scholarly journals Patient Engagement and Attitudes Toward Using the Electronic Medical Record for Medical Research: The 2015 Greater Plains Collaborative Health and Medical Research Family Survey (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann M Davis ◽  
Lawrence P Hanrahan ◽  
Alex F Bokov ◽  
Sarah Schlachter ◽  
Helena H Laroche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Child Rearing ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
National Patient

BACKGROUND Electronic health records (EHRs) are ubiquitous. Yet little is known about the use of EHRs for prospective research purposes, and even less is known about patient perspectives regarding the use of their EHR for research. OBJECTIVE This paper reports results from the initial obesity project from the Greater Plains Collaborative that is part of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet). The purpose of the project was to (1) assess the ability to recruit samples of adults of child-rearing age using the EHR; (2) prospectively assess the willingness of adults of child-rearing age to participate in research, and their willingness (if parents) to have their children participate in medical research; and (3) to assess their views regarding the use of their EHRs for research. METHODS The EHRs of 10 Midwestern academic medical centers were used to select patients. Patients completed a survey that was designed to assess patient willingness to participate in research and their thoughts about the use of their EHR data for research. The survey included questions regarding interest in medical research, as well as basic demographic and health information. A variety of contact methods were used. RESULTS A cohort of 54,269 patients was created, and 3139 (5.78%) patients responded. Completers were more likely to be female (53.84%) and white (85.84%). These and other factors differed significantly by site. Respondents were overwhelmingly positive (83.9%) about using EHRs for research. CONCLUSIONS EHRs are an important resource for engaging patients in research, and our respondents concurred. The primary limitation of this work was a very low response rate, which varied by the method of contact, geographic location, and respondent characteristics. The primary strength of this work was the ability to ascertain the clinically observed characteristics of nonrespondents and respondents to determine factors that may contribute to participation, and to allow for the derivation of reliable study estimates for weighting responses and oversampling of difficult-to-reach subpopulations. These data suggest that EHRs are a promising new and effective tool for patient-engaged health research. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR NA

Is it Really All about the Money? Reconsidering Non-Financial Interests in Medical Research

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Saver
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Do So

Conflicts of interest have been reduced to financial conflicts. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) new rules for managing conflicts of interest in medical research, the first major change to the regulations in over 15 years, address only financial ties. Although several commentators urged that the regulations also cover non-financial interests, the Department of Health and Human Services declined to do so. Similarly, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) influential 2009 Conflict of Interest Report focuses almost exclusively on financial conflicts. Institutional policies at academic medical centers and guidance from professional bodies and medical journals also primarily emphasize financial ties. Even broadly worded rules are applied more readily to financial ties than non-financial interests, such as the regulations that restrict institutional review board (IRB) members with conflicting interests from participating in protocol reviews.

scholarly journals Do neurosurgeons receive more patient complaints than other physicians? Describing who is most at risk and how we can improve

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Robert J. Dambrino ◽  
Scott L. Zuckerman ◽  
Bradley S. Guidry ◽  
Henry J. Domenico ◽  
Reid C. Thompson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Patient Complaints ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Malpractice Claims ◽  
National Patient ◽  
Medical School Graduation ◽  
School Graduation

OBJECTIVEThe number of unsolicited patient complaints (UPCs) about surgeons correlates with surgical complications and malpractice claims. Using a large, national patient complaint database, the authors sought to do the following: 1) compare the rates of UPCs for neurosurgeons to those for other physicians, 2) analyze the risk of UPCs with individual neurosurgeon characteristics, and 3) describe the types of UPCs made about neurosurgeons.METHODSPatient and family complaint reports among 36,265 physicians, including 423 neurosurgeons, 8292 other surgeons, and 27,550 nonsurgeons who practiced at 33 medical centers (22 academic and 11 regional) from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, were coded with a previously validated Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS) algorithm.RESULTSAmong 423 neurosurgeons, 93% were male, and most (71%) practiced in academic medical centers. Neurosurgical subspecialties included general practice (25%), spine (25%), tumor (16%), vascular (13%), functional (10%), and pediatrics (10%). Neurosurgeons had more average total UPCs per physician (8.68; 95% CI 7.68–9.67) than nonsurgeons (3.40; 95% CI 3.33–3.47) and other surgeons (5.01; 95% CI 4.85–5.17; p < 0.001). In addition, a significantly higher percentage of neurosurgeons received at least one UPC (71.6%; 95% CI 67.3%–75.9%) than did nonsurgeons (50.2%; 95% CI 49.6%–50.8%) and other surgeons (58.2%; 95% CI 57.1%–59.3%; p < 0.001). Factors most associated with increased average UPCs were younger age, measured as median medical school graduation year (1990.5 in the 0-UPC group vs 1993 in the 14+-UPC group, p = 0.009) and spine subspecialty (13.4 mean UPCs in spine vs 7.9 mean UPCs in other specialties, 95% CI 2.3–8.5, p < 0.001). No difference in complaints was seen in those who graduated from non-US versus US medical schools (p = 0.605). The most common complaint types were related to issues surrounding care and treatment, communication, and accessibility, each of which was significantly more common for neurosurgeons than other surgical specialties (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSNeurosurgeons were more likely to generate UPCs than other surgical specialties, and almost 3 out of 4 neurosurgeons (71.6%) had at least one UPC during the study period. Prior studies have shown that feedback to physicians about behavior can result in fewer UPCs. These results suggest that neurosurgeons have opportunities to reduce complaints and potentially improve the overall quality of care delivered.

Academic Medical Centers and Medical Research

JAMA ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 294 (11) ◽  
pp. 1367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan J. Cohen ◽  
Elisa K. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical

Unplanned Reoperation and Implant Revision After Total Wrist Arthroplasty

Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894471989881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Pong ◽  
Wouter F. van Leeuwen ◽  
Kamil Oflazoglu ◽  
Philip E. Blazar ◽  
Neal Chen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Implant Removal ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Implant Design ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Total Wrist Arthroplasty ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Related Risk ◽  
Wrist Arthroplasty

Background: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a treatment option for many debilitating wrist conditions. With recent improvements in implant design, indications for TWA have broadened. However, despite these improvements, there are still complications associated with TWA, such as unplanned reoperation and eventual implant removal. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for an unplanned reoperation or implant revision after a TWA at 2 academic medical centers between 2002 and 2015. Methods: In this retrospective study, 24 consecutive TWAs were identified using CPT codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to identify demographic, patient- or disease-related, and surgery-related risk factors for reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA. Results: Forty-six percent of wrists (11 of 24 TWAs performed) had a reoperation after a median of 3.4 years, while 29% (7 of 24) underwent implant revision after a median of 5 years. Two patients had wrist surgery prior to their TWA, both eventually had their implant removed ( P = .08). There were no risk factors associated with reoperation or implant removal. Conclusion: Unplanned reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA are common. Approximately 1 in 3 wrists are likely to undergo revision surgery. We found no factors associated with reoperation or implant removal; however, prior wrist surgery showed a trend toward risk of implant removal after TWA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document