the adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. To evaluate the success of the collaborative, we aimed to develop a balanced set of outcome measures that reflect a multistakeholder view of value in IBD care. To achieve this, we used the Clinical Value Compass framework and engaged a mixed-stakeholder group to conduct a modified Delphi process. The end result was a 10-measure set to assess the value of IBD care. METHOD: The modified Delphi process included 3 iterative rounds of blinded voting and interactive webinar-style discussion. We recruited 18 participants for the Delphi panel, including clinicians, researchers, patients, Crohn's & Colitis Foundation staff, and payers. Participants first identified constructs to measure, then identified the tools to measure those constructs. A literature review and environmental scan of current measures in 4 domains were performed, and relevant measures were proposed for discussion and voting in each domain. Throughout the process, participants were invited to contribute additional measures. CONCLUSION: The modified Delphi process led to selection of 10 value measures across 4 domains: (1) patient experience; (2) functional status; (3) clinical status; and (4) health care costs and utilization. We have successfully completed a 3-stage modified Delphi process to develop a balanced set of value measures for adult IBD care. The value measure set expands upon prior efforts that have established quality measures for IBD care by adding cost and experience of care elements. This work positions IBD Qorus to better assess, study, improve, and demonstrate value at individual, system, and population levels and will inform and empower related research, improvement, and implementation efforts.

Point-of-care dashboards promote coproduction of healthcare services for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction of healthcare services by patients and professionals is seen as an increasingly important mechanism to support person-centred care delivery. Coproduction invites a deeper understanding of what persons sometimes called 'patients' bring to development of a service. Yet, little is known about tools that may help elicit that information. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore potential benefits and limitations of an electronic pre-visit survey (PVS) and dashboard by studying uptake and experiences within the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method evaluation of patients and clinicians using the IBD Qorus PVS and dashboard at 24 programmes participating in the IBD Qorus learning health system. We analysed (i) descriptive statistics and thematic analyses of 537 patient surveys, (ii) semi-structured interviews with seven patients and six care teams and (iii) usage data collected between 25 March 2019 and 26 April 2020. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds (64%; n = 38) of clinicians enrolled ≥25 patients into IBD Qorus; 59% (n = 29) of clinicians received ≥25 electronic PVS, with 3834 PVS received during the study period. Post-visit evaluation surveys were completed by patients following 26% (n = 993) of PVS completions. Among patients who reported using the dashboard for 1 or more months (n = 537), two-thirds (65%, n = 344) used the dashboard at a clinic visit and one-third used it outside the clinic (33%, n = 176). Most patients who used the dashboard during a clinic visit said it was helpful in discussions with their clinician (82%), in talking about what matters most (76%) and in making healthcare decisions (71%). Patients using the dashboard during the clinic visit reported higher levels of shared decision-making than those who did not use the dashboard (82% vs. 65%, P < 0.001). This relationship remained significant after controlling for receipt of care at a clinic with the highest levels of patient-reported shared decision-making (odds ratio: 2.1; confidence interval: 1.3-3.3). Patients and clinicians found the greatest value in using the PVS and dashboard to share concerns and symptoms, prepare for a visit and support discussions during the visit. The lack of integration with existing electronic health records (EHRs) limited clinician usage of the PVS and dashboard. CONCLUSIONS: The PVS and dashboard created a shared language, which supported coproduction and shared decision-making and facilitated a shared understanding of goals, concerns, symptoms and well-being. To support uptake, future systems should reduce implementation burden for healthcare professionals and integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems and workflows.

Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials fail to reach their target sample size. When coupled with the omission and underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in randomized controlled trials, many trials fail to obtain data that accurately represents the true diversity of their target population. Policies and practices have been implemented to increase representation of disadvantaged groups in many randomized controlled trials, with some trials specifically targeting such groups. To our knowledge, no systematic review has quantified the enrollment metrics and effectiveness of inclusion and retention strategies in randomized controlled trials focused on disadvantaged populations specifically. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic search across EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL as well as grey literature, conference proceedings, research monographs, and Google Scholar from inception onwards. We will include randomized controlled trials where at least 50% of enrolled participants are considered to be disadvantaged, as per the RCT authors' definition and in line with our inclusion criteria. Two independent researchers per article will conduct preliminary title and abstract screening, subsequent full text review, and data extraction for the selected trials, with a third reviewer available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using specific criteria regarding data reporting, external validity, and internal validity. We will combine all selected studies and conduct a narrative synthesis to assess enrollment metrics. If there is sufficient homogeneity and sufficient trials comparing recruitment strategies within disadvantaged populations, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies designed to maximize the inclusion of disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials. DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review will establish baseline recruitment and enrollment metrics of trials targeting disadvantaged populations to elucidate the scope of the challenge of recruiting such populations. We hope that our findings will promote future research on the distinct barriers that may prevent disadvantaged populations from participating in health intervention research, will encourage more trials exploring effective, tailored recruitment strategies, and will establish a foundation to track future progress in the recruitment of disadvantaged populations. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO ID: CRD42020152814.