Patient-centered research in pediatric transplant: Engaging families and recipients.

Pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients navigate a lifelong journey that includes constant monitoring and challenges. Research priorities and questions in LT have traditionally been provider-driven. This project was a novel partnership between a learning health system dedicated to pediatric LT (Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation) and a parent-led advocacy group (Transplant Families) that aimed to prepare families and providers for collaborative patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). We developed 5 virtual modules to (1) teach participants about PCOR, and (2) elicit ideas for PCOR priorities and processes in pediatric LT. Parents and providers participated via self-guided online modules or focus groups. Participants included 240 patient partners and 133 pediatric LT providers from 16 centers over 2 years. We held 20 focus groups, including 5 to amplify underrepresented voices: young adults, Spanish speakers, and African Americans. Feedback was summarized to create a PCOR Roadmap, a guide for future PCOR in the Starzl Network, which was disseminated back to participants online and via webinars. Feedback from a diverse group of stakeholders allowed us to develop PCOR priorities and processes for the pediatric LT community. Our engagement strategies could be adapted by other transplant communities to facilitate patient and provider research partnerships.

Feasibility of using a patient-reported outcome measure into clinical practice following pediatric liver transplantation: The Starzl Network experience.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not routinely used in clinical care by pediatric liver transplant (LT) teams. The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) assessed feasibility of using a disease-specific Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire in the ambulatory setting at 10 SNEPT sites. METHODS: A mixed methods feasibility project assessing administration processes, barriers, and user experiences with the Pediatric Liver Transplant Quality of Life (PeLTQL) tool. Iterative processes sought stakeholder feedback across four phases (Pilot, Extended Pilot, Development of a Mobile App PeLTQL version, and Pilot App use). RESULTS: A total of 149 patient-parent dyads completed the PeLTQL during LT clinic follow-up. Clinicians, parents, and patients evaluated and reported on feasibility of operationalization. Only two of 10 SNEPT sites continued PeLTQL administration after the initial two pilot phases. Reasons include limited clinical time and available personnel aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, a mobile application version of the PeLTQL was initiated. Providing PeLTQL responses electronically was "very easy" or "easy" as reported by 96% (22/23) parents. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a PROM into post-pediatric LT clinical care was feasible, but ongoing utilization stalled. Use of a mobile app towards facilitating completion of the PeLTQL outside of clinic hours may address the time and work-flow barriers identified.

A Learning Health System for Pediatric Liver Transplant: The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Learning health systems (LHS) integrate research, improvement, management, and patient care, such that every child receives "the right care at the right time...every time," that is, evidence-based, personalized medicine. Here, we report our efforts to establish a sustainable, productive, multicenter LHS focused on pediatric liver transplantation. METHODS: The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) is the first multicenter effort by pediatric liver transplant families and providers to develop shared priorities and a shared agenda for innovation in clinical care. This report outlines SNEPT's structure, accomplishments, and challenges as an LHS. RESULTS: We prioritized 4 initial projects: immunosuppression, perioperative anticoagulation, quality of life, and transition of care. We shared center protocols/management to identify areas of practice variability between centers. We prioritized actionable items that address barriers to providing "the right care at the right time" to every pediatric liver transplant recipient: facilitating transparency of practice variation and the connection of practices to patient outcomes, harnessing existing datasets to reduce the burden of tracking outcomes, incorporating patient-reported outcomes into outcome metrics, and accelerating the implementation of knowledge into clinical practice. This has allowed us to strengthen collaborative relationships, design quality improvement projects, and collect pilot data for each of our priority projects. CONCLUSIONS: The field of pediatric liver transplantation can be advanced through application of LHS principles. Going forward, SNEPT will continue to unite patient advocacy, big data, technology, and transplant thought leaders to deliver the best care, while developing new, scalable solutions to pediatric transplantation's most challenging problems.

Clinical Trial Metrics: The Complexity of Conducting Clinical Trials in North American Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trials offices (CTOs) support the investigation of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at cancer centers across North America. CTOs are a centralized resource for clinical trial conduct and typically use research staff with expertise in four functional areas of clinical research: finance, regulatory, clinical, and data operations. To our knowledge, there are no publicly available benchmark data sets that characterize the size, cost, volume, and efficiency of these offices, nor whether the metrics differ by National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) steering committee developed a survey to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: An 11-question survey that addressed CTO budget, accrual and trial volume, full-time equivalents (FTEs), staff turnover, and activation timelines was developed by the AACI CRI steering committee and sent to 92 academic cancer research centers in North America (n = 90 in the United States; n = 2 in Canada), with 79 respondents completing the survey (86% completion rate). RESULTS: The number of FTE employees working in the CTOs ranged from 4.5 to 811 (median, 104). The median number of analytic cases (ie, newly diagnosed or received first course of treatment) reported by the main center was 3,856. Annual CTO budgets ranged from $250,000 to $23,900,000 (median, $8.2 million). The median trial activation time, based on 61 centers, was 167 days. The median number of accruals per center was 480 (range, 5-6,271) and median number of trials per center was 282 (range, 31-1,833). Budget and FTE ranges varied by NCI designation. CONCLUSION: The response rate to the survey was high. These data will allow cancer centers to evaluate their CTO infrastructure, funding, portfolio, and/or accrual goals as compared with peers. A wide range in each of the outcomes was noted, in keeping with the wide variation in size and scope of cancer center CTOs across the United States and Canada. These variations may warrant additional investigation.