- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Franklin, Patricia D."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery(Elsevier, 2023) Iroz, Cassandra B.; Johnson, Julie K.; Ager, Meagan S.; Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo; Brajcich, Brian C.; Cella, David; Franklin, Patricia D.; Holl, Jane L.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Merkow, Ryan P.; Surgery, School of MedicineIntroduction: More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus. Results: Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data. Conclusions: While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.Item Evaluation of Emergency Department Treat-and-Release Encounters After Major Gastrointestinal Surgery(Wiley, 2023) Brajcich, Brian C.; Johnson, Julie K.; Holl, Jane L.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Shallcross, Meagan L.; Chung, Jeanette; Joung, Rachel Hae Soo; Iroz, Cassandra B.; Odell, David D.; Bentrem, David J.; Yang, Anthony D.; Franklin, Patricia D.; Slota, Jennifer M.; Silver, Casey M.; Skolarus, Ted; Merkow, Ryan P.; Surgery, School of MedicineBackground and objectives: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. Methods: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Results: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. Conclusions: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.Item Training the next generation of learning health system scientists(Wiley, 2022-09-10) Lozano, Paula M.; Lane-Fall, Meghan; Franklin, Patricia D.; Rothman, Russell L.; Gonzales, Ralph; Ong, Michael K.; Gould, Michael K.; Beebe, Timothy J.; Roumie, Christianne L.; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Enders, Felicity T.; Forrest, Christopher B.; Mendonca, Eneida A.; Starrels, Joanna L.; Sarkar, Urmimala; Savitz, Lucy A.; Moon, JeanHee; Linzer, Mark; Ralston, James D.; Chelsey, Francis D., Jr.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineIntroduction: The learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training. Methods: Since 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges. Results: To date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non-clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID-19-related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities. Conclusions: Four years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.