Present: Marianne Burke, Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Rodger
Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Start Up: Project
review for GIM-Research – to be posted on SharePoint, when we set up a new
site.
2.
Presentation: Connie:
Feedback on poster presentation on “Quick Turns in Tight Places: Implementing
Change in Small Practices,” to be presented at Academy Health at the end of
June in Baltimore. Comments:
a. Focus
on the audience: predominately researchers rather than clinicians. They will be more interested in the method of
implementation than in the practice strategies for managing opioid
prescriptions.
b. Organize
the poster to visually support this: the process flow steps go top and center,
not the strategies. Shrink the
strategies, remove the “universal” part of the title as this is not
self-explanatory to this group and does not add to the discussion.
c. Change
the color scheme in the process flow: using yellow on the one least used step
makes it look like the most important step.
d. Add
an “Intervention” section to highlight the process flow; remove this language
from Methods
e. Modify
the objectives to match this focus.
f. Streamline
the discussion to focus on the points about the intervention.
g. Adjust
the title to reflect all of the above.
Yes, it’s been accepted under the current title, but as long as the
first five words stay the same, it won’t confuse the audience. Add the
department name.
h. (Took
a half hour – Efficiency is Us!)
3.
Manuscript Review:
Connie: Introduction and Methods sections of manuscript with working title:
“Integrating Behavioral Health using Workflow (Lean)”
a. As
with the above poster, it is important to emphasize the key purpose of the
study. In this case, with submission
planned for JGIM, the readers are clinicians with a keen interested in the
topic of integrating behavioral health (BH), with less interest/prior
understanding of Lean. So this is a
story about integration, its impact, and what the participants (providers and
staff) thought about the method of integration, which happens to be Lean.
b. Lots
of helpful rewording, with clearer language; not listed here.
c. Discussion
of whether we should add 18 months of data and re-analyze: the P value is about as good as it can get,
so more data are not needed to improve power.
And in the 3-4 months it would take to re-do, we likely wouldn’t have
gained much. Keep as is.
d. Debated
identifying the practice. At this point,
no.
e. Next
step: rewrite, with Results & Discussion, and ask for more comments. Thank you!
a.
May 23: Kairn: Discussion of binomial model in 1978 journal
article by Thornton Raffin “Speech Discrim Scores Modeled As Binomial Variable”
(no Marianne)
b.
May 30: (no
Abby)
c.
June 5: NOTE: New summer schedule will start: Wednesdays,
11:30 – 1:00. Abby: Shared learning on
the NAMCS, DAWN, NHANES and KID databases?
d.
June 12: Marianne: Feedback on ideas for web site that
will help CTS students (faculty, and fellows too) find/know /access,
evaluate/apply content and literature they need for courses and research
e.
June 19:
f.
June 26:
g.
July 3:
h.
July 10: Marianne: Review of literature review
i.
July 17:
j.
July 24:
k.
July 31:
l.
4 Wednesdays in August
m. Future
agenda to consider:
i.
Abby and Charlie: data analysis of Exploration of
analytical plan for Natural History of Acute Opioid Use
ii.
Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling
iii.
Charlie MacLean: demonstration of Tableau
iv.
Journal article: Gomes, 2013, Opioid Dose and MVA in
Canada (Charlie)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.