Dataset Information

The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Academic health centers are poised to improve health through their clinical, education, and research missions. However, these missions often operate in silos. The authors explored stakeholder perspectives at diverse institutions to understand challenges and identify alignment strategies.

Methods

Authors used an exploratory qualitative design and thematic analysis approach with data obtained from electronic surveys sent to participants at five U.S. academic health centers (2017-18), with four different types of medical school/health system partnerships. Participants included educators, researchers, system leaders, administrators, clinical providers, resident/fellow physicians, and students. Investigators coded data using constant comparative analysis, met regularly to reconcile uncertainties, and collapsed/combined categories.

Results

Of 175 participants invited, 113 completed the survey (65%). Three results categories were identified. First, five higher-order themes emerged related to aligning missions, including (a) shared vision and strategies, (b) alignment of strategy with community needs, (c) tension of economic drivers, (d) coproduction of knowledge, and (e) unifying set of concepts spanning all missions. Second, strategies for each mission were identified, including education (new competencies, instructional methods, recruitment), research (shifting agenda, developing partnerships, operations), and clinical operations (delivery models, focus on patient factors/needs, value-based care, well-being). Lastly, strategies for integrating each dyadic mission pair, including research-education, clinical operations education, and research-clinical operations, were identified.

Conclusions

Academic health centers are at a crossroads in regard to identity and alignment across the tripartite missions. The study's results provide pragmatic strategies to advance the tripartite missions and lead necessary change for improved patient health.

SUBMITTER: Gonzalo JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8512738 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

Gonzalo Jed D JD Dekhtyar Michael M Caverzagie Kelly J KJ Grant Barbara K BK Herrine Steven K SK Nussbaum Abraham M AM Tad-Y Darlene D White Earla E Wolpaw Daniel R DR

Learning health systems 20201017 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Academic health centers are poised to improve health through their clinical, education, and research missions. However, these missions often operate in silos. The authors explored stakeholder perspectives at diverse institutions to understand challenges and identify alignment strategies.<h4>Methods</h4>Authors used an exploratory qualitative design and thematic analysis approach with data obtained from electronic surveys sent to participants at five U.S. academic health cent ...[more]

PMID: 34667874

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process.ObjectiveWe describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process.DesignWe conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data.ResultsUsing results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided.DiscussionThis conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably.ConclusionThe BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity.Patient or public contributionThe development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTraditionally, patients have had passive roles in medical education; however, there have been increasing efforts to partner with communities to create authentic representation of laypeople in medical education. Communities' perspectives of these initiatives have rarely been reported in the literature. This study explores the perspectives of members of community-based organisations (CBOs) who were partnered with a community engagement programme for intercalating medical students at Imperial College London.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted, employing reflexive thematic analysis.SettingLondon, UK.ParticipantsA total of five participants (one member from five CBOs who agreed to participate) were interviewed for this study. The selection criterion was direct involvement in the community engagement programme.ResultsThree key themes were identified aligning with the core principles of co-production: building partnership, reciprocity in partnership and maintenance of relationship. Partnership development was influenced by the CBOs' perception of students which caused power differentials in the development of learning plans. Reciprocity refers to a multidirectional benefit pathway resulting from the community involvement programme, which had short-term and anticipated long-term effects. Relationships built were maintained via a service evaluation report, and participants discussed how attitudes of academic institutions towards collaboration influence communities' ability to participate in medical education.ConclusionsThe perspectives of CBOs reported in this study demonstrate that factors important to partnership development in community-engaged medical education are consistent with the key principles of co-production. Supported by literature, the findings emphasise that community involvement can be linked to social accountability and sustainable health practice. Provided that the possible risks/challenges are appropriately identified and mitigated to facilitate co-productive partnerships between stakeholders, the involvement of CBOs in medical education has the potential to provide benefits for communities, students and educational institutions.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing an evidence-based hypertension program in primary healthcare centers (PHCs) in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria is an opportunity to improve hypertension diagnosis, treatment, and control and reduce deaths from cardiovascular diseases. This qualitative research study was conducted in Nigerian PHCs with patients, non-physician health workers, administrators and primary care physicians to inform contextual adaptations of Kaiser Permanente Northern California's hypertension model and the World Health Organization's HEARTS technical package for the system-level, Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria (HTN) Program.MethodsPurposive sampling in 8 PHCs identified patients (n = 8), non-physician health workers (n = 12), administrators (n = 3), and primary care physicians (n = 6) for focus group discussions and interviews. The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) conceptual framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains were used to develop semi-structured interviews (Appendix 1, Supplemental Materials) and coding guides. Content analysis identified multilevel factors that would influence program implementation.ResultsParticipants perceived the need to strengthen four major health system inputs across CFIR domains for successful adaptation of the HTN Program components: (1) reliable drug supply and blood pressure measurement equipment, (2) enable and empower community healthcare workers to participate in team-based care through training and education, (3) information systems to track patients and medication supply chain, and (4) a primary healthcare system that could offer a broader package of health services to meet patient needs. Specific features of the PHCPI framework considered important included: accessible and person-centered care, provider availability and competence, coordination of care, and proactive community outreach. Participants also identified patient-level factors, such as knowledge and beliefs about hypertension, and financial and transportation barriers that could be addressed with better communication, home visits, and drug financing. Participants recommended using existing community structures, such as village health committees and popular opinion leaders, to improve knowledge and demand for the HTN Program.ConclusionsThese results provide information on specific primary care and community contextual factors that can support or hinder implementation and sustainability of an evidence-based, system-level hypertension program in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria, with the ultimate aim of scaling it to other parts of the country.

Project description:BackgroundThe return to participation in meaningful life roles for persons with acquired brain injury (pwABI) is a goal shared by pwABI, their families, clinicians, and researchers. Synthesizing how pwABI define participation will help to identify the aspects of participation important to pwABI and can inform a person-centered approach to participation outcome assessment. To-date, the qualitative synthesis approach has been used to explore facilitators and barriers of participation post-stroke, and views about participation among individuals with stroke in the UK.ObjectivesThis paper's objectives are to (1) conduct a scoping review of qualitative literature that defines and characterizes participation from the perspective of pwABI of any type, (2) synthesize how pwABI define and categorize participation, and (3) link the themes identified in the qualitative synthesis to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) using standardized linking rules to enhance the comparability of our findings to other types of health information, including standardized outcome measures.MethodsWe completed a scoping review of qualitative literature. Our search included PubMed, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Embase databases and included articles that (1) had qualitative methodology, (2) had a sample ≥50% pwABI, (3) had aims or research questions related to the meaning, definition, perception, or broader experience of participation, and (4) were in English. Qualitative findings were synthesized using Thomas and Harden's methodology and resultant themes were linked to ICF codes.ResultsThe search identified 2,670 articles with 2,580 articles excluded during initial screening. The remaining 90 article abstracts were screened, and 6 articles met the full inclusion criteria for the qualitative synthesis. Four analytical themes emerged: (1) Essential Elements of Participation (2) How pwABI Approach Participation, (3) Where pwABI Participate, and (4) Outcomes of Participation. Each overarching theme included multiple descriptive themes.ConclusionIn this paper, we identified themes that illustrate key components of participation to pwABI. Our results provide insight into the complex perspectives about participation among pwABI and illustrate aspects of participation that should hold elevated importance for clinicians and researchers supporting participation of pwABI.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States health care sector is one of the largest polluting industries, which has significant adverse effects on human health. Medical device reprocessing (MDR) is a sustainability solution that has the potential to decrease hospital waste, cut carbon emissions, reduce spending, and improve supply chain resiliency; however, only a small proportion of FDA-approved devices are actually reprocessed. Thus, we conducted a qualitative study to understand barriers and facilitators of scaling up MDR.Methods and findingsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 17 stakeholders (exceeding thematic saturation) at a large academic health system in New England and national MDR organizations. We also collected observations through site visits at the health system. We recruited participants from June 2021 to April 2022 through purposive sampling. Using an analytic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we applied inductive and deductive codes related to key implementation constructs. We then conducted a thematic analysis and identified five overarching themes related to barriers and facilitators of MDR. First, respondents explained that regulatory bodies and original equipment manufacturers determine which devices can be reprocessed. For example, some respondents described that original equipment manufacturers use tactics of forced obsolescence that prevent their devices from being reprocessed. Second, respondents explained that MDR has variable compatibility with hospital priorities; for example, the potential cost savings of MDR is compatible with their priorities, while the perception of decreased functionality of reprocessed medical devices is incompatible. Third, respondents described that physician preferences influence which reprocessed devices get ordered. Fourth, respondents explained that variable staff knowledge and beliefs about MDR influence their motivations to select and collect reprocessable devices. Lastly, respondents emphasized that there was a lack of infrastructure for evaluating and maintaining MDR programs within their health system.ConclusionsBased on our findings, we have outlined a number of recommendations that target these barriers and facilitators so that the environmental and financial benefits of MDR can be realized at this health system and nationally. For example, implementing federal policies that prevent original equipment manufacturers from using tactics of forced obsolescence can facilitate the scale-up of MDR nationally. Additionally, providing life cycle assessments that compare the environmental effects of single-use disposable, reprocessable disposable, and reusable devices could facilitate health systems' purchasing decisions. Creating and disseminating audit and feedback reports to hospital staff might also facilitate their continued engagement in the program. Lastly, hiring a full-time program manager that leads MDR programs within health systems could improve program sustainability.

Project description:IntroductionCoaching interventions in graduate medical education have proven successful in increasing technical and communication skills, reducing errors, and improving patient care. Effective stakeholder engagement enhances the relevance, value, and long-term sustainability of interventions, yet specific strategies for stakeholder engagement remain uncertain. The purpose of this article is to identify strategies to foster engagement of diverse stakeholder groups in coaching interventions.Material and methodsWe conducted 35 semi-structured interviews between November 2021 and April 2022 with purposively sampled key stakeholders that captured participants' perspectives on physicians' communication training needs, roles, and involvement in, as well as contextual factors, facilitators, barriers, and improvement strategies of the multi-departmental Communication Coaching Program at our institution. We utilized the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research to guide data collection and analysis. An analytic approach relied on team-based thematic analysis with high inter-coder agreement between three raters (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.83). Several validation techniques were used to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.ResultsAnalysis of transcribed interviews with stakeholders directly involved in the Communication Coaching Program, including 10 residents, 10 faculty coaches, 9 medical education leaders, and 8 programmatic sponsors, revealed five key engagement strategies: (1) embrace collaborative design, (2) enable flexible adjustments and modifications, (3) secure funding, (4) identify champions, and (5) demonstrate outcomes. Additionally, a patient-centered approach to delivering the best possible patient care emerged as a primary objective that linked all stakeholder groups.DiscussionEvaluating the experiences of key stakeholders in the Communication Coaching Program helped identify targetable strategies to facilitate participant engagement across all organizational levels. The analysis also revealed universal alignment around the importance of providing high-quality patient care. Insights from this work provide guidance for clinical training programs moving toward the implementation of coaching interventions.

Dataset Information

The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: A qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets