Role of PCORI in the development and dissemination of CER data and why this is considered the new evidence. Also discuss how it utilizes methods around the interprofessional team that includes the patient and family
ASSIGNMENT: Please try to write a well written and organized paper
The Affordable Care Act established the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI is the home for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) that utilizes methods and designs around the interprofessional team and includes the patient and family.
Please review the following links and describe the role of PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) in the development and dissemination of Comparative effectiveness Research (CER) data and why this is considered the new evidence. Also discuss how it utilizes methods and designs around the interprofessional team and includes the patient and family.
https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview/
ONLINE information
***The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is authorized by Congress to conduct research to provide information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions. PCORI’s research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options.
***PCORI is authorized by Congress to conduct research to provide information about the best-available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make better-informed health and healthcare decisions. PCORI’s research, which is guided by input from stakeholders across the healthcare community, is intended to give patients and those who care for them with a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. PCORI is committed to improving health by substantially increasing the quantity, quality, and timeliness of useful, trustworthy information available to support health decisions; speeding the implementation of patient-centered knowledge into practice; and influencing clinical and health care research funded by others to be more patient-centered.
***The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization. Congress authorized the establishment of PCORI in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our mandate is to improve the quality and relevance of evidence available to help patients, caregivers, clinicians, employers, insurers, and policy makers make informed health decisions. Specifically, we fund comparative clinical effectiveness research, or CER, as well as support work that will improve the methods used to conduct such studies.
The goal of our work is to determine which of the many healthcare options available to patients and those who care for them work best in particular circumstances. We do this by taking a particular approach to CER called Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, or PCOR, research that addresses the questions and concerns most relevant to patients, and we involve patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders, along with researchers, throughout the process.
Mission: PCORI helps people make informed healthcare decisions, and improves healthcare delivery and outcomes, by producing and promoting high-integrity, evidence-based information that comes from research guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader healthcare community.
- What Is PCORI?
Dr. Adashi: Let's begin with some basics. What was it that led to the establishment of PCORI? And while we're at it, what is it primarily about?
Dr. Selby: Good questions. I think the creation of PCORI as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the culmination of a process that goes back 10 or maybe even 20 years. It's several processes that came together to support a growing appreciation that patients and their clinicians, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into clinical research each year in this country, often find themselves at the point of needing to make a decision and not quite having the information they need. Either the research covered patients who weren't quite like the patient in the office at that moment, or the research did not address a particular outcome that is important to this patient. The research may not have gone on long enough to identify the rare safety outcome that the patient is now wondering about. It stemmed from a growing appreciation that research has not really come to meet all the needs of patients and their clinicians, number one.
Number two, there's a growing appreciation that it's important to do research in real-world settings where patients get their care, and that with the advent of, for example, the electronic health record and other computerized databases, we may be getting to the point where observational studies can help compliment clinical trials research. The idea is to do comparative effectiveness research, where practical comparisons between 2 or more treatment options that patients are considering are studied, where the full range of outcomes that are important to patients get measured and compared; where the study is done in real patients with multiple comorbidities and their extremes of age and functional status are observed; and where attention is paid to the possibility that the treatments might have different effects in different individuals, such that we may be able to spot characteristics that will predict who's going to benefit from a treatment and who's not. All of that, which came to be called, in the first decade of this century, "comparative effectiveness research," was on the minds of legislators who were crafting the ACA. And comparative effectiveness research, or comparative clinical effectiveness research, was the purpose for which PCORI was authorized.
At about the same time, comparative effectiveness research went through a phase where it was linked in some people's minds to rationing, to cost-effectiveness measurement, and had transiently acquired a dubious name. Because of this, Congress decided that it would not call the agency the Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute. Instead, they labeled it the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. And that has made a big difference. But we were authorized to conduct the kind of research that engages patients and clinicians and addresses questions that are important to them.
How Did PCORI Make It Into the ACA?
Dr. Adashi: Can you shed some light on how PCORI made it into the ACA?
Dr. Selby: Yes. I just think that we see a growing interest in outcomes research. We talked about outcomes research back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) funded the patient outcomes research teams in the early 1990s. That stemmed from an appreciation that we really needed to collect outcomes data.
Medscape. (2019). Eli Y. Adashi, MD
PCORI: What Is It? How Does It Work? The Director Explains. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/763663
- The goal of peer review is to ensure that the primary research studies funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) are held to the highest standards of scientific integrity, methodological rigor, and usefulness to patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders. By law, all PCORI-funded primary research (i.e., research asking which of two or more approaches is better) must undergo peer review. The peer-review process adds to the credibility, authority, trustworthiness, and relevance of PCORI-funded research findings.
If the research PCORI funds is to be valuable to the diverse communities within the healthcare system, we need a wide variety of individuals to share the knowledge and perspectives they have acquired through their own experiences. PCORI peer reviewers include:
- Patients, caregivers, or others with a personal or professional stake in the research topic
- Clinicians and other healthcare stakeholders, such as members of industry and policy makers
- Scientists, other subject-matter specialists, and health-services researchers
- Biostatisticians and other methodologists who can assess the quality of the study methods
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (2016). PCORI peer review. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencesupport.org/PCORIpeer/start/index.cfm
PCORI seeks to support projects that incorporate active strategies designed to move comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) evidence developed with PCORI research funding toward practical use in improving health care and health outcomes.
This Limited Competition PCORI Funding Announcement (PFA) gives PCORI awardees the opportunity, following the generation of results from their PCORI research award, to propose the next step(s) to move their CER findings into practice, drawing on the knowledge and experience they gained during their PCORI research award. Find out more in the PFA.
This Limited PFA (PCORI Funding Announcement) seeks to fund implementation projects that incorporate active strategies designed to move comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) evidence developed with PCORI research funding toward practical use in improving health care and health outcomes. This Limited PFA gives PCORI awardees the opportunity, following the generation of results from their PCORI research award, to propose the next step(s) to move their CER findings into practice, drawing on the knowledge and experience they gained during their PCORI research award.
Changes to eligibility criteria and other important updates will be available a minimum of 3 weeks and as early as 8 weeks prior to the public release of the PFA and opening of the online system (see dates below).
Applicants interested in dissemination-focused projects that aim to spread awareness and increase knowledge of PCORI evidence to targeted audiences are encouraged to consider their project’s fit for the Eugene Washington Engagement Award: Dissemination Initiative.
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) plans to award $20.5 million in fiscal year 2018 as part of the Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Awards. These awards are research support rather than a research funding opportunity.
The Eugene Washington PCORI Engagement Awards support projects that encourage active integration of patients, caregivers, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders as integral members of the patient-centered outcomes research/clinical effectiveness research (PCOR/CER) enterprise.
This new Engagement Award will give organizations and communities the opportunity to propose meaningful dissemination projects aimed at spreading awareness and increasing knowledge of new evidence from PCORI-funded research, targeted directly to patients, clinicians, and others who can use this information to inform healthcare decisions.
https://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/announcement/engagement-award-dissemination-initiative
- https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview/
Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, systematic reviews of existing research on the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and comparative harms of different health care interventions, are intended to provide relevant evidence to inform real-world health care decisions for patients, providers, and policymakers. In an effort to improve the transparency, consistency, and scientific rigor of the work of the Effective Health Care (EHC) Program, through a collaborative effort, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Scientific Resource Center, and the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) have developed a Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. In addition to adherence to the methods described in the Methods Guide, EPC reports are also conducted in accordance with an established policy on financial and nonfinancial interests [PDF, 405 KB]. We intend that these documents will serve as a resource for our EPCs as well as for other investigators interested in conducting Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.
As further empiric evidence develops and our understanding of better methods improves, we anticipate that there will be subsequent updates and additional chapters to this Methods Guide and that it will continue to be a living document. Please contact us with your comments and suggestions on the Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews and the Effective Health Care Program.
Due to greater interest in comparative effectiveness research and a desire to expand capacity to conduct Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, AHRQ has produced training modules to familiarize new investigators with the methodological framework and guidance outlined in AHRQ's Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. The AHRQ Training Modules for the Systematic Reviews Methods Guide is a series of 14 slide presentations that can be used by faculty engaged in educating investigators and clinicians interested in systematic review methods.
Systematic reviews on medical tests have unique challenges. To complement the EPC Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, the EPC Program has developed a Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews. This series of guidance papers applies the same principles for assessing treatments to the issues and challenges in assessing medical tests and highlights particular areas where the inherently different qualities of medical tests necessitate a different or variation of the approach to systematic review compared to a review on treatments.
***References/citations
- Pechacek, J., Cerra, F., Brandt, B., Lutfiyya, M. N., & Delaney, C. (2015). Creating the evidence through comparative effectiveness research for interprofessional education and collaborative practice by deploying a national intervention network and a national data repository. Healthcare, 3(1), 146-161. DOI:10.3390/healthcare3010146
- The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Research D...
Robin; Barksdale, Debra J.; Miller, Julie Ann
Nursing Research: January/February 2015 - Volume 64 - Issue 1 - p 72–77
doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000070
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2017). Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Retrieved: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview/
* I’m a nurse practitioner (Advanced practice nurse). This assignment is for a DNP (Doctor of nursing practice) class and the grading is rigorous including grammar and APA style.
*Please don’t start with sentences that start with “this, these, it…etc” this is vague and not use in formal writing. Need to specify what we are talking about. Also don’t use citations in the middle of the sentence. Avoid “as well as” as much as possible.
Thank you!
