Implementation of a bundle to improve HIV testing during hospitalization for people who inject drugs

Background Increased HIV testing is essential to ending the HIV epidemic. People who inject drugs (PWID) are among the highest risk for HIV infection. Previous research at Tufts Medical Center identified low HIV testing rates in hospitalized PWID. Our research team aimed to identify and overcome barriers to inpatient HIV screening of PWID using implementation science methods. Methods Stakeholders were engaged to gather perspectives on barriers and facilitators of HIV testing. A PWID care bundle was developed and implemented, which included (1) HIV screening; (2) hepatitis A, B, and C testing and vaccination; (3) medications for opioid use disorder; and (4) naloxone prescription. Strategies from all nine Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) clusters guided the implementation plan. Stakeholder feedback was gathered throughout implementation, and implementation outcomes of acceptability and feasibility were assessed. Results PWID overall felt comfortable with HIV testing being offered while hospitalized. Clinicians cited that the main barriers to HIV testing were discomfort and confusion around consenting requirements. Many resident physicians surveyed reported that, at times, they forgot HIV testing for PWID. Overall, though, resident physicians felt that the PWID bundle was useful and did not distract from other patient care responsibilities. Conclusions Engagement of key stakeholders to increase HIV testing in an inpatient setting led to the implementation of a PWID bundle, which was feasible and acceptable. Bundling evidence-informed care elements for inpatient PWID should be investigated further

Learning health system benefits: Development and initial validation of a framework

Abstract Introduction Implementation of research findings in clinical practice often is not realized or only partially achieved, and if so, with a significant delay. Learning health systems (LHSs) hold promise to overcome this problem by embedding clinical research and evidence‐based best practices into care delivery, enabling innovation and continuous improvement. Implementing an LHS is a complex process that requires participation and resources of a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare leaders, clinical providers, patients and families, payers, and researchers. Engaging these stakeholders requires communicating clear, tangible value propositions. Existing models identify broad categories of benefits but do not explicate the full range of benefits or ways they can manifest in different organizations. Methods To develop such a framework, a working group with representatives from six Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs reviewed existing literature on LHS characteristics, models, and goals; solicited expert input; and applied the framework to their local LHS experiences. Results The Framework of LHS Benefits includes six categories of benefits (quality, safety, equity, patient satisfaction, reputation, and value) relevant for a range of stakeholders and defines key concepts within each benefit. Applying the framework to five LHS case examples indicated preliminary face validity across varied LHS approaches and revealed three dimensions in which the framework is relevant: defining goals of individual LHS projects, facilitating collaboration based on shared values, and establishing guiding tenets of an LHS program or mission. Conclusion The framework can be used to communicate the value of an LHS to different stakeholders across varied contexts and purposes, and to identify future organizational priorities. Further validation will contribute to the framework's evolution and support its potential to inform the development of tools to evaluate LHS impact

Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research. METHODS: CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data. RESULTS: 60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17–129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12–13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics