Operationalizing a learning health system: A self-assessment tool for interprofessional teams

IF 2.6 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Victor C. Rentes, Claire Kalpakjian, Anne Sales, Andrew Krumm
{"title":"Operationalizing a learning health system: A self-assessment tool for interprofessional teams","authors":"Victor C. Rentes,&nbsp;Claire Kalpakjian,&nbsp;Anne Sales,&nbsp;Andrew Krumm","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.10482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The operationalization of learning health system (LHS) principles remains challenging, with minimal guidance currently available to support interprofessional teams on the ground. Consequently, LHS initiatives often fall short of their intended objectives, resulting in wasted resources, delays, and mounting frustration among key stakeholders.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>To bridge this gap, we used design science and participatory action research to co-develop an operational roadmap for interprofessional LHS teams. Data sources for roadmap design included quantitative and qualitative feedback from interprofessional stakeholders (<i>n</i> = 20) from an academic health system and a pragmatic literature review. Using these data sources, we conducted three design iterations until a final version was reached.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The resulting roadmap specifies processes to be performed during project-based LHS initiatives, and provides a self-assessment tool that enables team members to quantitatively evaluate progress. For generalizability and standardization across settings, we used clinically neutral terminology to describe all elements in the roadmap. We demonstrated content validity through multiple rounds of data collection and analyses with stakeholders. A simulated demonstration is provided to illustrate how the roadmap may be used for team assessments in practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Participants considered the roadmap to be an effective tool to assist project management and highly useful for evaluating teams' progress for planning and communication purposes. As a reference model, the roadmap may be re-utilized across multiple LHS initiatives in any given health system to standardize and streamline LHS development. This research was conducted within a single department in an academic health system, and future research is needed to assess the roadmap's generalizability in other settings. To facilitate development of similar or complementary instruments, the detailed design methodology used in this research may be replicated and/or tailored in other contexts.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.10482","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lrh2.10482","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The operationalization of learning health system (LHS) principles remains challenging, with minimal guidance currently available to support interprofessional teams on the ground. Consequently, LHS initiatives often fall short of their intended objectives, resulting in wasted resources, delays, and mounting frustration among key stakeholders.

Methods

To bridge this gap, we used design science and participatory action research to co-develop an operational roadmap for interprofessional LHS teams. Data sources for roadmap design included quantitative and qualitative feedback from interprofessional stakeholders (n = 20) from an academic health system and a pragmatic literature review. Using these data sources, we conducted three design iterations until a final version was reached.

Results

The resulting roadmap specifies processes to be performed during project-based LHS initiatives, and provides a self-assessment tool that enables team members to quantitatively evaluate progress. For generalizability and standardization across settings, we used clinically neutral terminology to describe all elements in the roadmap. We demonstrated content validity through multiple rounds of data collection and analyses with stakeholders. A simulated demonstration is provided to illustrate how the roadmap may be used for team assessments in practice.

Conclusions

Participants considered the roadmap to be an effective tool to assist project management and highly useful for evaluating teams' progress for planning and communication purposes. As a reference model, the roadmap may be re-utilized across multiple LHS initiatives in any given health system to standardize and streamline LHS development. This research was conducted within a single department in an academic health system, and future research is needed to assess the roadmap's generalizability in other settings. To facilitate development of similar or complementary instruments, the detailed design methodology used in this research may be replicated and/or tailored in other contexts.

Abstract Image

学习型卫生系统的运作:跨专业团队的自我评估工具
背景:学习型卫生系统(LHS)原则的实施仍然具有挑战性,目前可用于支持实地跨专业团队的指导很少。因此,LHS计划往往达不到预期目标,导致资源浪费、延误和关键利益相关者之间日益增加的挫败感。方法为了弥补这一差距,我们使用设计科学和参与式行动研究来共同制定跨专业LHS团队的操作路线图。路线图设计的数据来源包括来自学术卫生系统的跨专业利益相关者(n = 20)的定量和定性反馈以及实用文献综述。使用这些数据源,我们进行了三次设计迭代,直到达到最终版本。由此产生的路线图指定了在基于项目的LHS计划期间要执行的过程,并提供了一个自我评估工具,使团队成员能够定量地评估进度。为了在不同情况下的通用性和标准化,我们使用临床中性术语来描述路线图中的所有元素。我们通过与利益相关者的多轮数据收集和分析来证明内容的有效性。本文提供了一个模拟演示,以说明在实践中如何将路线图用于团队评估。参与者认为路线图是协助项目管理的有效工具,对于评估团队的进度以进行计划和沟通非常有用。作为参考模型,路线图可以在任何给定卫生系统中的多个LHS计划中重新使用,以标准化和简化LHS的开发。这项研究是在一个学术卫生系统的单一部门内进行的,未来的研究需要评估路线图在其他环境中的普遍性。为了促进类似或补充工具的开发,本研究中使用的详细设计方法可以在其他情况下复制和/或调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learning Health Systems
Learning Health Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.60%
发文量
55
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信