Managing Multiple Chronic Conditions during COVID-19 Among Patients with Social Health Risks.

BACKGROUND: Optimal care for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) requires primary and specialty care continuity, access to multiple providers, social risk assessment, and self-management support. The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly changed primary care delivery to increase reliance on telehealth and virtual care. We report on the experiences of individuals with MCC and their family caregivers on managing their health and receiving health care during the initial pandemic. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews with 30 patients (19 English speaking, 11 Spanish speaking) plus 9 accompanying care partners, who had 2+ primary care encounters between March 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020, 2+ chronic conditions, and 1 or more self-reported social risks. Questions focused on access to and experiences with care, roles for care partners, and self-management during the first 6 months of the pandemic. RESULTS: Participants experienced substantial changes in care delivery. The most commonly reported changes were a shift to more virtual relative to in-person care and shifting roles for care partners. Changes fostered new perspectives on self-management and an appreciation of personal resilience and self-reliance. Virtual care was an acceptable complement to in-person care, though not a substitute for periodic in-person visits. It was more acceptable for English speakers and with a usual provider. CONCLUSION: New models of care delivery that recognize patient and family resilience and resourcefulness, emphasize provider continuity, and combine virtual and in-person care may support self-management for individuals with MCC and social needs.

A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence. METHODS: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings. REGISTRATION: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443).

Identifying barriers to shared decision-making about bariatric surgery in two large health systems.

OBJECTIVE: Prior research suggests shared decision-making (SDM) could improve patient and health care provider communication about bariatric surgery. The aim of this work was to identify and prioritize barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery to help guide implementation of SDM. METHODS: Two large US health care systems formed multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the implementation of SDM around bariatric surgery. The teams used a nominal group process approach involving (1) generation of multilevel barriers, (2) round-robin recording of barriers, (3) facilitated discussion, and (4) selection and ranking of barriers according to importance and feasibility to address. RESULTS: One health system identified 13 barriers and prioritized 5 as the most important and feasible to address. The second health system identified 14 barriers and prioritized 6. Both health systems commonly prioritized six barriers: lack of insurance coverage; lack of understanding of insurance coverage; lack of organizational prioritization of SDM; lack of knowledge about bariatric surgery; lack of interdepartmental clarity between primary and specialty care; and limited training on SDM conversations and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems face numerous barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery, and these can be easily identified and prioritized by multistakeholder teams. Future research should seek to identify effective strategies to address these common barriers.

Tailoring Implementation Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Adoption in Primary Care Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: When implementing interventions in primary care, tailoring implementation strategies to practice barriers can be effective, but additional work is needed to understand how to best select these strategies. This study sought to identify clinicians' contributions to the process of tailoring implementation strategies to barriers in clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a modified nominal group exercise involving 8 implementation scientists and 26 primary care clinicians in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network. Each group identified implementation strategies it felt would best address barriers to using a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator previously identified across 44 primary care clinics from the Healthy Hearts Northwest pragmatic trial (2015 to 2018). These barriers had been mapped beforehand to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. We examined similarities and differences in the strategies that 30% or more of each group identified (agreed-on strategies) for each barrier and for barriers in each CFIR domain. We used the results to demonstrate how strategies might be tailored to individual clinics. RESULTS: Clinicians selected 23 implementation strategies to address 1 or more of the 13 barriers; implementation scientists selected 35. The 2 groups agreed on at least 1 strategy for barriers in each CFIR domain: Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process. Conducting local needs assessment and assessing for readiness/identifying barriers and facilitators were the 2 most common implementation strategies chosen only by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician stakeholders identified implementation strategies that augmented those chosen by implementation scientists, suggesting that codesign of implementation processes between implementation scientists and clinicians may strengthen the process of tailoring strategies to overcome implementation barriers.

A value proposition for pragmatic clinical trials.

The authors examine the origin, benefits, and challenges of pragmatic clinical trials to assess the ultimate value of this research design.

The Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) study: randomized controlled trial of a financial navigation intervention to address cancer-related financial hardship.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for evidence on how interventions can prevent or mitigate cancer-related financial hardship. Our objectives are to compare self-reported financial hardship, quality of life, and health services use between patients receiving a financial navigation intervention versus a comparison group at 12 months follow-up, and to assess patient-level factors associated with dose received of a financial navigation intervention. METHODS: The Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) study is a multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) with individual-level randomization. Participants will be offered either brief (one financial navigation cycle, Arm 2) or extended (three financial navigation cycles, Arm 3) financial navigation. The intervention period for both Arms 2 and 3 is 6 months. The comparison group (Arm 1) will receive enhanced usual care. The setting for the CAFÉ study is the medical oncology and radiation oncology clinics at two integrated health systems in the Pacific Northwest. Inclusion criteria includes age 18 or older with a recent cancer diagnosis and visit to a study clinic as identified through administrative data. Outcomes will be assessed at 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are self-reported financial distress and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are delayed or foregone care; receipt of medical financial assistance; and account delinquency. A mixed methods exploratory analysis will investigate factors associated with total intervention dose received. DISCUSSION: The CAFÉ study will provide much-needed early trial evidence on the impact of financial navigation in reducing cancer-related financial hardship. It is theory-informed, clinic-based, aligned with patient preferences, and has been developed following preliminary qualitative studies and stakeholder input. By design, it will provide prospective evidence on the potential benefits of financial navigation on patient-relevant cancer outcomes. The CAFÉ trial's strengths include its broad inclusion criteria, its equity-focused sampling plan, its novel intervention developed in partnership with clinical and operations stakeholders, and mixed methods secondary analyses related to intervention dose offered and dose received. The resulting analytic dataset will allow for rich mixed methods analysis and provide critical information related to implementation of the intervention should it prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018000 . August 23, 2021.

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Because social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system. METHODS: A survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Athough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory.

OBJECTIVE: We identified challenges and solutions to using electronic health record (EHR) systems for the design and conduct of pragmatic research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2012, the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has served as the resource coordinating center for 21 pragmatic clinical trial demonstration projects. The EHR Core working group invited these demonstration projects to complete a written semistructured survey and used an inductive approach to review responses and identify EHR-related challenges and suggested EHR enhancements. RESULTS: We received survey responses from 20 projects and identified 21 challenges that fell into 6 broad themes: (1) inadequate collection of patient-reported outcome data, (2) lack of structured data collection, (3) data standardization, (4) resources to support customization of EHRs, (5) difficulties aggregating data across sites, and (6) accessing EHR data. DISCUSSION: Based on these findings, we formulated 6 prerequisites for PCTs that would enable the conduct of pragmatic research: (1) integrate the collection of patient-centered data into EHR systems, (2) facilitate structured research data collection by leveraging standard EHR functions, usable interfaces, and standard workflows, (3) support the creation of high-quality research data by using standards, (4) ensure adequate IT staff to support embedded research, (5) create aggregate, multidata type resources for multisite trials, and (6) create re-usable and automated queries. CONCLUSION: We are hopeful our collection of specific EHR challenges and research needs will drive health system leaders, policymakers, and EHR designers to support these suggestions to improve our national capacity for generating real-world evidence.

Aligning care with the personal values of patients with complex care needs.

OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to align care with the personal values of patients from three distinct groups with complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Between June and August 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals with complex care needs in two integrated health care delivery systems. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We interviewed three groups of patients at Kaiser Permanente Washington and Kaiser Permanente Colorado representing three distinct profiles of complex care needs: Group A ("obesity, opioid prescription, and low-resourced neighborhood"), Group B ("older, high medical morbidity, emergency department, and hospital use"), and Group C ("older, mental and physical health concerns, and low-resourced neighborhood"). These profiles were identified based on prior work and prioritized by internal primary care stakeholders. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Twenty-four patients participated; eight from each complex needs profile. Mean age across groups was 71 (range 48-86) years. We identified five themes common across the three groups that captured patients' views regarding values-aligned care. These themes focused on the importance of care teams exploring and acknowledging a patient's values, providing access to nonphysician providers who have different perspectives on care delivery, offering values-aligned mental health care, ensuring connection to community-based resources that support values and address needs, and providing care that supports the patient plus their family and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest several opportunities to improve how care is delivered to patients with different complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. Future research is needed to better understand how to incorporate these opportunities into health care.

Accounting for quality improvement during the conduct of embedded pragmatic clinical trials within healthcare systems: NIH Collaboratory case studies.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention. During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies. KEY LESSONS: Study teams often need to monitor, adapt, and respond to QI during design and the course of the trial. Routine collaboration between ePCT researchers and health systems stakeholders throughout the trial can help ensure research and QI are optimally aligned to support high-quality patient-centered care.

Barriers to Implementing Cardiovascular Risk Calculation in Primary Care: Alignment With the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease risk calculators can inform and guide preventive strategies and treatment decisions by clinicians and patients. However, their uptake in primary care has been slow despite the recommendation in national cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Identifying the barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is essential for promoting their adoption. METHODS: The authors qualitatively analyzed structured physician educator notes written during an outreach education intervention with 44 small- and medium-sized primary care clinics that participated in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‒funded EvidenceNOW Healthy Hearts Northwest trial. The authors coded barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculation and aligned them to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: The authors identified 13 barriers from the physician educators' notes. The majority (n=8, 62%) mapped to the framework's Inner Setting domain. The 5 most commonly noted barriers were (1) time constraints to use a calculator (N=23 clinics), (2) limitations to accessing a calculator or the necessary information to use a calculator (N=22 clinics), (3) no or minimal buy-in from clinicians or staff to use a calculator (N=19 clinics), (4) reported patient fear of side effects from statin medications or patient dislike of taking medications per the guidelines (N=17 clinics), and (5) lack of documented clinic workflow for using a calculator (N=16 clinics). CONCLUSIONS: To improve the uptake of cardiovascular disease risk calculation in primary care, future cardiovascular disease prevention and implementation research should consider tailoring interventions to the common barriers to implementing cardiovascular disease risk calculation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02839382.

Understanding Patient and Clinical Stakeholder Perspectives to Improve Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence-based implementation strategies exist for maintaining lung cancer screening. We evaluated the Lung Cancer Screening Program at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) to develop multilevel interventions to improve screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study 1) to measure adherence to repeat screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT); 2) to interview KPWA stakeholders to understand the Lung Cancer Screening Program; and 3) to conduct codesign workshops with KPWA members and researchers. We used descriptive statistics to describe adherence, and rapid qualitative data analysis for stakeholder interviews and workshops. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 2089 KPWA members had initial LDCT scans with negative, benign or short-interval follow-up results. Among those with sufficient follow-up, the proportion with on-time repeat screening after a negative LDCT was 26.4% after the initial scan, and increased to 43.1% on subsequent scans. Opportunities for health-care system improvement included clarification of clinical roles and responsibilities, care coordination across providers, ongoing training in lung cancer screening, and revising electronic health record tools. From patient perspectives, facilitators to repeat screening were making screening personalized and convenient; offering consistent messages and reminders in different modes; increasing patient knowledge about benefits, harms, and expectations of LDCT; and providing nonfinancial and financial incentives for adherence. From a storyboard exercise, we identified 10 design features for lung cancer screening interventions, including versatility of communication, social support, and knowledge. CONCLUSION: We identified clear gaps in adherence to lung cancer screenings, organizational and clinical barriers to care, and design features for patient-centered interventions to improve lung cancer screening in US settings.

Transforming Dementia Care Through Pragmatic Clinical Trials Embedded in Learning Healthcare Systems.

The current evidence base for testing nonpharmacological interventions for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers is limited, especially within care settings such as ambulatory care, assisted living communities, nursing homes, hospitals, and hospices. There has been even less attention to translation of effective interventions for PLWD into delivery of care. Thus, there is an urgent need for researchers to partner with these care settings, especially those that follow a learning healthcare systems (LHSs) model, and vice versa to conduct embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs). These trials are conducted within sites that offer routine care and are designed to answer important, relevant clinical questions and leverage existing electronic health and administrative data. ePCTs set in LHSs create a unique opportunity for researchers, healthcare providers, and PLWD and their families to work and learn together as potentially effective interventions are studied and stress tested in real-world situations. Healthcare settings that embrace research or quality improvement as part of a culture of continuous learning are ideal settings for ePCTs. In this article, we summarize what we have learned from the National Institutes of Health's Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory-funded ePCTs, discuss challenges of ePCTs within settings that serve PLWD, and describe the work of the Health Care Systems Core within the National Institute on Aging's IMbedded Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias Clinical Trials Collaboratory that will occur over the next 5 years. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S43-S48, 2020.

Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes. CONTEXT: Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes. METHODS: A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices. FINDINGS: We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others. CONCLUSIONS: Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams.

How, When, and With Whom Should Cost of Care Conversations Occur? Preferences of Two Distinct Cancer Survivor Groups.

PURPOSE: Cost of care (CoC) conversations should occur routinely in oncology practice. However, patient preferences about with whom, when, and how to have these conversations are missing and preferences may vary across patient populations. METHODS: We performed a secondary qualitative analysis of quotes from interviews with 28 cancer survivors from two health care settings (Kaiser Permanente Washington and O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Alabama at Birmingham [UABCCC]). A targeted approach searched for three constructs: (1) Who should have CoC conversations with patients? (2) When should CoC conversations occur? and (3) How should CoC conversations happen? RESULTS: Interviewees were similar in age and education, but UABCCC participants had more racial/ethnic minority representation and financial distress. Within each construct, themes were similar across both groups. As to who should have CoC conversations, we found that (1) providers' main role is medical care, not CoC; and (2) care team staff members are a more appropriate choice to address CoC needs. About the question of when, we found that (3) individuals have strong convictions about when and if they want to discuss CoC; and (4) CoC information and resources need to be available when patients are ready. About the question of how, themes were (5) provide estimates of anticipated out-of-pocket costs and insurance coverage; (6) provide reassurance, sympathy, and concrete solutions; and (7) because of their sensitivity, conduct CoC conversations in a comfortable, private space. CONCLUSION: These findings offer general guidance as to who should conduct CoC conversations and when and how they should occur, with applicability across different patient populations.

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation.

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study.

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Addressing guideline and policy changes during pragmatic clinical trials.

While conducting a set of large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials involving high-impact public health issues such as end-stage renal disease, opioid use, and colorectal cancer, there were substantial changes to both policies and guidelines relevant to the trials. These external changes gave rise to unexpected challenges for the trials, including decisions regarding how to respond to new clinical practice guidelines, increased difficulty in implementing trial interventions, achieving separation between treatment groups, and differential responses across sites. In this article, we describe these challenges and the approaches used to address them. When deliberating appropriate action in the face of external changes during a pragmatic clinical trial, we recommend considering the well-being of the participants, clinical equipoise, and the strength and quality of the evidence associated with the change; involving those charged with data and safety monitoring; and where possible, planning for potential external changes as the trial is being designed. Any solution must balance the primary obligation to protect the well-being of participants with the secondary obligation to protect the integrity of the trial in order to gain meaningful answers to important public health questions.

Collaborating on Data, Science, and Infrastructure: The 20-Year Journey of the Cancer Research Network.

The Cancer Research Network (CRN) is a consortium of 12 research groups, each affiliated with a nonprofit integrated health care delivery system, that was first funded in 1998. The overall goal of the CRN is to support and facilitate collaborative cancer research within its component delivery systems. This paper describes the CRN's 20-year experience and evolution. The network combined its members' scientific capabilities and data resources to create an infrastructure that has ultimately supported over 275 projects. Insights about the strengths and limitations of electronic health data for research, approaches to optimizing multidisciplinary collaboration, and the role of a health services research infrastructure to complement traditional clinical trials and large observational datasets are described, along with recommendations for other research consortia.