The motivations and experiences of specialists who provide outreach services in rural operating rooms: A survey study from British Columbia.

INTRODUCTION: Outreach care has long been used in Canada to address the lack of access to specialist care in rural settings, but research on the experiences of specialists providing these services is lacking. This descriptive survey study aimed to understand 1) specialists' motivation for engaging in outreach work, (2) their perceptions of the quality of care at their rural outreach hospital, and (3) the supports they receive for their outreach work, in order to create a supportive framework to encourage specialist outreach contributions. METHODS: In July 2022, specialist physicians who provide outreach operating room services at rural hospitals participating in the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks initiative in the province of British Columbia were invited to complete an anonymous survey. RESULTS: 21 of 45 invited outreach specialists completed the survey (47% response rate). Three-quarters of respondents had a surgical specialty. The opportunity to deliver care to underserved patients was the most common motivator for outreach work. Rural hospitals received high ratings from respondents on overall safety and various aspects of communication and teamwork. Postoperative care was a concern for a minority (one-fifth) of respondents, and about half had experienced unnecessary delays between procedures some or most of the time. Generally, respondents felt integrated into rural teams and reported receiving adequate nursing and anesthetic support. The two most common desired additional supports were better/more equipment and space and additional staffing. All 19 respondents not planning to retire soon intended to provide outreach services for at least three more years. CONCLUSION: Specialists providing outreach OR services in small volume rural hospitals in BC usually have altruistic motives for outreach work. For the most part, these specialists have positive experiences in rural hospitals, but they can be better supported through investment in infrastructure and health human resources. Specialists intend to provide outreach services long-term, indicating a stable outreach workforce. More research on the facilitators and barriers of specialist outreach work is needed.

Perinatal Outcomes at Rural Hospitals That Participated in the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks (RSON) of British Columbia (2016-2021).

BACKGROUND: The goal of the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks (RSON) of British Columbia was to support safe and appropriate surgery, operative birth, and perinatal care closer to home for rural communities. Family physicians with enhanced obstetrical and/or surgical skills provide cesarean delivery and family practice anesthetists manage anesthesia for labour pain and operative births at RSON-supported hospitals, with the involvement of a local specialist at one site. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to: (1) compare perinatal outcomes at hospitals participating in the RSON initiative with outcomes at referral hospitals and (2) examine temporal changes in the proportion of childbearing people who resided in RSON communities and gave birth locally. METHODS: Poisson regression analysis was used to model the effect of hospital type (RSON vs. referral) on perinatal outcomes. We restricted the analysis to singleton births and controlled for differences in maternal characteristics, obstetric history, and pregnancy complications. RESULTS: Childbearing people who gave birth at RSON-supported hospitals (n = 3498) had a 10% lower incidence of adverse maternal-newborn outcomes compared to those who gave birth at referral hospitals (n = 14 772), after controlling for referral bias. We found a small increase (3.2 %) in the proportion of local births over the study period. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence that childbearing people can safely give birth at smaller rural hospitals in British Columbia and that investments in rural hospitals contribute to service stability. Stabilizing local birth services in rural communities benefits the whole region because it reduces surgical overload in regional referral centres.

The rural tax: comprehensive out-of-pocket costs associated with patient travel in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: A significant concern for rural patients is the cost of travel outside of their community for specialist and diagnostic care. Often, these costs are transferred to patients and their families, who also experience stress associated with traveling for care. We sought to examine the rural patient experience by (1) estimating and categorizing the various out of pocket costs associated with traveling for healthcare and (2) describing and measuring patient stress and other experiences associated with traveling to seek care, specifically in relation to household income. METHODS: We have designed and administered an online, retrospective, cross-sectional survey seeking to estimate the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and personal experiences of rural patients associated with traveling to access health care in British Columbia. Respondents were surveyed across five categories: Distance Traveled and Transportation Costs, Accommodation Costs, Co-Traveler Costs, Lost Wages, and Patient Stress. Bivariate relationships between respondent household income and other numerical findings were investigated using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: On average, costs for respondents were $856 and $674 for transport and accommodation, respectively. Strong relationships were found to exist between the distance traveled and total transport costs, as well as between a patient's stress and their household income. Patient perspectives obtained from this survey expressed several related issues, including the physical and psychosocial impacts of travel as well as delayed or diminished care seeking. CONCLUSIONS: These key findings highlight the existing inequities between rural and urban patient access to health care and how these inequities are exacerbated by a patient's overall travel-distance and financial status. This study can directly inform policy related efforts towards mitigating the rural-urban gap in access to health care.

Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.

Evaluation of initial progress to implement Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, about 60 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported CTSA hubs at academic health care institutions nationwide, is charged with improving the clinical and translational research enterprise. Together with the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the Consortium implemented Common Metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. METHODS: Initial implementation across hubs was assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods over a 19-month period. The primary outcome was implementation of three Common Metrics and the performance improvement framework. Challenges and facilitators were elicited. RESULTS: Among 59 hubs with data, all began implementing Common Metrics, but about one-third had completed all activities for three metrics within the study period. The vast majority of hubs computed metric results and undertook activities to understand performance. Differences in completion appeared in developing and carrying out performance improvement plans. Seven key factors affected progress: hub size and resources, hub prior experience with performance management, alignment of local context with needs of the Common Metrics implementation, hub authority in the local institutional structure, hub engagement (including CTSA Principal Investigator involvement), stakeholder engagement, and attending training and coaching. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Common Metrics and performance improvement in a large network of research-focused organizations proved feasible but required substantial time and resources. Considerable heterogeneity across hubs in data systems, existing processes and personnel, organizational structures, and local priorities of home institutions created disparate experiences across hubs. Future metric-based performance management initiatives across heterogeneous local contexts should anticipate and account for these types of differences.

Pilot test of an accrual Common Metric for the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium: Metric usefulness.

The Common Metrics Initiative aims to develop and field metrics to improve research processes within the national Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium. A Median Accrual Ratio (MAR) common metric was developed to assess the results of efforts to increase subject accrual into a set of clinical trials within the expected time period. A pilot test of the MAR was undertaken at Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) with eight CTSA Consortium hubs. Post-pilot interviews were conducted with 9 CTSA Principal Investigators (PIs) and 23 pilot team members. Over three-quarters (78%) of respondents reported that the MAR could be useful for performance improvement, but also described limitations or concerns. The most commonly cited barrier to MAR use for performance improvement was difficulty in interpreting the single value that is produced. Most respondents were interested in using the MAR to assess recruitment at an individual trial level. Majority of respondents (63%) had mixed opinions about aggregating metric results across the CTSA Consortium for comparison or benchmarking. Collecting data about additional contextual factors, and comparing accrual between subgroups, were cited as potentially helping address concerns about aggregation. Significant challenges remain in ensuring that the MAR can be sufficiently useful for collaborative process improvement. We offer recommendations to potentially improve metric usefulness.

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, a network of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs, is charged with improving the national clinical and translational research enterprise. The CTSA Consortium and the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences implemented the Common Metrics Initiative comprised of standardized metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. This article summarizes hubs' perspectives on its value during the initial implementation. METHODS: The value was assessed across 58 hubs. Survey items assessed change in perceived ability to manage performance and advance clinical and translational science. Semi-structured interviews elicited hubs' perspectives on meaningfulness and value-added of the Common Metrics Initiative and hubs' recommendations. RESULTS: Hubs considered their abilities to manage performance to have improved, but there was no change in perceived ability to advance clinical and translational science. The initiative added value by providing a formal structured process, enabling strategic conversations, facilitating improvements in processes, providing an external impetus for improvement, and providing justification for funds invested. Hubs were concerned about the usefulness of the metrics chosen and whether the value-added was sufficient relative to the effort required. Hubs recommended useful benchmarking, disseminating best practices and promoting peer-to-peer learning, and expanding the use of data to inform the initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Common Metrics and a performance improvement framework yielded concrete short-term benefits, but concerns about usefulness remained, particularly considering the effort required. The Common Metrics Initiative should focus on facilitating cross-hub collaboration around metrics that address high-priority impact areas for individual hubs and the Consortium.