scholarly journals Empowering the Clinical Research Coordinator in Academic Medical Centers

Author(s):  
Danielle A. Buchanan ◽  
Jody Goldstein ◽  
Anna C. Pfalzer ◽  
Ya-Chen Lin ◽  
Hakmook Kang ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn N. Murphy ◽  
Anil Dubey ◽  
Peter J. Embi ◽  
Paul A. Harris ◽  
Brent G. Richter ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (5) ◽  
pp. 770-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert DiLaura ◽  
Fran Turisco ◽  
Cherri McGrew ◽  
Stephanie Reel ◽  
John Glaser ◽  
...  

BackgroundData on the state of information systems infrastructures used in the clinical research enterprise of academic medical centers are limited and mostly anecdotal. What has been published is slowly beginning to make important distinctions, such as clinical trials as a specialized form of clinical research and between "Informatics" in an academic setting from health care information technology. However, this field continues to undergo fundamental changes, accelerated by the National Institutes of Health's creation of Clinical and Translational Science Awards to build a new "home" for biomedical research.MethodsWe surveyed all Clinical Research Forum member institutions regarding their enterprise infrastructure and use of information systems in support of clinical research. The questions in this on-line study expanded on one first done in 2005. Of the 52 sites invited, 19 (37%) responded. We analyzed the responses and also made matched comparisons for those organizations that participated in both surveys.ResultsAlthough there continues to be conceptual agreement on information system elements for the clinical research enterprise, no single institution achieved the ideal, a similar result to the 2005 survey. Indeed, little progress was made over the past 2 years at most locations other than in information technology planning, strategy, and governance.ConclusionsThere is increased recognition of the importance of information systems infrastructure and expertise for biomedical research, but the needs are accelerating much faster than institutions can build or pay for. A much greater realization of and innovative solution for this growing chasm is urgently required.


Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894471989881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Pong ◽  
Wouter F. van Leeuwen ◽  
Kamil Oflazoglu ◽  
Philip E. Blazar ◽  
Neal Chen

Background: Total wrist arthroplasty (TWA) is a treatment option for many debilitating wrist conditions. With recent improvements in implant design, indications for TWA have broadened. However, despite these improvements, there are still complications associated with TWA, such as unplanned reoperation and eventual implant removal. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for an unplanned reoperation or implant revision after a TWA at 2 academic medical centers between 2002 and 2015. Methods: In this retrospective study, 24 consecutive TWAs were identified using CPT codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to identify demographic, patient- or disease-related, and surgery-related risk factors for reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA. Results: Forty-six percent of wrists (11 of 24 TWAs performed) had a reoperation after a median of 3.4 years, while 29% (7 of 24) underwent implant revision after a median of 5 years. Two patients had wrist surgery prior to their TWA, both eventually had their implant removed ( P = .08). There were no risk factors associated with reoperation or implant removal. Conclusion: Unplanned reoperation and implant removal after a primary TWA are common. Approximately 1 in 3 wrists are likely to undergo revision surgery. We found no factors associated with reoperation or implant removal; however, prior wrist surgery showed a trend toward risk of implant removal after TWA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document