Relying on Trust for Research on Medical Practice in Learning Health Systems

Clarifying the concept of a learning health system for healthcare delivery organizations: Implications from a qualitative analysis of the scientific literature

The “learning health system” (LHS) concept has been defined in broad terms, which makes it challenging for health system leaders to determine exactly what is required to transform their organization into an LHS. This study provides a conceptual map of the LHS landscape by identifying the activities, principles, tools, and conditions that LHS researchers have associated with the concept. Through a multi‐step screening process, two researchers identified 79 publications from PubMed (published before January 2020) that contained information relevant to the question, “What work is required of a healthcare organization that is operating as an LHS?” Those publications were coded as to whether or not they referenced each of 94 LHS elements in the taxonomy developed by the study team. This taxonomy, named the Learning Health Systems Consolidated Framework (LHS‐CF), organizes the elements into five “bodies of work” (organizational learning, translation of evidence into practice, building knowledge, analyzing clinical data, and engaging stakeholders) and four “enabling conditions” (workforce skilled for LHS work, data systems and informatics technology in place, organization invests resources in LHS work, and supportive organizational culture). We report the frequency that each of the 94 elements was referenced across the 79 publications. The four most referenced elements were: “organization builds knowledge or evidence,” “quality improvement practices are standard practice,” “patients and family members are actively engaged,” and “organizational culture emphasizes and supports learning.” By dissecting the LHS construct into its component elements, the LHS‐CF taxonomy can serve as a useful tool for LHS researchers and practitioners in defining the aspects of LHS they are addressing. By assessing how often each element is referenced in the literature, the study provides guidance to health system leaders as to how their organization needs to evolve in order to become an LHS ‐ while also recognizing that each organization should emphasize elements that are most aligned with their mission and goals.

A framework for analysing learning health systems: Are we removing the most impactful barriers?

INTRODUCTION

Learning health systems (LHS) are one of the major computing advances in health care. However, no prior research has systematically analysed barriers and facilitators for LHS. This paper presents an investigation into the barriers, benefits, and facilitating factors for LHS in order to create a basis for their successful implementation and adoption.

METHODS

First, the ITPOSMO-BBF framework was developed based on the established ITPOSMO (information, technology, processes, objectives, staffing, management, and other factors) framework, extending it for analysing barriers, benefits, and facilitators. Second, the new framework was applied to LHS.

RESULTS

We found that LHS shares similar barriers and facilitators with electronic health records (EHR); in particular, most facilitator effort in implementing EHR and LHS goes towards barriers categorised as human factors, even though they were seen to carry fewer benefits. Barriers whose resolution would bring significant benefits in safety, quality, and health outcomes remain.LHS envisage constant generation of new clinical knowledge and practice based on the central role of collections of EHR. Once LHS are constructed and operational, they trigger new data streams into the EHR. So LHS and EHR have a symbiotic relationship. The implementation and adoption of EHRs have proved and continues to prove challenging, and there are many lessons for LHS arising from these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful adoption of LHS should take account of the framework proposed in this paper, especially with respect to its focus on removing barriers that have the most impact.

“Doing Trust”

Trust in research is important but not well understood. We examine the ways that researchers understand and practice trust in research. Using a qualitative research design, we interviewed 19 researchers, including eight researchers involved in Australian Indigenous research. The project design focused on sensitive research including research involving vulnerable participants and sensitive research topics. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. We found that researchers’ understanding of trust integrates both the conceptual and concrete; researchers understand trust in terms of how it relates to other similar concepts and how they practice trust in research. This provides a sound basis to better understand trust in research, as well as identifying mechanisms to regain trust when it is lost in research.