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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.