Difference between revisions of "Translating Knowledge into Practice"

From Clinfowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine report Crossing the Quality Chasm [http://www.nap.edu/html/quality_chasm/reportbrief.pdf] reported that it takes 17 years to translate scientific evidence into clinical practice and that today’s patients only receive evidence-based care 50 percent of the time. One promise of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was to close that gap by making it easier to incorporate best evidence into practice guidelines through improved collaboration and communication between the research setting and real-world clinical practice[http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/w181].
 
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine report Crossing the Quality Chasm [http://www.nap.edu/html/quality_chasm/reportbrief.pdf] reported that it takes 17 years to translate scientific evidence into clinical practice and that today’s patients only receive evidence-based care 50 percent of the time. One promise of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was to close that gap by making it easier to incorporate best evidence into practice guidelines through improved collaboration and communication between the research setting and real-world clinical practice[http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/w181].
 
   
 
   
Examples of Recovery Act funded Evidence Generation projects by AHRQ:
+
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality[http://www.ahrq.gov/] has furthered this agenda through several Evidence Generation projects that buidl on each other. CHOICE [http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/HS-10-003QandA.htm](Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness)is the first coordinated national effort to establish a series of pragmatic clinical comparative effectiveness studies. PROSPECT[http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/HS-10-005QandA.htm](Prospective Outcome Systems using Patient-specific Electronic data to Compare Tests and therapies)is focused on advancing the quality, depth and scale of the electronic data collection infrastructure as a basis for comparative effectiveness research.  Up to five awards for the creation or enhancement of national patient registries, with a primary focus on the 14 priority conditions. DEcIDE [http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/about-the-decide-network/](Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness)is a multi-center research system that conducts studies on the outcomes, effectiveness, safety, and usefulness of medical treatments and services.  It focuses on distributed data network models that use clinically rich data from electronic health records
1.     Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness (CHOICE)[http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/HS-10-003QandA.htm]: First coordinated national effort to establish a series of pragmatic clinical comparative effectiveness studies
+
2. PROSPECT[http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/HS-10-005QandA.htm]: Up to five awards for the creation or enhancement of national patient registries, with a primary focus on the 14 priority conditions.
+
3. DEcIDE Consortium Support[http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/about-the-decide-network/]: Expansion of multi center research system and funding for distributed data network models that use clinically rich data from electronic health records
+
  
  
Line 20: Line 17:
 
The Electronic Health Record and Clinical Evidence.  Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007): w181–w191
 
The Electronic Health Record and Clinical Evidence.  Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007): w181–w191
 
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/w181  Accessed February 24, 2010
 
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/w181  Accessed February 24, 2010
 +
 +
Submitted by Paula Scariati
 +
 +
[[Category:BMI512-W-10]]

Revision as of 18:39, 27 February 2010

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine report Crossing the Quality Chasm [1] reported that it takes 17 years to translate scientific evidence into clinical practice and that today’s patients only receive evidence-based care 50 percent of the time. One promise of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was to close that gap by making it easier to incorporate best evidence into practice guidelines through improved collaboration and communication between the research setting and real-world clinical practice[2].

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality[3] has furthered this agenda through several Evidence Generation projects that buidl on each other. CHOICE [4](Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in Comparative Effectiveness)is the first coordinated national effort to establish a series of pragmatic clinical comparative effectiveness studies. PROSPECT[5](Prospective Outcome Systems using Patient-specific Electronic data to Compare Tests and therapies)is focused on advancing the quality, depth and scale of the electronic data collection infrastructure as a basis for comparative effectiveness research. Up to five awards for the creation or enhancement of national patient registries, with a primary focus on the 14 priority conditions. DEcIDE [6](Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness)is a multi-center research system that conducts studies on the outcomes, effectiveness, safety, and usefulness of medical treatments and services. It focuses on distributed data network models that use clinically rich data from electronic health records



References

1. Committee on Quality Health Care in America, IOM. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10027.html   Accessed February 24, 2010

2. Taplin SH, Rollason D, Camp A, diDonato K, Maggenheimer E. Imagining and Electronic Medical Record for Turning Cancer Screening Knowledge into Practice. Am J Prev Med 2010;38(1)89-97. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20117563 Accessed February 24, 2010

3. Stewart WF, Shah NR, Selna MJ, Paulus RA, Walker JM. Bridging The Inferential Gap: The Electronic Health Record and Clinical Evidence. Health Affairs 26, no. 2 (2007): w181–w191 http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/2/w181 Accessed February 24, 2010

Submitted by Paula Scariati