A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research

CTSA Consortium Consensus Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Working Group Report on the SRC Processes

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided

Experiences of families with a high-achiever child in sport: Case studies

The family, not only the coach, plays a major role in the pursuit of children to reach the highest level in sport.  Yet, it is mainly the high achiever, and sometimes the coach, who get recognition for success in this regard.  This study explored the experiences of families with high-achieving adolescent athletes aspiring to compete in the Olympics. The participants consisted of three purposively selected South African families. In-depth  phenomenological interviews were conducted. Data were analysed by means of thematic coding. Four themes were identified: a child who is an achiever in sport affects the whole family; acceptance of the trying  circumstances of being a high achiever in sport made it easier for the achiever child to cope; as siblings grow older, they try to find their own niche in the family; and coaches become as important to children as their own parents. A cross-validation report of the three case studies and a discussion of findings in the literature give  insight into an understanding of the everyday lives of high achievers in sport.Key words: Sport family; Family life; High achiever in sport; Acknowledgement of parents; Parenting sport  stars

CTSA Consortium Consensus Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Working Group Report on the SRC Processes.

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided