Medical audit advisory groups and confidentiality

In a public health crisis, experts (such as epidemiologists, public health officers, physicians and virologists) support key decision makers with advice in a highly dynamic, pressured, and time-sensitive context. Experts must process information (to provide advice) as quickly as possible, yet this must be balanced with ensuring the information is credible, reliable, and relevant. When an unexpected event occurs, it may lead to a gap between what is experienced and what was expected; sensemaking is a meaning creation process which is engaged to fill the gap. This research explores how experts engage in sensemaking during a public health crisis.

Download Full-text

Implementation of the Australasian Teletrial Model: Translating idea into action using implementation science frameworks

Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare ◽

10.1177/1357633x211017805 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1357633X2110178

Author(s):

Sabe Sabesan ◽

Marie Malica ◽

Chantal Gebbie ◽

Clare Scott ◽

David Thomas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Implementation Science ◽

Pilot Project ◽

Final Report ◽

Rare Cancer ◽

Government Investment ◽

Implementation Framework ◽

Advisory Groups ◽

Regulatory Systems ◽

Key Stakeholders ◽

Strategic Implementation

Background: Despite Government investment, disparity in access to clinical trials continue between metropolitan and regional & rural sectors (RRR) in Australia and around the world. To improve trial access closer to home for RRR communities and rare cancer patients even in metro settings, the Australasian Teletrial Model (ATM) was developed by Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and implemented in four states. Aim of this paper is to describe the steps and processes involved in the development and implementation of ATM guided by implementation science frameworks. Method: Two implementation science frameworks namely iPARIHS and Strategic Implementation Framework were chosen to guide the project. Details of steps and processes were extracted from COSA final report. Results: ATM met the criteria for worthy innovation. For the development and implementation of the ATM, stakeholders were at national, statewide and clinical levels. A co-design with end-users and inclusion of key stakeholders in steering committees and advisory groups made the implementation smoother. Clinician levers including advocacy were useful to overcome system barriers. During the project, more patients, and clinicians at RRR participated in trials, more primary sites collaborated with RRR sites and more RRR sites gained trial capabilities. Conclusion: Pilot project achieved its objectives including improved access to patients locally, creation of linkages between metro and RRR sites and enhanced capabilities of and access to RRR sites. Implementation science frameworks were useful for identifying the necessary steps and processes at the outset. Ownership by governments and creation of streamlined regulatory systems would enable broader adoption.

Download Full-text

Citizen advisory groups for the creation and improvement of decision aids: experience from two Swiss centers for primary care

Research Involvement and Engagement ◽

10.1186/s40900-021-00283-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kevin Selby ◽

Regula Cardinaux ◽

Beatrice Metry ◽

Simone de Rougemont ◽

Janine Chabloz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Community Based Participatory Research ◽

Lung Cancer Screening ◽

Target Population ◽

Advisory Groups ◽

Patient Decision ◽

The Creation ◽

Meeting Transcripts ◽

The University

Abstract Background Guidelines for patient decision aids (DA) recommend target population involvement throughout the development process, but developers may struggle because of limited resources. We sought to develop a feasible means of getting repeated feedback from users. Methods Between 2017 and 2020, two Swiss centers for primary care (Lausanne and Bern) created citizen advisory groups to contribute to multiple improvement cycles for colorectal, prostate and lung cancer screening DAs. Following Community Based Participatory Research principles, we collaborated with local organizations to recruit citizens aged 50 to 75 without previous cancer diagnoses. We remunerated incidental costs and participant time. One center supplemented in-person meetings by mailed paper questionnaires, while the other supplemented meetings using small-group workshops and analyses of meeting transcripts. Results In Lausanne, we received input from 49 participants for three DAs between 2017 and 2020. For each topic, participants gave feedback on the initial draft and 2 subsequent versions during in-person meetings with ~ 8 participants and one round of mailed questionnaires. In Bern, 10 participants were recruited among standardized patients from the university, all of whom attended in-person meetings every three months between 2017 and 2020. At both sites, numerous changes were made to the content, appearance, language, and tone of DAs and outreach materials. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the participative process. Conclusions Citizen advisory groups are a feasible means of repeatedly incorporating end-user feedback during the creation of multiple DAs. Methodological differences between the two centers underline the need for a flexible model adapted to local needs.

Download Full-text