ArticleHealth care management science2021
Developing an Institute for Health Care Delivery Science: successes, challenges, and solutions in the first five years.
Article in Health care management science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing the research paradigm for digital transformation in healthcare delivery.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Dietary Management of Heart Failure: DASH Diet and Precision Nutrition Perspectives.Nutrients · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. At the same time, unexplained variations in practice and patient outcomes and unacceptable rates of medical errors and inefficiencies in health care delivery have emerged. Our Institute for Health Care Delivery Science (I-HDS) began in 2014 as a novel platform to conduct multidisciplinary healthcare delivery research. We followed ten strategies to develop a successful institute with excellence in methodology and strong understanding of the value of team science. Our work was organized around five hubs: 1) Quality/Process Improvement and Systematic Review, 2) Comparative Effectiveness Research, Pragmatic Clinical Trials, and Predictive Analytics, 3) Health Economics and Decision Modeling, 4) Qualitative, Survey, and Mixed Methods, and 5) Training and Mentoring. In the first 5 years of the I-HDS, we have identified opportunities for change in clinical practice through research using our health system's electronic health record (EHR) data, and designed programs to educate clinicians in the value of research to improve patient care and recognize efficiencies in processes. Testing the value of several model interventions has guided prioritization of evidence-based quality improvements. Some of the changes in practice have already been embedded in the EHR workflow successfully. Development and sustainability of the I-HDS has been fostered by a mix of internal and external funding, including philanthropic foundations. Challenges remain due to the highly competitive funding environment and changes needed to adapt the EHR to healthcare delivery research. Further stakeholder engagement and culture change working with hospital leadership and I-HDS core and affiliate members continues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33161511What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.