When worlds collide: Challenges to implementing communication research in community oncology practices.

OBJECTIVE: During a recent trial assessing the effectiveness of an online communication training for community practice oncologists, we encountered multiple barriers. METHODS: We asked oncologists to participate through the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification program. Oncologists collected 25 Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers (CAHPS) surveys from patients and 4 audio-recorded clinic encounters. They then completed either the ABIM Action Plan (control) or the online Study of Communication in Oncologist Patient Encounters (SCOPE) program (intervention). Oncologists collected another 25 CAHPS surveys and 4 audio-recorded encounters as follow-up. RESULTS: We enrolled 146 oncologists in the study. Only 27 completed the study; another 27 actively withdrew, and 94 did not complete the study. We identified four main challenges to participation: commitment discrepancies, burden of research, informed consent, and technology. We introduced efforts to overcome these barriers with success limited by time and resources. CONCLUSION: When conducting research in community practices, investigators must provide significant support, limit burden, increase flexibility, and conduct thorough pilot testing. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To improve patient care, research must translate well into the workflow of actual practices. Assessing our experience, we identified challenges and effective solutions to be used by investigators as they plan and implement future communication interventions.

Incorporating Physician Input Into a Maintenance of Certification Examination: A Content Validity Tool.

PURPOSE: As part of the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM's) continuing effort to update its Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program, a content validity tool was used to conduct structured reviews of MOC exam blueprints (i.e., test specification tables) by the physician community. Results from the Cardiovascular Disease MOC blueprint review are presented to illustrate the process ABIM conducted for several internal medicine disciplines. METHOD: Ratings of topic frequency and importance were collected from cardiologists in 2016 using a three-point scale (low, medium, high). The web-based survey instrument presented 188 blueprint topic descriptions, each combined with five patient-related tasks (e.g., diagnosis, treatment). Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were employed. RESULTS: Responses from 441 review participants were analyzed. Frequency and importance ratings were aggregated as a composite statistic representing clinical relevance, and exam assembly criteria were modified to select questions, or items, addressing clinically relevant content only. Specifically, ≥ 88% of exam items now address high-importance topics, including ≤ 15% on topics that are also low frequency; and ≤ 12% of exam items now address medium-importance topics, including ≤ 3% on topics that are also low frequency. The updated blueprint has been published for test takers and provides enhanced information on content that would and would not be tested in subsequent examinations. It is linked to more detailed feedback that examinees receive on items answered incorrectly. CONCLUSIONS: The blueprint review garnered valuable feedback from the physician community and provided new evidence for the content validity of the Cardiovascular Disease MOC exam.

Does Having Open Access to Care Improve Patient Experience? A Case-Control Study.

This study investigated whether primary and specialist care practices utilizing open access to care (OA) receive better patient experience scores than propensity-matched control practices without OA. From March 2010 to December 2014, 711 physicians classified as having OA in their practice, indicated by scoring 15 or higher on the OA checklist, were propensity matched to practices without OA. Patient experience was measured with 5 composites: timely care, communication, staff quality, care coordination, and overall physician rating. Minimally important differences in patient experience ratings were calculated between OA and control practices to determine optimal OA checklist scores. OA positively affected most composite domains for specialist practices, except physician rating, but minimally affected primary care practices. Practices scoring 19 or higher on the OA checklist had significantly higher patient-experience scores than matched controls. The authors recommend practices strive for 20 or higher on the OA checklist to see significant improvements in patient experience ratings.

Toward a policy agenda on medical research funding: results of a symposium.

University of the Sciences in Philadelphia convened a symposium to discuss the roles of government, industry, and foundations in funding biomedical research. Government, no longer the largest funder of biomedical research, focuses on basic science. The pharmaceutical industry, now the largest sponsor, focuses on developing and testing new products. Foundations play a unique role in their ability to fund research overlooked by the other sectors. However, gaps remain in this infrastructure. Barriers, including lack of qualified investigators and administrative burdens, constrain discovery. Funders should collaborate to address these constraints and stimulate new sources of funding.