1
|
Rahm AK, Cragun D, Hunter JE, Epstein MM, Lowery J, Lu CY, Pawloski PA, Sharaf RN, Liang SY, Burnett-Hartman AN, Gudgeon JM, Hao J, Snyder S, Gogoi R, Ladd I, Williams MS. Implementing universal Lynch syndrome screening (IMPULSS): protocol for a multi-site study to identify strategies to implement, adapt, and sustain genomic medicine programs in different organizational contexts. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18:824. [PMID: 30376847 PMCID: PMC6208012 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3636-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2018] [Accepted: 10/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems. Methods This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation. Discussion The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine. Trial registration N/A Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3636-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alanna Kulchak Rahm
- Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA.
| | - Deborah Cragun
- University of South Florida, 3720 Spectrum Blvd, Suite 304, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA
| | - Jessica Ezzell Hunter
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97202, USA
| | - Mara M Epstein
- Department of Medicine and the Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 365 Plantation St. Biotech 1, Suite 100, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA
| | - Jan Lowery
- Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA
| | - Christine Y Lu
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA
| | | | - Ravi N Sharaf
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Su-Ying Liang
- Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, 795 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA, 94301, USA
| | - Andrea N Burnett-Hartman
- Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research, 2550 S. Parker Rd., Ste 200, Aurora, CO, 80014, USA
| | - James M Gudgeon
- Intermountain Healthcare, Precision Genomics, IMC campus, Bldg. 2, Suite 610, 5121 S. Cottonwood Street, Murray, UT, 84107, USA
| | - Jing Hao
- Geisinger Department of Epidemiology and Health Services Research 100 N, Academy Ave Danville, Mahoning Township, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Susan Snyder
- Geisinger Department of Epidemiology and Health Services Research 100 N, Academy Ave Danville, Mahoning Township, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Radhika Gogoi
- Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Ilene Ladd
- Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| | - Marc S Williams
- Geisinger Genomic Medicine Institute, 100 N. Academy Ave, Danville, PA, 17822, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gerke O, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Vach W. Analyzing paired diagnostic studies by estimating the expected benefit. Biom J 2015; 57:395-409. [PMID: 25810239 DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201400020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2014] [Revised: 12/16/2014] [Accepted: 12/17/2014] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
When the efficacy of a new medical drug is compared against that of an established competitor in a randomized controlled trial, the difference in patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, is usually measured directly. In diagnostic research, however, the impact of diagnostic procedures is of an indirect nature as test results do influence downstream clinical decisions, but test performance (as characterized by sensitivity, specificity, and the predictive values of a procedure) is, at best, only a surrogate endpoint for patient outcome and does not necessarily translate into it. Not many randomized controlled trials have been conducted so far in diagnostic research, and, hence, we need alternative approaches to close the gap between test characteristics and patient outcomes. Several informal approaches have been suggested in order to close this gap, and decision modeling has been advocated as a means of obtaining formal approaches. Recently, the expected benefit has been proposed as a quantity that allows a simple formal approach, and we take up this suggestion in this paper. We regard the expected benefit as an estimation problem and consider two approaches to statistical inference. Moreover, using data from a previously published study, we illustrate the possible insights to be gained from the application of formal inference techniques to determine the expected benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oke Gerke
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense C, Denmark; Department of Business and Economics, Centre of Health Economics Research, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark
| | | | | |
Collapse
|