No abstract

There is renewed interest in patient engagement in clinical and research settings, creating a need for documenting and publishing lessons learned from efforts to meaningfully engage patients. This paper describes early lessons learned from the development of OCHIN's Patient Engagement Panel (PEP). OCHIN supports a national network of more than 300 community health centers (CHCs) and other primary care settings that serve over 1.5 million patients annually across nearly 20 states. The PEP was conceived in 2009 to harness the CHC tradition of patient engagement in this new era of patient-centered outcomes research and ensure that patients were engaged throughout the lifecycle of our research projects, from inception to dissemination. Developed by clinicians and researchers within our practiced-based research network (PBRN), recruitment of patients to serve as PEP members began in early 2012. The PEP currently has a membership of 17 patients from 3 states. Over the past 24 months, the PEP has been involved with 12 projects. We describe developing the PEP and challenges and lessons learned (e.g., recruitment, funding model, creating value for patient partners, compensation). These lessons learned are relevant not only for research, but also for patient engagement in quality improvement efforts and other clinical initiatives.

BackgroundPatients with gaps in health insurance coverage often defer or forgo cancer prevention services. These delays in cancer detection and diagnoses lead to higher rates of morbidity and mortality and increased costs. Recent advances in health information technology (HIT) create new opportunities to enhance insurance support services that reduce coverage gaps through automated processes applied in healthcare settings. This study will assess the implementation of insurance support HIT tools and their effectiveness at improving patients’ insurance coverage continuity and cancer screening rates.Methods/designThis study uses a hybrid cluster-randomized design—a combined effectiveness and implementation trial—in community health centers (CHCs) in the USA. Eligible CHC clinic sites will be randomly assigned to one of two groups in the trial’s implementation component: tools + basic training (Arm I) and tools + enhanced training + facilitation (Arm II). A propensity score-matched control group of clinics will be selected to assess the tools’ effectiveness. Quantitative analyses of the tools’ impact will use electronic health record and Medicaid data to assess effectiveness. Qualitative data will be collected to evaluate the implementation process, understand how the HIT tools are being used, and identify facilitators and barriers to their implementation and use.DiscussionThis study will test the effectiveness of HIT tools to enhance insurance support in CHCs and will compare strategies for facilitating their implementation in “real-world” practice settings. Findings will inform further development and, if indicated, more widespread implementation of insurance support HIT tools.Trial registrationClinical trial NTC02355262

Academic medical centers (AMCs) in the United States built world-class infrastructure to successfully combat disease in the 20th century, which is inadequate for the complexity of sustaining and improving population health. AMCs must now build first-rate 21st-century infrastructure to connect combating disease and promoting health. This infrastructure must acknowledge the bio-psycho-social-environmental factors impacting health and will need to reach far beyond the AMC walls to foster community "laboratories" that support the "science of health," complementary to those supporting the "science of medicine"; cultivate community "classrooms" to stimulate learning and discovery in the places where people live, work, and play; and strengthen bridges between academic centers and these community laboratories and classrooms to facilitate bidirectional teaching, learning, innovation, and discovery.Private and public entities made deep financial investments that contributed to the AMC disease-centered approach to clinical care, education, and research in the 20th century. Many of these same funders now recognize the need to transform U.S. health care into a system that is accountable for population health and the need for a medical workforce equipped with the skills to measure and improve health. Innovative ideas about communities as centers of learning, the importance of social factors as major determinants of health, and the need for multidisciplinary perspectives to solve complex problems are not new; many are 20th-century ideas still waiting to be fully implemented. The window of opportunity is now. The authors articulate how AMCs must take bigger and bolder steps to become leaders in population health.