From methods to policy: Enthusiasm for rapid-learning health systems exceeds the current standards for conducting it

Learning healthcare systems and rapid learning in radiation oncology: Where are we and where are we going?

Learning health systems and rapid-learning are well developed at the conceptual level. The promise of rapidly generating and applying evidence where conventional clinical trials would not usually be practical is attractive in principle. The connectivity of modern digital healthcare information systems and the increasing volumes of data accrued through patients' care pathways offer an ideal platform for the concepts. This is particularly true in radiotherapy where modern treatment planning and image guidance offers a precise digital record of the treatment planned and delivered. The vision is of real-world data, accrued by patients during their routine care, being used to drive programmes of continuous clinical improvement as part of standard practice. This vision, however, is not yet a reality in radiotherapy departments. In this article we review the literature to explore why this is not the case, identify barriers to its implementation, and suggest how wider clinical application might be achieved.

Clarifying the concept of a learning health system for healthcare delivery organizations: Implications from a qualitative analysis of the scientific literature

The “learning health system” (LHS) concept has been defined in broad terms, which makes it challenging for health system leaders to determine exactly what is required to transform their organization into an LHS. This study provides a conceptual map of the LHS landscape by identifying the activities, principles, tools, and conditions that LHS researchers have associated with the concept. Through a multi‐step screening process, two researchers identified 79 publications from PubMed (published before January 2020) that contained information relevant to the question, “What work is required of a healthcare organization that is operating as an LHS?” Those publications were coded as to whether or not they referenced each of 94 LHS elements in the taxonomy developed by the study team. This taxonomy, named the Learning Health Systems Consolidated Framework (LHS‐CF), organizes the elements into five “bodies of work” (organizational learning, translation of evidence into practice, building knowledge, analyzing clinical data, and engaging stakeholders) and four “enabling conditions” (workforce skilled for LHS work, data systems and informatics technology in place, organization invests resources in LHS work, and supportive organizational culture). We report the frequency that each of the 94 elements was referenced across the 79 publications. The four most referenced elements were: “organization builds knowledge or evidence,” “quality improvement practices are standard practice,” “patients and family members are actively engaged,” and “organizational culture emphasizes and supports learning.” By dissecting the LHS construct into its component elements, the LHS‐CF taxonomy can serve as a useful tool for LHS researchers and practitioners in defining the aspects of LHS they are addressing. By assessing how often each element is referenced in the literature, the study provides guidance to health system leaders as to how their organization needs to evolve in order to become an LHS ‐ while also recognizing that each organization should emphasize elements that are most aligned with their mission and goals.

Aiming for quality: a global compass for national learning systems

INTRODUCTION

Transforming a health system into a learning one is increasingly recognized as necessary to support the implementation of a national strategic direction on quality with a focus on frontline experience. The approach to a learning system that bridges the gap between practice and policy requires active exploration.

METHODS

This scoping review adapted the methodological framework for scoping studies from Arksey and O'Malley. The central research question focused on common themes for learning to improve the quality of health services at all levels of the national health system, from government policy to point-of-care delivery.

RESULTS

A total of 3507 records were screened, resulting in 101 articles on strategic learning across the health system: health professional level (19%), health organizational level (15%), subnational/national level (26%), multiple levels (35%), and global level (6%). Thirty-five of these articles focused on learning systems at multiple levels of the health system. A national learning system requires attention at the organizational, subnational, and national levels guided by the needs of patients, families, and the community. The compass of the national learning system is centred on four cross-cutting themes across the health system: alignment of priorities, systemwide collaboration, transparency and accountability, and knowledge sharing of real-world evidence generated at the point of care.

CONCLUSION

This paper proposes an approach for building a national learning system to improve the quality of health services. Future research is needed to validate the application of these guiding principles and make improvements based on the findings.

Big Data: transforming drug development and health policy decision making

The explosion of data sources, accompanied by the evolution of technology and analytical techniques, has created considerable challenges and opportunities for drug development and healthcare resource utilization. We present a systematic overview these phenomena, and suggest measures to be taken for effective integration of the new developments in the traditional medical research paradigm and health policy decision making. Special attention is paid to pertinent issues in emerging areas, including rare disease drug development, personalized medicine, Comparative Effectiveness Research, and privacy and confidentiality concerns.

Interview: A private sector life in comparative effectiveness research. Interview with Robert W Dubois

Robert W Dubois joined the National Pharmaceutical Council (Washington, DC, USA) in October 2010 as its Chief Science Officer. In this role, he oversees the National Pharmaceutical Council's research on policy issues related to comparative effectiveness research, as well as on how health outcomes are valued. Dr Dubois has cofounded and led various healthcare research organizations in developing quality research with practical application. Throughout his career, Dr Dubois' primary interest has centered on defining 'what works' in healthcare and finding ways for that evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. He is a recognized expert in the areas of defining best practice, disease management and appropriateness of care. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on comparative effectiveness, evidence-based medicine, the development of practice guidelines and determining the optimal use of high-cost medical services. Dr Dubois received his AB from Harvard College (MA, USA), his MD from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (MD, USA) and his PhD in Health Policy from the RAND Graduate School (CA, USA). In addition, he is the associate editor of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research and is on the editorial board for Health Affairs.