scholarly journals Implementing Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise H. Daudelin ◽  
Laura E. Peterson ◽  
Lisa C. Welch ◽  
Redonna Chandler ◽  
Mridu Pandey ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) undertook a Common Metrics Initiative to improve research processes across the national CTSA Consortium. This was implemented by Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the 64 CTSA academic medical centers. Three metrics were collaboratively developed by NCATS staff, CTSA Consortium teams, and outside consultants for Institutional Review Board Review Duration, Careers in Clinical and Translational Research, and Pilot Award Publications and Subsequent Funding. The implementation program included training on the metric operational guidelines, data collection, data reporting system, and performance improvement framework. The implementation team provided small-group coaching and technical assistance. Collaborative learning sessions, driver diagrams, and change packages were used to disseminate best and promising practices. After 14 weeks, 84% of hubs had produced a value for one metric and about half had produced an initial improvement plan. Overall, hubs reported that the implementation activities facilitated their Common Metrics performance improvement process. Experiences implementing the first three metrics can inform future directions of the Common Metrics Initiative and other research groups implementing standardized metrics and performance improvement processes, potentially including other National Institutes of Health institutes and centers.

Author(s):  
Yao Yuan ◽  
Alison L. Van Dyke ◽  
Valentina I. Petkov ◽  
Sarah Hussey ◽  
Radim Moravec ◽  
...  

Context.— The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry program is currently evaluating the use of archival, diagnostic, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue obtained through SEER cancer registries, functioning as honest brokers for deidentified tissue and associated data. To determine the feasibility of this potential program, laboratory policies for sharing tissue for research needed to be assessed. Objective.— To understand the willingness of pathology laboratories to share archival diagnostic tissue for cancer research and related policies. Design.— Seven SEER registries administered a 27-item questionnaire to pathology laboratories within their respective registry catchment areas. Only laboratories that processed diagnostic FFPE specimens and completed the questionnaire were included in the analysis. Results.— Of the 153 responding laboratories, 127 (83%) responded that they process FFPE specimens. Most (n = 88; 69%) were willing to share tissue specimens for research, which was not associated with the number of blocks processed per year by the laboratories. Most laboratories retained the specimens for at least 10 years. Institutional regulatory policies on sharing deidentified tissue varied considerably, ranging from requiring a full Institutional Review Board review to considering such use exempt from Institutional Review Board review, and 43% (55 of 127) of the laboratories did not know their terms for sharing tissue for research. Conclusions.— This project indicated a general willingness of pathology laboratories to participate in research by sharing FFPE tissue. Given the variability of research policies across laboratories, it is critical for each SEER registry to work with laboratories in their catchment area to understand such policies and state legislation regulating tissue retention and guardianship.


JAMA Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 150 (2) ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Hall ◽  
Barbara H. Hanusa ◽  
Roslyn A. Stone ◽  
Bruce S. Ling ◽  
Robert M. Arnold

Author(s):  
Lisa C. Welch ◽  
Andrada Tomoaia-Cotisel ◽  
Farzad Noubary ◽  
Hong Chang ◽  
Peter Mendel ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, about 60 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported CTSA hubs at academic health care institutions nationwide, is charged with improving the clinical and translational research enterprise. Together with the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the Consortium implemented Common Metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. Methods: Initial implementation across hubs was assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods over a 19-month period. The primary outcome was implementation of three Common Metrics and the performance improvement framework. Challenges and facilitators were elicited. Results: Among 59 hubs with data, all began implementing Common Metrics, but about one-third had completed all activities for three metrics within the study period. The vast majority of hubs computed metric results and undertook activities to understand performance. Differences in completion appeared in developing and carrying out performance improvement plans. Seven key factors affected progress: hub size and resources, hub prior experience with performance management, alignment of local context with needs of the Common Metrics implementation, hub authority in the local institutional structure, hub engagement (including CTSA Principal Investigator involvement), stakeholder engagement, and attending training and coaching. Conclusions: Implementing Common Metrics and performance improvement in a large network of research-focused organizations proved feasible but required substantial time and resources. Considerable heterogeneity across hubs in data systems, existing processes and personnel, organizational structures, and local priorities of home institutions created disparate experiences across hubs. Future metric-based performance management initiatives across heterogeneous local contexts should anticipate and account for these types of differences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document