Decreasing prevalence of centers meeting the Society for Vascular Surgery abdominal aortic aneurysm guidelines in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Based on data supporting a volume-outcome relationship in elective aortic aneurysm repair, the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines recommend that endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 operations annually and have a perioperative mortality and conversion-to-open rate of ≤2% and that open aortic repair (OAR) be localized to centers that perform ≥10 open aortic operations annually and have a perioperative mortality ≤5%. However, the number and distribution of centers meeting the SVS criteria remains unclear. This study aimed to estimate the temporal trends and geographic distribution of Centers Meeting the SVS Aortic Guidelines (CMAG) in the United States. METHODS: The SVS Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for all OAR, aortic bypasses, and EVAR from 2011 to 2019. Annual OAR and EVAR volume, 30-day elective operative mortality for OAR or EVAR, and EVAR conversion-to-open rate for all centers were calculated. The SVS guidelines for OAR and EVAR, individually and combined, were applied to each institution leading to a CMAG designation. The proportion of CMAGs by region (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were compared by year using a χ2 test. Temporal trends were estimated using a multivariable logistic regression for CMAG, adjusting by region. RESULTS: Overall, 67,865 patients (49,264 EVAR; 11,010 OAR; 7591 aortic bypasses) at 336 institutions were examined. The proportion of EVAR CMAGs increased nationally by 1.7% annually from 51.6% (n = 33/64) in 2011 to 67.1% (n = 190/283) in 2019 (ß = .05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.09; P = .02). The proportion of EVAR CMAGs across regions ranged from 27.3% to 66.7% in 2011 to 63.9% to 72.9% in 2019. In contrast, the proportion of OAR CMAGs has decreased nationally by 1.8% annually from 32.8% (n = 21/64) in 2011 to 16.3% (n = 46/283) in 2019 (ß = -.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.10; P < .01). Combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs were even less frequent and decreased by 1.5% annually from 26.6% (n = 17/64) in 2011 to 13.1% (n = 37/283) in 2019 (ß = -.12; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.07; P < .01). In 2019, there was no significant difference in regional variation of the proportion of combined EVAR and OAR CMAGs (P = .82). CONCLUSIONS: Although an increasing proportion of institutions nationally meet the SVS guidelines for EVAR, a smaller proportion meet them for OAR, with a concerning downward trend. These data question whether we can safely offer OAR at most institutions, have important implications about sufficient OAR exposure for trainees, and support regionalization of OAR.

Culture change and lessons learned from ten years in the VA centers of excellence in primary care education.

BACKGROUND: Team-based care is critical to achieving health care value while maximizing patient outcomes. Few descriptions exist of graduate-level team training interventions and practice models. Experience from the multisite, decade-long Veterans Affairs (VA) Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education provides lessons for developing internal medicine training experiences in interprofessional clinical learning environments. METHODS: A review of multisite demonstration project transforming traditional silo-model training to interprofessional team-based primary care. Using iterative quality improvement approaches, sites evaluated curricula with learner, faculty and staff feedback. Learner- and patient-level outcomes and organizational culture change were examined using mixed methods, within and across sites. Participants included more than 1600 internal medicine, nurse practitioner, nursing, pharmacy, psychology, social work and physical therapy trainees. This took place in seven academic university-affiliated VA primary care clinics with patient centered medical home design RESULTS: Each site developed innovative design and curricula using common competencies of shared decision making, sustained relationships, performance improvement and interprofessional collaboration. Educational strategies included integrated didactics, workplace collaboration and reflection. Sites shared implementation best practices and outcomes. Cross-site evaluations of the impacts of these educational strategies indicated improvements in trainee clinical knowledge, team-based approaches to care and interest in primary care careers. Improved patient outcomes were seen in the quality of chronic disease management, reduction in polypharmacy, and reduced emergency department and hospitalizations. Evaluations of the culture of training environments demonstrated incorporation and persistence of interprofessional learning and collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning education and practice goals with cross-site collaboration created a robust interprofessional learning environment. Improved trainee/staff satisfaction and better patient care metrics supports use of this model to transform ambulatory care training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This evaluation was categorized as an operation improvement activity by the Office of Academic Affairs based on Veterans Health Administration Handbook 1058.05, in which information generated is used for business operations and quality improvement (Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16 (38 CFR 16.102(l)). The overall project was subject to administrative oversight rather Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, as such informed consent was waived as part of the project implementation and evaluation.

Pilot study to define criteria for Pituitary Tumors Centers of Excellence (PTCOE): results of an audit of leading international centers.

PURPOSE: The Pituitary Society established the concept and mostly qualitative parameters for defining uniform criteria for Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence (PTCOEs) based on expert consensus. Aim of the study was to validate those previously proposed criteria through collection and evaluation of self-reported activity of several internationally-recognized tertiary pituitary centers, thereby transforming the qualitative 2017 definition into a validated quantitative one, which could serve as the basis for future objective PTCOE accreditation. METHODS: An ad hoc prepared database was distributed to nine Pituitary Centers chosen by the Project Scientific Committee and comprising Centers of worldwide repute, which agreed to provide activity information derived from registries related to the years 2018-2020 and completing the database within 60 days. The database, provided by each center and composed of Excel® spreadsheets with requested specific information on leading and supporting teams, was reviewed by two blinded referees and all 9 candidate centers satisfied the overall PTCOE definition, according to referees' evaluations. To obtain objective numerical criteria, median values for each activity/parameter were considered as the preferred PTCOE definition target, whereas the low limit of the range was selected as the acceptable target for each respective parameter. RESULTS: Three dedicated pituitary neurosurgeons are preferred, whereas one dedicated surgeon is acceptable. Moreover, 100 surgical procedures per center per year are preferred, while the results indicated that 50 surgeries per year are acceptable. Acute post-surgery complications, including mortality and readmission rates, should preferably be negligible or nonexistent, but acceptable criterion is a rate lower than 10% of patients with complications requiring readmission within 30 days after surgery. Four endocrinologists devoted to pituitary diseases are requested in a PTCOE and the total population of patients followed in a PTCOE should not be less than 850. It appears acceptable that at least one dedicated/expert in pituitary diseases is present in neuroradiology, pathology, and ophthalmology groups, whereas at least two expert radiation oncologists are needed. CONCLUSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first study to survey and evaluate the activity of a relevant number of high-volume centers in the pituitary field. This effort, internally validated by ad hoc reviewers, allowed for transformation of previously formulated theoretical criteria for the definition of a PTCOE to precise numerical definitions based on real-life evidence. The application of a derived synopsis of criteria could be used by independent bodies for accreditation of pituitary centers as PTCOEs.

Patient consideration of local hospital, center of excellence, and medical tourism options for surgery.

This research analyzes factors that patients consider when offered the option to have surgeries (knee-replacement or heart bypass) at one of three locations (local hospital, Center of Excellence hospital, or Medical Tourism) with financial incentives varying based on location/surgery. Quantitative and qualitative results, based on a national online survey of respondents over 45 years old, found a significant relationship between perceived risk and satisfaction based on location of the surgery. However, specific individual factors, such as personal responsibilities, concerns with travel, perception of healthcare quality, are found to impact patient location preference for surgery.

Multidisciplinary management of acromegaly: A consensus.

The 13th Acromegaly Consensus Conference was held in November 2019 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and comprised acromegaly experts including endocrinologists and neurosurgeons who considered optimal approaches for multidisciplinary acromegaly management. Focused discussions reviewed techniques, results, and side effects of surgery, radiotherapy, and medical therapy, and how advances in technology and novel techniques have changed the way these modalities are used alone or in combination. Effects of treatment on patient outcomes were considered, along with strategies for optimizing and personalizing therapeutic approaches. Expert consensus recommendations emphasize how best to implement available treatment options as part of a multidisciplinary approach at Pituitary Tumor Centers of Excellence.

Development and Implementation of a National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinary Students: Description of the Effort and Lessons Learned.

The need for consortial programs to provide advanced education in food animal veterinary production medicine has been recognized and lauded for nearly three decades. This article describes one effort to create a dairy production medicine curriculum funded by a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Higher Education Challenge Grant. This National Center of Excellence in Dairy Production Medicine Education for Veterinarians is housed at the Dairy Education Center of the University of Minnesota and the project was a collaboration of the University of Minnesota, the University of Illinois, the University of Georgia, and Kansas State University. The article reviews the need for innovative ways to educate students who will optimally serve the dairy industry, provides a broad overview of the process of developing and delivering the eight-week dairy production medicine curriculum, and describes the challenges faced and lessons learned as a result of offering such a program.

Iranian centers of excellence in medical sciences: A qualitative study to analyze the current state and design of a future roadmap.

Background: Due to the law for the fifth development plan and Iran's 20- year economic perspective, Centers of Excellence (COEs) were expected to upgrade the level of research and education besides improving infrastructures in Iran. This study is aimed to analyze the current state of national centers of excellence and designing a future roadmap. Methods: In this qualitative study, data was gathered by reviewing relevant national & international literature and upstream documents, interview with experts, and focused group discussions with stakeholders. Finally, a roadmap was prepared for approval. Results: Lack of common understanding of the COEs definition, lack of clear professional orientation for each center, lack of mandate and commitment in using COEs in the health system and community health promotion, weakness in enticing elites, and unresponsive to basic needs of the country were five major challenges COEs encountered. The consensus prospective vision for centers of excellence was developed based on the establishment and management of special institutions of thought and technology in centers of excellence to advise health policymakers and provide the highest level of the regional and global position. Conclusion: Despite over a decade of development of medical COEs, their goals have not been reached yet. Enactment of designed roadmap and its subprojects in the Supreme Council of Centers is the primary steps for functional improvement of COEs.

Going for the Gold: A Description of the Centers of Excellence Designation by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization and mandated by the Joint Commission to curb antimicrobial resistance. However, <50% of institutions have optimal ASPs in place. Building on its experience of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) advocacy, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the AMS Centers of Excellence (CoE) program, which will serve as a conduit to share best practices and highlight the standards for other hospitals to achieve in order to advance the field of AMS. A designation of CoE signifies that these institutions deliver high-quality care consistently, serve as the "gold" standard for executing novel AMS principles, and demonstrate commitment to their ASP. Here, we describe the process and purpose of designating institutions as AMS CoEs, provide awareness to clinicians on opportunities available through IDSA with this CoE designation, and discuss the evolution of the program.

Evolution of the National Institute of Nursing Research logic model for center sustainability.

BACKGROUND: Logic models are tools to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. In 2013, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Logic Model for Center Sustainability was developed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of revision and implementation of the NINR Logic Model across a continuum of NINR Exploratory Centers and Centers of Excellence. METHODS: The process for incorporating common data elements for symptom, self-management, biomarker science and precision health in the logic model is outlined. Information about the NINR Logic Model was gleaned from the National Institutes of Health Reporter, annual NINR Center Directors meetings, and from individual Center Directors. FINDINGS: Centers utilized the model for funding applications and to guide Core administration, evaluation, Center sustainability, and/or other Center metrics. DISCUSSION: The revised NINR Logic Model for Center Sustainability can be a useful tool for planning and implementing center activities for center impact and sustainability.

Tis Most Excellent: Union, Mount Sinai Find Happiness in Center of Excellence.

The Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ three years ago named Mount Sinai Health System as a preferred provider for participants and started a direct contract for those needing hip and knee replacement surgeries. In health care there are not many examples where each party succeeds. This is one of them.

Health Care Policy and Outcomes after Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Is the Bigger Picture?-Cost Containment, Incentivizing Value, Transparency, and Centers of Excellence.

Early in the 21st century, the costs of health care in the United States have spiraled out of control, where the per capita spending is $9,237 per person-the highest in the world. By 2020, an estimated 20% of GDP will be spent on health care. The issue of cost and quality is now becoming a national crisis, with ∼50% of hospitals losing money on clinical operations, forcing closure of essential critical access hospitals, and forcing health care workers to relocate or change professions. This crisis will only worsen with the graying of America, as an estimated 17% of Americans will be over the age of 65 years by the year 2020. The policy and financial structures on which these changes are based are important factors of which practicing surgeons should be aware. This review discusses recent national health care policy reform and specific topics including cost-containment legislation, value-based incentives and penalties, transparency, and centers of excellence in colorectal surgery.

Updated panel report: best practices for the surgical treatment of obesity.

BACKGROUND: During the 2004 annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), a panel of experts convened to provide updated information on best practices in bariatric surgery. The rapid evolution of endoluminal technologies, surgical indications, and training in bariatric surgery since 2004 has led to new questions and concerns about optimal treatment algorithms, patient selection, and the preparation of our current and future bariatric workforce. METHODS: An expert panel was convened at the SAGES 2017 annual meeting to provide a summative update on current practice patterns, techniques, and training in bariatric surgery in order to review and establish best practices. This was a joint effort by SAGES, International Society for the Perioperative Care of the Obese Patient, and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. RESULTS: On March 23, 2017, seven expert faculty convened to address current areas of controversy in bariatric surgery and provide updated guidelines and practice recommendations. Areas addressed included the expanded indications for use of metabolic surgery in the treatment of diabetes, the safety and efficacy of new and investigational endoluminal procedures, updates on new guidelines for the management of airway and sleep apnea in the obese patient, the development of clinical pathways to reduce variation in the management of the bariatric patient, and new guidelines for training, credentialing, and bariatric program accreditation. The following article is a summary of this panel. CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery is a field that continues to evolve. A timely, systematic approach, such as described here, that coalesces data and establishes best practices on the current body of available evidence is imperative for optimal patient care and to inform provider, insurer, and policy decisions.

[Management of valvular heart disease : ESC/EACTS guidelines 2017]. / Management von Herzklappenerkrankungen : ESC/EACTS-Leitlinie 2017.

After 5 years the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery have released an update on the guidelines for the management of valvular heart diseases. In recent years published results of randomized trials in patients with aortic valve stenosis have resulted in updated recommendations for catheter-based prosthesis implantation (TAVI), which is now extended to patients presenting without a low risk for conventional surgical valve replacement. In mitral or tricuspid valvular disease, the recommendations for catheter-based therapies are less strong because of a lack of supportive scientific data. A special focus of these updated guidelines is on concomitant antithrombotic therapy in valvular heart disease and in the context of a combination with coronary artery disease and/or accompanying arrhythmia. Special emphasis was again put on the multidisciplinary heart team for the diagnostics and treatment of patients with valvular heart disease. In order to support the quality of treatment for patients with valvular heart disease, it is suggested that heart valve centers of excellence should be established, which have to fulfil complex personnel, structural and technological prerequisites.

National Institute of Nursing Research Centers of Excellence: a logic model for sustainability, leveraging resources, and collaboration to accelerate cross-disciplinary science.

The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Centers of Excellence program is a catalyst enabling institutions to develop infrastructure and administrative support for creating cross-disciplinary teams that bring multiple strategies and expertise to bear on common areas of science. Centers are increasingly collaborative with campus partners and reflect an integrated team approach to advance science and promote the development of scientists in these areas. The purpose of this paper is to present the NINR Logic Model for Center Sustainability. The components of the logic model were derived from the presentations and robust discussions at the 2013 NINR center directors' meeting focused on best practices for leveraging resources and collaboration as methods to promote center sustainability. Collaboration through development and implementation of cross-disciplinary research teams is critical to accelerate the generation of new knowledge for solving fundamental health problems. Sustainability of centers as a long-term outcome beyond the initial funding can be enhanced by thoughtful planning of inputs, activities, and leveraging resources across multiple levels.

The value proposition for geriatrics.

In response to some of the challenges that have been articlulated about the future of Geriatrics, we describe a more positive view and value proposition for the field. Health professionals with specific training in Geriatrics are a natural fit for a variety of roles in value-based care (VBC) programs and health systems. These roles include serving as educators for primary care health professionals and specialists in person-centered care of older adults, serving as consultants on geriatric conditions and syndromes in a co-management model of care, becoming effective leaders in VBC programs and health systems, and conducting quality improvement initiatives to build on the evidence-base for the management of common conditions in the older population. We further recommend that VBC programs and systems support Centers of Excellence or Institutes to implement these strategies within and Age-Friendly, learning system approach.

Clinical Pharmacology of Oral Octreotide Capsules for the Treatment of Acromegaly.

The primary goal of acromegaly treatment is to normalize biochemical parameters as it significantly reduces the risks of complications and comorbidities associated with the disease. First-line medical treatment is commonly represented by injectable somatostatin analogues (SRLs) after surgery. In June 2020, with the integration of Transient Permeation Enhancer® technology, oral octreotide capsules (OOCs) received regulatory approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for long-term maintenance treatment in patients with acromegaly who have responded to and tolerated treatment with octreotide or lanreotide. We reviewed the clinical pharmacological data on the development and clinical use of OOCs. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data on OOCs showed a dose-dependent increase in octreotide levels and remarkable suppression of growth hormone secretion. The efficacy and safety of OOCs were investigated in four clinical trials conducted on patients with complete or partially controlled acromegaly. The trials resulted in the maintenance of biochemical control after switching from injectable SRLs to OOCs, with a comparable side-effect profile. Moreover, the acromegaly symptoms improved in patients on OOC. The data showed a patient preference to continue in the OOC arm for the extension phase of the trials. From the clinical pharmacological perspective, oral formulation of octreotide has the advantage of efficacy and safety with respect to injectable octreotide.

Establishment and development of the Center of Plant Systems Biology and Biotechnology in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

The Bulgarian research landscape, presented mainly by the research institutes that are part of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Agricultural Academy, needs diversification to match the research and innovation potential of the other European Union (EU) countries. This article describes the establishment of the Center of Plant Systems Biology and Biotechnology (CPSBB), a new innovative type of independent research organization that is changing the research landscape in Bulgaria. Supported by the EU Commission, Bulgarian Government, and Plovdiv Municipality, CPSBB has quickly become the leading plant science institute in Bulgaria, creating knowledge in diverse fields such as bioinformatics, biotechnology, genetics and genomics, metabolomics, and systems biology. We outline the organizational structure of CPSBB, the development of its infrastructure, and its scientific productivity. Finally, we compare CPSBB with other similar research establishments in Europe and we conclude that such new types of institutes have a bright future in Bulgaria due to their operational flexibility, productivity, and connections with academia and industry.

Requirements for Brazilian Outpatient Centers of Excellence in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Consensus Co-Creative Study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic skin condition. Its complexity and impact on patients highlight the need for multidisciplinary care that can address the physical, psychological, and social aspects. Centers of excellence can ideally provide the necessary infrastructure, resources, and expertise to effectively treat HS. However, there are still no consolidated models of centers of excellence in HS, and establishing their foundations is an intricate research challenge. Purposely, design and co-creation as innovation techniques are helpful approaches to this type of research. Methods: In this study, we conducted a co-creation with consensus among HS specialists to propose the criteria and requirements to establish outpatient centers of excellence of HS in Brazil. We followed a linear process with mixed methods in 6 stages. Results: The process resulted in 10 categories for establishing outpatient centers, including their respective requirements, rationale, and classification. The categories include onboarding and welcoming; infrastructure and procedures; infusion therapy; flows and referrals; staffing; disease management; metrics during diagnosis; metrics during treatment; awareness and advocacy; research and education. Discussion: The idealized outpatient centers can play a role in the complete multidisciplinary treatment for HS and advancing the science of healthcare services by providing a focus for research, training, and translation of findings into practice.

Heart Rhythm Society Atrial Fibrillation Centers of Excellence Study: A survey analysis of stakeholder practices, needs, and barriers.

BACKGROUND: An integrated, coordinated, and patient-centered approach to atrial fibrillation (AF) care delivery may improve outcomes and reduce cost. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding from key stakeholder groups on current practices, needs, and potential barriers to implementing optimal integrated AF care. METHODS: A series of comprehensive questionnaires were designed by the Heart Rhythm Society Atrial Fibrillation Centers of Excellence (CoE) Task Force to conduct surveys with physicians, advanced practice professionals, patients, and hospital administrators. Data collected focused on the following areas: access to care, stroke prevention, education, AF quality improvement, and AF CoE needs and barriers. Survey responses were collated and analyzed by the Task Force. RESULTS: The surveys identified 5 major unmet needs: (1) Standardized protocols, order sets, or care pathways in the emergency department or inpatient setting were uncommon (36%-42%). (2) All stakeholders agreed stroke prevention was a top priority; however, prior bleeding or risk of bleeding was the most frequent barrier for initiation. (3) Patients indicated that education on modifiable causes, AF-related complications, and lowering stroke risk is most important. (4) Less than half (43%) of the health care systems track patients with AF or treatment status. Patients reported that stroke and heart failure prevention and access to procedures were priority areas for an AF CoE. The most common barriers to implementing AF CoE identified by clinicians were administrative support (69%) and cost (52%); administrators reported physical space (43%). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the findings of this study, the Task Force identified high priority areas to develop initiatives to aid the implementation of AF CoE.