TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods to identify and prioritize research projects and perform embedded research in learning healthcare systems
AU - For the Embedded Research Conference Priorities and Methods Workgroup
AU - Osuji, Thearis A.
AU - Frantsve-Hawley, Julie
AU - Jolles, Monica Perez
AU - Kitzman, Heather
AU - Parry, Carly
AU - Gould, Michael K.
AU - Adams, John
AU - Adirim, Terry
AU - Black, Heather
AU - Cohen, Deborah
AU - Glass, David
AU - Gould, Michael
AU - Gupta, Reshma
AU - Holtrop, Jodi
AU - Kerr, Eve
AU - Kimmel, Stephen
AU - Lieu, Tracy
AU - Mittman, Brian
AU - Nguyen, Huong
AU - Osuji, Thearis
AU - Rubenstein, Lisa
AU - Solberg, Leif
N1 - Funding Information:
This project was supported by funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ( PCORI ). The views presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors, or its Methodology Committee. The authors express their gratitude to their fellow workgroup members following who generously shared their knowledge and insights: John Adams (Kaiser Permanente Center for Safety & Effectiveness Research); Terry Adrim (US Department of Defense); Heather Black (Merck); Deborah Cohen (Oregon Health & Science University); Reshma Gupta (University of California, Davis); Jodi Holtrop (University of Colorado School of Medicine); Eve Kerr (Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, University of Michigan); Stephen Kimmel (University of Pennsylvania), Tracy Lieu (Kaiser Permanente Northern California); Lisa Rubenstein (RAND, University of California Los Angeles); Leif Solberg (HealthPartners and HealthPartners Institute); and David Glass, Brian Mittman, and Huong Nguyen (Kaiser Permanente Southern California).
Funding Information:
This project was supported by funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The views presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors, or its Methodology Committee. The authors express their gratitude to their fellow workgroup members following who generously shared their knowledge and insights: John Adams (Kaiser Permanente Center for Safety & Effectiveness Research); Terry Adrim (US Department of Defense); Heather Black (Merck); Deborah Cohen (Oregon Health & Science University); Reshma Gupta (University of California, Davis); Jodi Holtrop (University of Colorado School of Medicine); Eve Kerr (Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, University of Michigan); Stephen Kimmel (University of Pennsylvania), Tracy Lieu (Kaiser Permanente Northern California); Lisa Rubenstein (RAND, University of California Los Angeles); Leif Solberg (HealthPartners and HealthPartners Institute); and David Glass, Brian Mittman, and Huong Nguyen (Kaiser Permanente Southern California).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Background: The Embedded Healthcare Research Conference aimed to promote and enhance research-operations partnerships in diverse health care settings. Within this conference, the Priorities and Methods Workgroup set out to define a vision of embedded research that leverages diverse methods to address clearly articulated research questions of importance to health systems. Methods: The Workgroup session involved a combination of small and large group discussions around three broadly focused topics: the integration of embedded research within the existing quality improvement (QI) ecosystem; the identification, prioritization and formulation of embedded research questions; the creation of an embedded research “tool kit.” Results: Workgroup participants envisioned a future for embedded research that is characterized by authentic engagement between researchers and health system leaders; seamless integration between research, QI and clinical operations; clear and explicit articulation of research questions; an appropriate balance between rigor and relevance in applied methodology; alignment between study design, available resources and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; efficient processes; and bi-directional communication. Important barriers to achieving this vision include limited access to executive leaders, silos that discourage integration of research and QI, generally low tolerance for disruption in high-risk clinical settings, limited access to data, and limited availability of researchers with requisite skills and training. Conclusions: Embedded research holds potential to enhance the relevance, value and use of research, while also creating generalizable knowledge. Key recommendations include building authentic relationships, discouraging silos, encouraging innovation and experimentation, and expanding opportunities for funding research in delivery systems.
AB - Background: The Embedded Healthcare Research Conference aimed to promote and enhance research-operations partnerships in diverse health care settings. Within this conference, the Priorities and Methods Workgroup set out to define a vision of embedded research that leverages diverse methods to address clearly articulated research questions of importance to health systems. Methods: The Workgroup session involved a combination of small and large group discussions around three broadly focused topics: the integration of embedded research within the existing quality improvement (QI) ecosystem; the identification, prioritization and formulation of embedded research questions; the creation of an embedded research “tool kit.” Results: Workgroup participants envisioned a future for embedded research that is characterized by authentic engagement between researchers and health system leaders; seamless integration between research, QI and clinical operations; clear and explicit articulation of research questions; an appropriate balance between rigor and relevance in applied methodology; alignment between study design, available resources and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; efficient processes; and bi-directional communication. Important barriers to achieving this vision include limited access to executive leaders, silos that discourage integration of research and QI, generally low tolerance for disruption in high-risk clinical settings, limited access to data, and limited availability of researchers with requisite skills and training. Conclusions: Embedded research holds potential to enhance the relevance, value and use of research, while also creating generalizable knowledge. Key recommendations include building authentic relationships, discouraging silos, encouraging innovation and experimentation, and expanding opportunities for funding research in delivery systems.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091632334&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091632334&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100476
DO - 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100476
M3 - Article
C2 - 33007650
AN - SCOPUS:85091632334
SN - 2213-0764
VL - 8
JO - Healthcare
JF - Healthcare
IS - 4
M1 - 100476
ER -