Patient Awareness and Approval for an Opt-Out Genomic Biorepository

Aim: In this study, we sought to assess patient awareness and perceptions of an opt-out biorepository. Materials & methods: We conducted exit interviews with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients having their blood drawn as part of their clinical care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (TN, USA). Results: 32.9% of all patients and parents of pediatric patients report having heard of the opt-out biorepository, while 92.4% approve of this research effort based on a brief description. Awareness that leftover blood could be used for research increased among adult patients during the study period, from 34.3 to 50.0%. Conclusion: These findings will inform ongoing assessments of the suitability of opt-out and opt-in methods as alternatives to written informed consent for inclusion in a biorepository

Taking AIM at serious illness: implementing an access to investigational medicines expanded access program

When seriously ill patients have exhausted all treatment options available as part of usual care, the use of investigational agents may be warranted. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Expanded Access (EA) pathway provides a mechanism for these patient’s physicians to pursue use of an investigational agent outside of a clinical trial when trial enrollment is not a feasible option. Though FDA has recently implemented processes to significantly streamline the regulatory portion of the process, the overall pathway has several time-consuming components including communication with the pharmaceutical company and the associated institutional requirements for EA use (contracting, Institutional Review Board [IRB], pharmacy, billing). Here, we present our experience building infrastructure at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) to support physicians and patients in pursuing EA, called the Access to Investigational Medicines (AIM) Platform, aligning the needs and responsibilities of institutional stakeholders and streamlining to ensure efficiency and regulatory compliance. Since its launch, the AIM team has experienced steady growth, supporting 40 EA cases for drugs/biologics, including both single patient cases and intermediate-size EA protocols in the emergent and non-emergent setting. As the EA pathway is a complex process that requires expert facilitation, we propose prioritizing EA support infrastructure at major academic medical centers as an essential regulatory knowledge function

An analytical approach to characterize morbidity profile dissimilarity between distinct cohorts using electronic medical records

AbstractWe describe a two-stage analytical approach for characterizing morbidity profile dissimilarity among patient cohorts using electronic medical records. We capture morbidities using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-9) codes. In the first stage of the approach separate logistic regression analyses for ICD-9 sections (e.g., “hypertensive disease” or “appendicitis”) are conducted, and the odds ratios that describe adjusted differences in prevalence between two cohorts are displayed graphically. In the second stage, the results from ICD-9 section analyses are combined into a general morbidity dissimilarity index (MDI). For illustration, we examine nine cohorts of patients representing six phenotypes (or controls) derived from five institutions, each a participant in the electronic MEdical REcords and GEnomics (eMERGE) network. The phenotypes studied include type II diabetes and type II diabetes controls, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral arterial disease controls, normal cardiac conduction as measured by electrocardiography, and senile cataracts

Changing behaviour 'more or less'-do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based care requires healthcare practitioners to do less of some things (de-implementation) and more of others (implementation). Variations in effectiveness of behaviour change interventions may result from failure to consider a distinction between approaches by which behaviour increases and decreases in frequency. The distinction is not well represented in methods for designing interventions. This review aimed to identify whether there is a theoretical rationale to support this distinction. METHODS: Using Critical Interpretative Synthesis, this conceptual review included papers from a broad range of fields (biology, psychology, education, business) likely to report approaches for increasing or decreasing behaviour. Articles were identified from databases using search terms related to theory and behaviour change. Articles reporting changes in frequency of behaviour and explicit use of theory were included. Data extracted were direction of behaviour change, how theory was operationalised, and theory-based recommendations for behaviour change. Analyses of extracted data were conducted iteratively and involved inductive coding and critical exploration of ideas and purposive sampling of additional papers to explore theoretical concepts in greater detail. RESULTS: Critical analysis of 66 papers and their theoretical sources identified three key findings: (1) 9 of the 15 behavioural theories identified do not distinguish between implementation and de-implementation (5 theories were applied to only implementation or de-implementation, not both); (2) a common strategy for decreasing frequency was substituting one behaviour with another. No theoretical basis for this strategy was articulated, nor were methods proposed for selecting appropriate substitute behaviours; (3) Operant Learning Theory makes an explicit distinction between techniques for increasing and decreasing frequency. DISCUSSION: Behavioural theories provide little insight into the distinction between implementation and de-implementation. Operant Learning Theory identified different strategies for implementation and de-implementation, but these strategies may not be acceptable in health systems. Additionally, if behaviour substitution is an approach for de-implementation, further investigation may inform methods or rationale for selecting the substitute behaviour

We’re not all cut from the same cloth: TAILORing treatments for children with chronic conditions

Abstract Background Finding the optimal treatment for a chronic condition can be a complex and lengthy endeavor for both the patient and the clinician. To address this challenge, we developed an “N-of-1” quality improvement infrastructure to aid providers and patients in personalized treatment decision-making using systematic assessment of patient-reported outcomes during routine care. Methods Using the REDCap data management infrastructure, we implemented three pediatric pilots of the Treatment Assessments in the Individual Leading to Optimal Regimens (TAILOR) tool, including children receiving early intervention, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and children with challenging behaviors in the classroom setting. This retrospective review of data summarizes utilization and satisfaction data during our pilot experience with the tool. Results The three pilots included a combined total of 109 children and 39 healthcare providers, with 67 parents and 77 teachers invited to share data using brief surveys administered using TAILOR. Overall survey response rates ranged from 38% to 84% across the three pilots, with response rates notably higher among teachers as compared with parents. Satisfaction data indicated positive impressions of the tool’s utility. Discussion These experiences show the utility of the TAILOR framework for supporting collection and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into the care of individuals with chronic conditions