Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Present: Kairn Kelley (by phone), Amanda Kennedy, Rodger Kessler, Charlie MacLean, Connie van Eeghen
1. Start Up: Amanda is all healthy and Ben is not. Connie has the new, in vogue “intermittent asthma” and Rodger does not. Winter in Vermont (not to be confused with Autumn in NY).
2. Presentation: Connie shared her draft abstract for a presentation to the Society for General Internal Medicine, which has a theme of leadership, especially the development of emerging leaders within generalism. Connie presented her abstract as a scientific submission, which requires reporting of final results but has more opportunities for poster or presentation than the Clinical Practice Innovation call for abstracts, which does not require reported results. Connie wanted to know if the abstract was strong enough for a scientific submission and some practical advice on how to strengthen and categorize it.
a. Starting with the conclusion of the group, all present agreed that the abstract was strong enough for a Scientific Submission. Out of the 14 categories available for submission, Organization of Care and Chronic Disease Management was considered the best choice.
b. Remove detailed explanations and examples. No room for this with the character count limits.
c. Decide which is most important: the strategy of QI (the Lean approach) or the 14 strategies for managing opiate prescriptions (the purpose of using the Lean approach). The abstract (and reader) need to focus on one of these. This lead to a helpful discussion about what Connie wants to study (the former) and what the audience thinks it wants to hear about (the latter). Can she do both? Yes, implicitly, but the abstract still has to be about ONE study question. In other words, if you’re going to try to have your cake and eat it too, don’t tell anyone.
d. Once the primary research question is established, identify the method and stick with it. There’s not enough quantitative data for a quantitative study (for this group); there’s lots of rich data for a qualitative study. Go with your strength.
e. This abstract will be competing with much stronger quantitative studies. There may be an advantage to just being different, especially if it’s a relevant and novel study. It’s a gamble, but a worthwhile one.
f. Many thanks to all; very helpful input. (Abstract successfully submitted on Jan 9. Thank you Charlie, for getting it in.)
3. Future CROW Sessions: Kairn proposed that we learn more about multi-level modeling through a presentation (e.g. Peter Callas). Amanda further proposed that we select a research study on which to practice multi-level modeling, and get a research paper out of it. One possibility is the epidemiology of benzodiazepines, which Amanda and Charlie might be interested in studying through the use of IRIS.
a. Kairn and Connie will meet to begin development of a study plan
b. Rodger will send recommendations for guests/projects as they become available. He will also review the Brownson text on Dissemination and Implementation for worthwhile chapters to read together.
c. Journal articles for review are always welcome.
d. Discussion with Ben: will there be more grants like the R24 to work on as a team? Or will the new research director provide that opportunity?
a. Jan 10: Kairn: F31 grant application for career development of pre-doctoral fellows: stipend, research, and tuition for 2-5 years. CROW: review high level plan to study and conduct research using IRIS and multi-level modeling.
b. Jan 17:
c. Jan 24:
d. Jan 31:
e. Future agenda to consider:
i. Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome on 12/6 or 12/13
ii. Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling
Posted by Connie at 1/09/2013 10:46:00 PM