Performance Feedback

A+ graded on paperTo improve at anything – be it your grade in history class or your best time at the 50-yard dash – you need to know how you’re doing. This can come in the form of a grade or where you finish in a race. Without this type of feedback, you can never be sure if you’re on the right track.

At ImproveCareNow, we want to provide the best pediatric and adolescent IBD care for all of our patients. To make sure that we are on the right track, ImproveCareNow centers receive regular feedback in several key areas related to IBD care. This information helps centers know how well they are reaching their goals and helps them make progress in areas that need improvement. (Click here to see an example of an ImproveCareNow Key Clinical Measures Report.)

In addition, ImproveCareNow centers have access to new tools that allow patients to provide feedback to the individual doctors and nurses who provide their care between visits—they want patients to be activated and ready to participate in their care.

Additionally, with the introduction of automated pre-visit and population management tools, doctors and nurses can be better prepared for visits. They can pinpoint areas that need attention and learn from the care provided by other providers at their center. The more timely the feedback, the sooner our providers can address aspects of your care.

We are excited to provide tools that help your doctors and nurses do a better job helping you achieve improved quality of life and better health!

[Editor's note: This post was contributed by Theresa Todd, MPH, MA.  Theresa is the Improvement Coordinator for Gastroenterology at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, OH and it is her responsibility to help the IBD team with quality improvement goals.  Theresa has been part of the Nationwide team since July 2010.]

C3N Webcast

Learn more about C3N’s N-of-1 Study and the MyIBD Platform

C3N quarterly webcast featuring Ian Eslick and the N of 1 studyWe invite everyone who is interested in innovative new approaches to chronic illness care to join this free, live and interactive webcast hosted by the Collaborative Chronic Care Network (C3N) on April 5th at 1pm ET.

Ian Eslick of the MIT Media Lab is a C3N Project Collaborator

Ian Eslick

Ian Eslick, of the MIT Media Lab, and Dr. Peter Margolis, Scientific Director of the ImproveCareNow Network and co-principal investigator of the C3N Project, will chat informally about the C3N’s innovation, the N-of-1 Study, & technology platform. This is a great opportunity to listen and learn more about how C3N is helping clinicians and patients work together on their care.

Register here.

REACH Replication Study to be Presented at DDW2013

Dr. Richard Colletti – Network Director for ImproveCareNow – announced today that an ImproveCareNow study has been accepted for oral presentation at Digestive Diseases Week in May.  This is a highly innovative study done in collaboration with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology of the University of Pennsylvania.  It is a replication of the REACH study, and the first pediatric comparative effectiveness study of anti-TNF drugs.

Congratulations to Mike Kappelman, Wallace Crandall and the research team.  And congratulations and thank you to all of the centers whose data made this study possible.  More comparative effectiveness studies are planned.

Here is the abstract:

Kappelman MD, Bailey LC, Crandall WV, Zhang P, King E, Joffe M, Colletti RB, Forrest CB and the ImproveCareNow Network

Real-World Clinical and Comparative Effectiveness of Infliximab in Pediatric Crohn’s Disease

Background and Aims: Clinical trials in pediatric Crohn’s disease (CD) are difficult to recruit for, enroll highly selected subjects, and utilize standardized protocols. Thus, efficacy data from trials may not be generalizable to clinical practice. Studies of real-world clinical effectiveness are needed to fully evaluate evolving therapeutic options. We sought to use data from a multicenter clinical registry (the ImproveCareNow Network, ICN) to evaluate the clinical and comparative effectiveness of anti-TNFα biological therapy in children with moderate to severe CD.

Methods: ICN maintains a registry of medication use and clinical and laboratory data collected during pediatric gastroenterology outpatient IBD encounters (33 centers in this analysis). We identified a cohort of new users of infliximab and adalimumab with characteristics (selection criteria) similar to subjects enrolled in the REACH clinical trial. To evaluate clinical effectiveness, Pediatric Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) scores and corticosteroid use were evaluated at the visit closest to 10 weeks following induction. Missing data were estimated by multiple imputation. Response (PCDAI <30 and decrease by ≥ 15 points), remission (PCDAI < 10), and steroid-free status were determined. To evaluate comparative effectiveness, we performed a trial simulation comparing 6 month outcomes of remission and steroid-free remission, adjusting for disease severity and medication use for the 6 months before the start of the trial, among biologic initiators and non-biologic users, using Cox proportional hazards models and generalized estimating equations.

Results: 192 biologic initiators (53% male, mean age 14.9 years, mean PCDAI 39.7) were included in the analysis.  Overall, 80% experienced response, 39% remission, and 33% steroid free status at week 10. Among those on concomitant immunomodulators, 82% experienced response and 48% experienced remission (REACH clinical trial 88% and 59% respectively). In the trial simulation, 198 biologic trials were compared with 1157 non-biologic trials. Biologics were associated with increased remission (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0) and steroid free remission (hazard ratio 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7), with corresponding number needed to treat (NNT) of 7.8 and 5.3.

Discussion: The real-world clinical effectiveness of anti-TNFα biological therapy observed in a multi-center pediatric IBD network is similar to the efficacy estimates from the REACH clinical trial. Concomitant immunomodulator use is associated with increased effectiveness. Compared with conventional care, biological therapy is more effective at achieving remission, particularly steroid-free remission. The NNT can be used to guide clinical decision making regarding risks and benefits. These findings support the use of the ICN registry for comparative effectiveness research.

C3N for CF

[Editor's Note:  Erin Moore is "Doin' it for Drew"!  Drew has Cystic Fibrosis (CF).  CF is a life shortening genetic disease that affects the lungs and digestive system of about 30,000 children and adults in the United States (70,000 worldwide).  It is a chronic illness - meaning until a cure is found, CF is forever.  Erin is collaborating with the C3N Project; exploring the creation of a Collaborative Chronic Care Network for CF.  This post was originally featured on Erin's blog - 66 roses.]

I arrive for our clinic appointment around 7:45am. The last time we were here was 3 months ago. Usually, we are ushered back to a room within 15 minutes of arrival. A nurse greets us shortly thereafter to review our medicine list and address any issues that we’ve been having. Just the other day he was coughing up a storm but seems to have gotten over it. Should I talk to the dietician about his diet again? His weight is up and his stools seem “normal” but I’m always anxious about his lack of interest in foodI wonder if an RT is available to talk a little bit about his airway clearance. I don’t want to be a bother but I sure do think the airway clearance he had in the hospital this summer was more effective. I wish I knew what they were doing differently! 

Next up is the doctor. She asks how things have been going. Today? Great! Last week? I was a little worried, but the cough he had seemed to go away. There was that one day that his stool was a little weird but that got better too, not sure what caused it. And frankly I can’t remember back farther than that. She checks him out and wants to review his labs since we are at his anniversary visit. His vitamin D is low, his breathing still sounds a little noisy, and a note that she has from his ENT seems to indicate that he may need another sinus surgery. She feels out whether I’d be open to a bronchoscopy at the same time. Maybe another CT is a better option.  When I talked to the ENT last month it sounded like things were going well? I guess I don’t mind if they do a bronchoscopy while he’s under for something else, but I remember huge discussion with other CF parents on Facebook about CT scans and all the negative effects of radiation and I don’t know that I want to do that? I wish I could find that conversation! I ask questions about a game plan for if he needs IV antibiotics if we grow pseudomonas again, having read online about all different methods used for eradication but not knowing which is best and why. It’s hypothetical at the moment because they haven’t even swabbed him yet. I just have sort of a busy life and sometimes having a plan provides a sense of comfort for me. She suggests an action plan and I am mostly on board, except for the azithromycin because I saw a presentation somewhere that seemed to show compelling evidence against its use. I wish I could find that presentation to show her! I trust his doctor and want to follow her recommendations, but I have some reservations. I don’t think either of us has time to get into this as I’ve already taken up more than my fair share of appointment time. We agree to wait for the results of the culture to decide a course of action.

Next up is the dietician. Lucky for me, he has a “weird poop” while we are there so she can look at it and provide her thoughts. This isn’t what all of his stool looks like. I don’t really know how often his stool looks like this – sometimes once a day, sometimes 4 times a day, sometimes once a week. We talk for a bit about enzyme dosing and the calories he’s taking in, her offering suggestions for beefing up his intake and me adding them to the “notes” section in my iPhone, hoping I can get them down elsewhere before one of my kids deletes them by accident.

The social worker pops in to address some questions about starting preschool that I had mentioned to the nurse 2 hours ago. I had met with the Psychologist about a year ago to talk about his lack of interest in food, but never followed up, mostly because of both time constraints and cost. If only she could pop in and give me a couple of quick suggestions. But I have to go, we’ve already been here for almost 4 hours. While waiting for my discharge paperwork, a research assistant shows up to see if I’d be interested in participating in a study about I’m not sure what because my 3yr old is clambering to get out of that office. I agree anyway, get my discharge paperwork and fly out the door.

This summer, we were visiting family in Philadelphia and my son got sick. He was admitted to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for a pulmonary exacerbation. Not a single morsel of information about him and his history with Cystic Fibrosis was available to the doctors at CHOP. Many phone calls were made between fellows from my personal cell phone to understand his medical history and doctors asked me the same questions day after day before we trusted and understood each other and hashed out what was going on in the days leading to our admission. I know that it was in Drew’s best interest that we discuss everything about him ad nauseum, but it blew my mind that in this age of technology, there was no electronic medical health record that the doctors in Philadelphia could access to understand Drew to provide the best care for him quickly.

When Drew was a baby, we kept a diary of his formula intake and the corresponding output. We set up a nice little Excel chart and shared that with our dietician on a very regular basis. I credit that chart for his gained weight and reaching the 50th percentile by the time he was 6 months old and he has been able to maintain that to today when he is almost 3. I know that all patients aren’t equal, but wouldn’t it be great if that data, if our “patient reported outcomes” were cataloged somewhere so that we could share what we did and how it worked for us? Sure, I could take to the CF Mom’s Facebook page and ask about what high calorie snacks work for their 3 year olds and hope that some of those moms are online and eager to provide some feedback. But once that question is asked and answered, it just simply vanishes into cyberspace. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve said, “I know I’ve seen that somewhere”. Image the power of cataloging that data, those conversations, those findings. It can be used by patients, by doctors, by researchers and teachers. Just thinking about the power of that is what is driving me to stay involved and insist on nothing less.

I think you’re seeing my point, a point that was brought out in almost every session I sat through at the NACFC this year. The information that we currently have on patients in between visits is limited. Filling those gaps would give us a more complete picture of health. It would help doctors to intervene at appropriate times, times when patients might not call because in their mind “its just not that bad yet”, but doctors are able to identify a problem or a pattern that lets them know the direction something that’s “not that bad” is headed. They would be able to more easily determine if certain therapies were actually making a difference through the combine use of passive behavioral and active patient reported data, looking at a real-time view of what is going on with a patient, not what they remember to tell you when they are in clinic. The registry could be enhanced by identifying day to day trends and commonalities in patients sharing mutations. And all of this data can be used by researchers and scientists to figure out every last detail this disease and find therapies that work for every one of us. From a parent’s perspective, the C3N is what we need to make life easier and improve outcomes while we wait for our cure.

Collective Wisdom to Improve Health and Health Care

ImproveCareNow and the Collaborative Chronic Care Network (C3N) project

We all know the current system of chronic illness care isn’t working.  It’s not working for kids with diseases like Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis; like Bianca (not her real name) that experience a lot of pain.  But pain is the least of Bianca’s worries. Without optimal treatment, she’ll likely have stunted growth, possible arthritis, and a significant risk of surgery.  And many normal childhood events like sleepovers or birthday parties….. a real stress.

The system is also not working for Dr. Sandy Roan (also not her real name), Bianca’s doctor.  Dr. Roan has a variety of treatment options, but the “best evidence,” the evidence that results from randomized trials, can’t provide information on what will work best for a particular individual.

It’s also not working for Bianca’s mom, Anna, because the care delivery model doesn’t make it easy for her participate in Bianca’s care.  She is wondering about trying diet modifications to see how best to control Bianca’s symptoms. She keeps an eye on what’s going on but feels the doctor’s role is to come up with solutions. She doesn’t really see the collaborative possibilities.

Finally, it’s not working for Dr. Vincent Kapoor (not a real name). He’s a researcher interested in improving IBD care but he’s faced with small unrepresentative data sets, and a lack of easy and productive ways to share data and increase the impact and reach of his research.

The Institute of Medicine’s “learning healthcare systems” model provides an exciting vision in which patients, clinicians and researchers work together to choose care based on best evidence; together they drive discovery as natural outgrowth of patient care; and ensure innovation, quality, safety and value, all in real-time.  But so far, neither patients, nor doctors, nor researchers have easy access to such system.

Collective wisdom

What if we could harness the collective intelligence of patients, clinicians and researchers to create such a system?  Think of Wikipedia, or, in science, how open, rapid sharing of data in advance of publication in the human genome project accelerated the sequencing years ahead of schedule.   These are examples of how the production of knowledge, information, and know-how can be distributed over large groups of people.  Yochai Benkler, of Harvard, calls this form of production network-based or “social” production.

http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html

Network based production is suited to complex systems like health care, precisely because the necessary knowledge, skills and tools are often beyond the capacity of one place, one person, or one organization; because the stakeholders in the process, patients, clinicians and researchers, are motivated and have skills that can be devoted to the task; and finally because the scientific questions about how to accomplish improvements in health and health care, require a multidisciplinary complex systems science perspective.

With combined support from the NIH transformative research program, a US Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Enhanced Registries grant and 38 ImproveCareNow Network care centers; a team of patients, families, clinicians and researchers are working together to create what we call a collaborative chronic care network or C3N.  A C3N is a network-based production system for health and health care.

Does this sound like an outlandish idea?  It’s not; it’s actually already taking place. In the ImproveCareNow Network pediatric gastroenterologists are working together to share their collective wisdom and know-how to continuously improve the care and outcomes of children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. The percent of patients in remission has risen and been sustained without the introduction of new medications.

How did ImproveCareNow do it?  SHARING – sharing data, sharing knowledge, sharing know-how, and sharing work.  Every ImproveCareNow center pools their data, compares outcomes, standardizes care and learns from one another about how to get better results.  An article in this month’s New Yorker, by Atul Gawande describes how standardizing and making care more reliable can make medicine more effective and lower cost.  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande

The C3N project is collaborating with the ImproveCareNow Network to take our work to the next level; redesigning an existing clinician-centric network into one that involves everyone – patients, families, clinicians and researchers.

How do you create a network based production system for health and health care?  In my next post, I’ll write about the three ways in which patients, families, clinicians and researchers are co-designing this new system.

In the meantime, you can learn more about the ImproveCareNow Network at https://improvecarenow.org; the C3N Project at https://c3nproject.org, and listen to the talk delivered at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which forms the basis for this post: http://youtu.be/FxYbSEXWzhU