Development and Implementation of Clinical Outcome Measures for Automated Collection Within Specialty Pharmacy Practice.

BACKGROUND: Johns Hopkins Specialty Pharmacy Services recognized the need to identify and develop standardized collection methods for clinical outcome measures (COMs) to demonstrate program quality and value to third-party payers, manufacturers, and internal stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To define specialty COMs and develop a framework for standardized data collection and reporting. METHODS: COMs for specialty pharmacy disease states (cystic fibrosis; hepatitis C; inflammatory conditions in dermatology, gastroenterology and rheumatology; and multiple sclerosis) were identified through a literature search, collaboration with specialty pharmacists, and committee review. Once identified, these measures were distributed to internal and external stakeholders that included specialty clinic team members, drug manufacturers, and third-party payers for input and validation. A standardized process for discrete documentation and data collection of these measures was implemented using case management software, electronic medical record integration, and informatics support. RESULTS: 28 COMs were identified. The various data sources used to collect the COMs were incorporated into an automated virtual dashboard to allow for regular review and sharing with clinicians, leadership, and other key stakeholders. The virtual dashboard included COMs with data derived from electronic medical records (n = 9), patient-reported outcomes based on responses to pharmacist-delivered questions (n = 11), and pharmacist assessment of outcomes (n = 8). The completed virtual dashboard was further refined to allow for reporting of both population and patient-level outcome results on a quarterly basis. CONCLUSIONS: This project describes methods to standardize documentation, data collection, and reporting of clinical outcomes data for multiple specialty conditions in a health system-integrated specialty pharmacy program. Through literature review and stakeholder consultation, a variety of potential COMs were identified for further evaluation of feasibility and value considering documentation and data collection requirements. Incorporation of COMs into a virtual dashboard will help facilitate the evaluation of program effectiveness, quality improvement planning, and sharing with stakeholders. Additional opportunities exist to further standardize COMs across the pharmacy industry to allow for future benchmarking and standardized evaluation of patient care programs. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was presented as a poster presentation at the APhA Annual Meeting, March 2018, Nashville, TN, and as a platform presentation at the Eastern States Conference, May 2018, Hershey, PA.

How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.

Understanding the factors associated with successful funding outcomes of research project grant (R01) applications is critical for the biomedical research community. R01 applications are evaluated through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review system, where peer reviewers are asked to evaluate and assign scores to five research criteria when assessing an application's scientific and technical merit. This study examined the relationship of the five research criterion scores to the Overall Impact score and the likelihood of being funded for over 123,700 competing R01 applications for fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The relationships of other application and applicant characteristics, including demographics, to scoring and funding outcomes were studied as well. The analyses showed that the Approach and, to a lesser extent, the Significance criterion scores were the main predictors of an R01 application's Overall Impact score and its likelihood of being funded. Applicants might consider these findings when submitting future R01 applications to NIH.

Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators.

PURPOSE: The current, budget-driven low rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical research has raised concerns about new investigators' ability to become independent scientists and their willingness to persist in efforts to secure funding. The authors sought to determine resubmission rates for unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) early stage investigator (ESI) independent research grant (R01) applications and to identify resubmission predictors. METHOD: The authors used a retrospective cohort study design and retrieved applications submitted in fiscal years 2010-2012 from NIH electronic research administrative sources. They defined ESI applicants as those who have received no prior R01 (or equivalent) funding and are within 10 years of completion of their terminal research degree or medical residency training. ESI applications at the NHLBI were eligible for special funding consideration if they scored above, but within 10 points of, the payline. The primary outcome was application resubmission after failing to secure funding with the first R01 submission. RESULTS: Over half of the unfunded applications were resubmitted. Some of these were discussed and "percentiled." Among percentiled applications, the only significant predictor of resubmission was the percentile score. Over half (59%) of the ESI R01 grants funded by NHLBI in fiscal years 2010-2012 had percentile scores above but within 10 points of the NHLBI payline, and benefited from the special funding considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The only independent predictor of resubmission of NHLBI ESI R01 grant applications was percentile score; applicant demographics and institutional factors were not predictive of resubmission.

Fighting cancer together: Development and implementation of shared medical appointments to standardize and improve chemotherapy education.

OBJECTIVE: Shared medical appointments offer a novel approach to improve efficiency and quality of care consistent with the goals of the Institute of Medicine. Our objective was to develop and implement a shared medical appointment for gynecologic cancer patients initiating chemotherapy. METHODS: We first assessed the level of interest in shared medical appointments among our patients and providers through qualitative interviews. Both patients and providers identified pre-chemotherapy as an optimal area to pilot shared medical appointments. We subsequently created a multidisciplinary team comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, pharmacists, administrators, health education specialists and members of the Quality Improvement Department to establish a Shared Medical Appointment and Readiness Teaching (SMART) program for all gynecologic oncology patients initiating chemotherapy with platinum- and/or taxane-based regimens. We developed a standardized chemotherapy education presentation and provided patients with a tool kit that consisted of chemotherapy drug education, a guide to managing side effects, advance directives, and center contact information. RESULTS: From May 9, 2014 to June 26, 2015, 144 patients participated in 51 SMART visits. The majority of patients had ovarian cancer and were treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel. Surveyed patients reported being highly satisfied with the group visit and would recommend shared medical appointments to other patients. CONCLUSIONS: This model of care provides patient education within a framework of social support that empowers patients. Shared medical appointments for oncology patients initiating chemotherapy are both feasible and well accepted.

Evaluation of a website that promotes social connectedness: lessons for equitable e-health promotion.

The online provision of health information and services has been viewed as having the potential to inform and empower health consumers and, ultimately, to promote better health. The Internet can be an innovative tool to deliver services to 'hard-to-reach' population groups, including geographically isolated populations. However, the online platform raises questions regarding the equitable distribution of health services. In this paper we examine a case study of a website that aims to promote health by fostering social connectedness. The website provides information to connect people to locally based community events across Australia. We draw on evaluation findings to examine the socioeconomic and geographical distribution of website usage. A descriptive analysis of web usage statistics revealed a gradient whereby more information is listed and viewed about events in affluent socioeconomic areas. Furthermore, the analysis showed that a greater proportion of information listed and viewed related to urban areas. These results are consistent with broader gradients of Internet access and usage. Drawing on these findings, we identify implications for online health promotion across different population groups, particularly for interventions that do not incorporate an explicit equity focus.