NxGen evidence: Redesigning the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care website to promote engagement, interactivity, and usability of systematic reviews.

Evidence-based decision-making is predicated on the ability of users to find and comprehend results from systematic review. Evidence producers have an obligation to support evidence users in this process. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program-a producer of rigorous and comprehensive systematic reviews for two decades-has set a gold standard for reliability in health evidence reviews in the United States. It has recently begun a program of active support for evidence dissemination and uptake beyond mere publication of lengthy reports. This Brief Methods Note critiques the current paper-based format for systematic reviews and describes the development of a next generation (NxGen) AHRQ EPC Effective Health Care website. This redesigned platform will allow end-users of all types to find and share the evidence they need through data visualizations and other interactive displays. Several design principles guided the development of NxGen to make systematic review findings more accessible, customizable, adaptable, interactive, and shareable. NxGen will include visualizations for report results that are expressed as meta-analyses as well as those with narrative syntheses, through forest or bubble plots, respectively. Visual and interactive evidence heat maps are also planned. The NxGen version of the Effective Health Care website is planned to go live in the latter half of 2020 or early 2021.

Patient and caregiver engagement in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Health Care Horizon Scanning System (HCHSS) process.

OBJECTIVE: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) horizon scanning system is an early warning system for healthcare interventions in development that could disrupt standard care. We report preliminary findings from the patient engagement process. METHODS: The system involves broadly scanning many resources to identify and monitor interventions up to 3 years before anticipated entry into U.S. health care. Topic profiles are written on included interventions with late-phase trial data and circulated with a structured review form for stakeholder comment to determine disruption potential. Stakeholders include patients and caregivers recruited from credible community sources. They view an orientation video, comment on topic profiles, and take a survey about their experience. RESULTS: As of March 2020, 312 monitored topics (some of which were archived) were derived from 3,500 information leads; 121 met the criteria for topic profile development and stakeholder comment. We invited fifty-four patients and caregivers to participate; thirty-nine reviewed at least one report. Their perspectives informed analyst nominations for fourteen topics in two 2019 High Potential Disruption Reports. Thirty-four patient stakeholders completed the user-experience survey. Most agreed (68 percent) or somewhat agreed (26 percent) that they were confident they could provide useful comments. Ninety-four percent would recommend others to participate. CONCLUSIONS: The system has successfully engaged patients and caregivers, who contributed unique and important perspectives that informed the selection of topics deemed to have high potential to disrupt clinical care. Most participants would recommend others to participate in this process. More research is needed to inform optimal patient and caregiver stakeholder recruitment and engagement methods and reduce barriers to participation.

Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Professional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database. POPULATION: 328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships. RESULTS: 235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Controversies in diagnosis: contemporary debates in the diagnostic safety literature.

Since the 2015 publication of the National Academy of Medicine's (NAM) Improving Diagnosis in Health Care (Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. In: Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2015.), literature in diagnostic safety has grown rapidly. This update was presented at the annual international meeting of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM). We focused our literature search on articles published between 2016 and 2018 using keywords in Pubmed and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)'s Patient Safety Network's running bibliography of diagnostic error literature (Diagnostic Errors Patient Safety Network: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Available from: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/search?topic=Diagnostic-Errors&f_topicIDs=407). Three key topics emerged from our review of recent abstracts in diagnostic safety. First, definitions of diagnostic error and related concepts are evolving since the NAM's report. Second, medical educators are grappling with new approaches to teaching clinical reasoning and diagnosis. Finally, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to advance diagnostic excellence is coming to fruition. Here we present contemporary debates around these three topics in a pro/con format.

Prioritizing Evidence-based Interventions for Dissemination and Implementation Investments: AHRQ's Model and Experience.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is mandated to implement patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) to promote safer, higher quality care. With this goal, we developed a process to identify which evidence-based PCOR interventions merit investment in implementation. We present our process and experience to date. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AHRQ developed and applied a systematic, transparent, and stakeholder-driven process to identify, evaluate, and prioritize PCOR interventions for broad dissemination and implementation. AHRQ encouraged public nominations, and assessed them against criteria for quality of evidence, potential impact, and feasibility of successful implementation. Nominations with sufficient evidence, impact, and feasibility were considered for funding. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and June 2018, AHRQ received 35 nominations from researchers, nonprofit corporations, and federal agencies. Topics covered diverse settings, populations, and clinical areas. Twenty-eight unique PCOR interventions met minimum criteria; 16 of those had moderate to high evidence/impact and were assessed for feasibility. Fourteen topics either duplicated other efforts or lacked evidence on implementation feasibility. Two topics were prioritized for funding (cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction and screening/treatment for unhealthy alcohol use). CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ developed replicable criteria, and a transparent and stakeholder-driven framework that attracted a diverse array of nominations. We identified 2 evidence-based practice interventions to improve care with sufficient evidence, impact, and feasibility to justify an AHRQ investment to scale up practice. Other funders, health systems or institutions could use or modify this process to guide prioritization for implementation.

The Care and Learn Model: a Practice and Research Model for Improving Healthcare Quality and Outcomes.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted internal work to formulate a model that could be used to analyze the Agency's research portfolio, identify gaps, develop and prioritize its research agenda, and evaluate its performance. Existing models described the structure and components of the healthcare system. Instead, we produced a model of two functions: caring and learning. Central to this model is the commitment to and participation of people-patients, communities, and health professionals-and the organization of systems to respond to people's problems using evidence. As a product of caring, the system produces evidence that is then used to adapt and continuously improve this response, closely integrating caring and learning. The Agency and the health services research and improvement communities can use this Care and Learn Model to frame an evidence-based understanding of vexing clinical, healthcare delivery, and population health problems and to identify targets for investment, innovation, and investigation.

Future Directions for Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs): A CERA Survey.

BACKGROUND: Thought leaders from family medicine and practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have put forth definitions and goals recommending future directions for PBRNs. Evidence demonstrating that PBRNs are acting in accordance with these trends supports future investment in PBRN infrastructure, funding, and training of clinician researchers. Our objective was to explore the alignment of PBRN research efforts with thought leader recommendations. METHODS: The 2017 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance surveyed PBRN directors via emails to 126 respondents. This survey included 6 general background questions about PBRN characteristics. An additional 25 questions focused on current and future research directions, including the training of health care professionals about PBRN research. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56/126 (44%). Physician faculty receive continuing medical education credit for PBRN training (reported by 12/56 of PBRN directors). PBRN provided continuing medical education for study participation (24/56), reviewing study results (7/56), attending a study results presentation (24/56), and attending study planning meetings (13/56). Practice-based research education of medical students and residents was reported at 11/56 and 14/56, respectively. Current PBRN research efforts were most frequent in the areas of community engagement, practice transformation, and quality improvement projects. CONCLUSION: PBRNs currently thrive on conducting research predominantly in quality improvement and practice transformation. However, the study findings suggest that moving forward, PBRNs should participate more in training the future generations of primary care researchers and to address health policy needs.

Health Research Funding Agencies' Policies, Recommendations, and Tools for Dissemination.

THE PROBLEM: Dissemination is a key component of translational research. However, research participants rarely receive findings from the studies in which they have participated. Funding agencies have a significant amount of influence to promote research dissemination through requirements, recommendations, and tools. However, it is not clear to what extent current funding agencies promote dissemination to study participants.Purpose of Article: A review of major health research funders was conducted to ascertain the current policies, recommendations, and tools related to 1) academic dissemination, 2) lay community dissemination, and 3) returning results to research participants. KEY POINTS: Several agencies have policies, recommendations, and tools for academic dissemination; however, few have the same policies, recommendations, and tools for dissemination to research participants and the lay communities they are recruited from. CONCLUSIONS: Funding agencies have a unique opportunity to encourage the dissemination of research results to research participants and lay community audiences by developing policies to increase dissemination of grantees' research findings.

Challenges and opportunities from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) research summit on improving diagnosis: a proceedings review.

BACKGROUND: The Improving Diagnosis in Health Care report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) provided an opportunity for many groups to reflect on the role they could play in taking actions to improve diagnostic safety. As part of its own process, AHRQ held a research summit in the fall of 2016, inviting members from a diverse collection of organizations, both inside and outside of Government, to share their suggestions regarding what is known about diagnosis and the challenges that need to be addressed. CONTENT: The goals of the summit were to learn from the insights of participants; examine issues associated with definitions of diagnostic error and gaps in the evidence base; explore clinician and patient perspectives; gain a better understanding of data and measurement, health information technology, and organizational factors that impact the diagnostic process; and identify potential future directions for research. Summary and outlook: Plenary sessions focused on the state of the new diagnostic safety discipline followed by breakout sessions on the use of data and measurement, health information technology, and the role of organizational factors. The proceedings review captures many of the key challenges and areas deserving further research, revealing stimulating yet complex issues.

Save AHRQ; spend more on delivery system R&D.

In the world of healthcare delivery system reform, Dr. Peter Pronovost of Johns Hopkins University is a rock star. His pioneering work in reengineering hospital processes that lead to unnecessary infections has been credited with preventing 50,000 deaths and saving the healthcare system over $12 billion.

Enhancing Coordination Among the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institutes of Health.

This paper focuses on the relationships among the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); and NIH. After a brief description of the Task Force, AHRQ, NIH, and an example of how they interact, we describe the steps that have been taken recently by NIH to enhance their coordination. We also discuss several challenges that remain and consider potential remedies that NIH, AHRQ, and investigators can take to provide the USPSTF with the data it needs to make recommendations, particularly those pertaining to behavioral interventions.