The role of academic health centers in improving health

Multisite Quality Improvement Initiative to Identify and Address Racial Disparities and Deficiencies in Delivering Equitable, Patient-Centered Care for Multiple Myeloma-Exploring the Differences between Academic and Community Oncology Centers

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is complex; however, with equal access to care, clinical outcomes for Black patients match those in other patient groups. To reveal and begin to address clinical practice barriers to equitable, patient-centered MM care, this quality improvement (QI) initiative assessed patient electronic medical records (EMRs) and surveyed patients and providers at two large hospital systems and four community-based practices. For the educational intervention, providers participated in feedback-focused grand rounds sessions to reflect on system barriers and develop action plans to improve MM care. EMR reviews revealed infrequent documentation of cytogenetics and disease staging at community-based practices compared to large hospital systems. In surveys, providers from each care setting reported different challenges in MM care. Notably, the goals of treatment for patients and providers aligned at community clinics while providers and patients from large hospital systems had discordant perspectives. However, providers in community settings underreported race-associated barriers to care and identified different factors impacting treatment decision-making than Black patients. Relative to pre-session responses, providers were more likely to report high confidence after the educational sessions in aligning treatment decisions with guidelines and clinical evidence and shared decision-making (SDM). This QI study identified discordant perceptions among providers at large hospital systems and community-based practices in providing quality MM care. Provider education yielded increased confidence in and commitment to patient-centered care.

The adjustment of neurosurgical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study at Dr. Sardjito General Hospital as a part of an academic health system

OBJECTIVE

The recent COVID-19 outbreak has forced notable adjustments to surgical procedure preparation, including neurosurgical services. However, due to the uniqueness of the recent situation, neurosurgical centers, especially those located in low-resource settings, are facing several challenges such as a lack of coordination, poor equipment, and shortage of medical personnel. Therefore, several guidelines from local authorities and international neurosurgical bodies have been published to help clinicians manage their patients. In addition, the academic health system (AHS), which is an integrated system containing a medical institution, universities, and a teaching hospital, may play some role in the management of patients during COVID-19. The objective of this study was to describe how each hospital in the authors' network adjusted their neurosurgical practice and how the AHS of the Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) played its role in the adaptation process during the pandemic.

METHODS

The authors gathered both local and national data about the number of COVID-19 infections from the government's database. To assess the contribution of the AHS to the efforts of each hospital to address the pandemic, questionnaires were given to 6 neurosurgeons, 1 resident, and 2 general surgeons about the management of neurosurgical cases during the pandemic in their hospitals.

RESULTS

The data illustrate various strategies to manage neurosurgical cases by hospitals within the authors' networks. The hospitals were grouped into three categories based on the transmission risk in each region. Most of these hospitals stated that UGM AHS had a positive impact on the changes in their strategies. In the early phase of the outbreak, some hospitals faced a lack of coordination between hospitals and related stakeholders, inadequate amount of personal protective equipment (PPE), and unclear regulations. As the nation enters a new phase, almost all hospitals had performed routine screening tests, had a sufficient amount of PPE for the medical personnel, and followed both national and international guidelines in caring for their neurosurgical patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of neurosurgical procedures during the outbreak has been a challenging task and a role of the AHS in improving patient care has been experienced by most hospitals in the authors' network. In the future, the authors expect to develop a better collaboration for the next possible pandemic.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

Socially Accountable Academic Health Centers: Pursuing a Quadripartite Mission

Academic health centers (AHCs) in the United States have had a leading role in educating the medical workforce, generating new biomedical knowledge, and providing tertiary and quaternary clinical care. Yet the health status of the U.S. population lags behind almost every other developed world economy. One reason is that the health care system is not organized optimally to address the major driver of health status, the social determinants of health (SDOH). The United States' overall poor health status is a reflection of dramatic disparities in health that exist between communities and population groups, and these are associated with variations in the underlying SDOH. Improving health status in the United States thus requires a fundamental reengineering of the health delivery system to address SDOH more explicitly and systematically. AHCs' tripartite mission, which has served so well in the past, is no longer sufficient to position AHCs to lead and resolve the intractable drivers of poor health status, such as unfair and unjust health disparities, health inequities, or differences in a population's SDOH.AHCs enjoy broad public support and have an opportunity-and an obligation-to lead in improving the nation's health. This Perspective proposes a new framework for AHCs to expand on their traditional tripartite mission of education, research, and clinical care to include explicitly a fourth mission of social accountability. Through this fourth mission, comprehensive community engagement can be undertaken, addressing SDOH and measuring the health impact of interventions by using a deliberate structure and process, yielding defined outcomes.

Linking practice-based research networks and Clinical and Translational Science Awards: new opportunities for community engagement by academic health centers

PURPOSE

Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are a part of many National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites. PBRNs, groups of primary care practices committed to collaborating on practice-relevant research, are unfamiliar to many CTSA leaders. Conversely, the CTSAs, as new research structures designed to transform clinical research, are unfamiliar to many PBRN directors. This study examined the extent to which these programs have congruent goals and expectations, and whether their engagement is likely to be mutually beneficial.

METHOD

The authors sent a Web-based survey to 38 CTSA community engagement directors and a similar survey to 114 PBRN directors during the fall of 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 66% (25/38) CTSA community engagement directors and 61% (69/114) PBRN directors responded. Two thirds of responding CTSAs reported working with PBRNs, and over half of responding PBRNs reported a CTSA affiliation. Both groups indicated this relationship was important. CTSAs looked to PBRNs for access to patients and expertise in engaging communities and clinical practices. PBRNs reported seeking stable infrastructure support and greater collaboration and visibility in the academic research community. PBRN infrastructure support from CTSAs was highly variable. Both groups perceived considerable promise for building sustainable relationships and a bidirectional flow of information and research opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

With fewer than three years of experience, the PBRN/CTSA relationship remains in the discovery phase; the participants are still negotiating expectations. If these collaborations prove mutually beneficial, they may advance the community engagement goals of many academic health centers.

Learning from history: the legacy of Title VII in academic family medicine

The current renaissance of interest in primary care could benefit from reviewing the history of federal investment in academic family medicine. The authors review 30 years of experience with the Title VII, Section 747 Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (Title VII) grant program, addressing three questions: (1) What Title VII grant programs were available to family medicine, and what were their goals? (2) How did Title VII change the discipline? and (3) What impact did Title VII family medicine programs have outside the discipline?Title VII grant programs evolved from broad support for the new discipline of family medicine to a sharper focus on specific national workforce objectives such as improving care for underserved and vulnerable populations and increasing diversity in the health professions. Grant programs were instrumental in establishing family medicine in nearly all medical schools and in supporting the educational underpinnings of the field. Title VII grants helped enhance the social capital of the discipline. Outside family medicine, Title VII fostered the development of innovative ambulatory education, institutional initiatives focusing on underserved and vulnerable populations, and primary care research capacity. Adverse effects include relative inattention to clinical and research missions in family medicine academic units and, institutionally, the development of medical education initiatives without core institutional support, which has put innovation and extension of education to communities at risk as grant funding has decreased. Reinvestment in academic family medicine can yield substantial benefits for family medicine and help reorient academic health centers. This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

Shaping the future of academic health centers: the potential contributions of departments of family medicine

Academic health centers (AHCs) must change dramatically to meet the changing needs of patients and society, but how to do this remains unclear. The purpose of this supplement is to describe ways in which departments of family medicine can play leadership roles in helping AHCs evolve. This overview provides background for case studies and commentaries about the contribution of departments of family medicine in 5 areas: (1) ambulatory and primary care, (2) indigent care, (3) education in community and international settings, (4) workforce policy and practice, and (5) translational research. The common theme is a revitalization of the relationship between AHCs and the communities they serve across all missions. Family medicine leadership can provide dramatic organizational improvement in primary and ambulatory care networks and foster opportunities for leadership by AHCs in improving the health of the population. Departments of family medicine can also play a leading role in developing new partnerships with community-based organizations, managing the care of the indigent, and developing new curricula in community and international settings. Finally, family medicine departments and their faculty have a central role in helping AHCs respond to workforce needs and in developing translational research that emphasizes the health of the population and effectiveness of care. AHCs are a public good that must now evolve substantially to meet the needs of patients and society. By pushing for substantial change, by helping to reinvigorate the relationship between AHCs and the communities they serve, and by emphasizing fundamental innovation in clinical care, teaching, and research, family medicine can help lead the renewal of the AHC.