Improving Iowa Research Network Patient Recruitment for an Advance Care Planning Study
Megan E Schmidt, Jeanette M Daly, Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy, Megan E Schmidt, Jeanette M Daly, Yinghui Xu, Barcey T Levy
Abstract
Introduction/objectives: In February 2019, recruitment began in Iowa Research Network offices for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded Advance Care Planning (ACP) study to be conducted in 7 primary care practice-based research networks across the United States and Canada. The main study trained clinicians and nursing staff in serious illness care conversations and requested they refer eligible patients. Eligible patients were those with serious illness or frailty expected to live 1 to 2 years. Clinicians indicated it was difficult to identify eligible patients. This study aimed to find better methods for increasing patient recruitment for the ACP study.
Methods: Research staff brainstormed and implemented strategies to increase patient referrals from clinicians. Participating offices used Epic for their medical record and the Gagne Index was used to generate a list of eligible patients in Epic SlicerDicer. When patients from the Epic SlicerDicer report appeared on the schedule, clinicians and nursing staff were notified that they might be eligible for ACP. Clinicians and nursing staff were asked to complete a survey identifying their perception of implemented strategies. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare referral numbers before and after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention.
Results: Seven clinicians referred patients prior to and 11 after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer intervention. Clinicians referred a total of 120 patients; 31 patients prior to and 89 patients after the Gagne Index/Epic SlicerDicer implementation (P = .002). Survey results indicated that several strategies facilitated clinician referrals, including patients identified as potentially appropriate on the schedule, quarterly meetings with researchers, and e-mails with a list of potentially eligible patients.
Conclusions: Notifying clinical staff about potential study participants increased patient referrals in this ACP study. Research staff must have time, funding, and patience to support clinical staff who are expected to refer patients to studies.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03577002.
Keywords: advance care planning; epic SlicerDicer; family medicine physician; practice-based research network; recruitment.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Figures
References
- Sellors J, Cosby R, Trim K, et al.. Recruiting family physicians and patients for a clinical trial: lessons learned. Fam Pract. 2002;19:99-104.
- Sudore RL, Lum HD, You JJ, et al.. Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi Panel. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53:821-832.e1.
- Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, et al.. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e009032.
- Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:749-759.
- Totten AM, Fagnan LJ, Dorr D, et al.. Protocol for a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused implementation of advance care planning in primary care. J Palliat Med. 2019;22:82-89.
- Kim P, Daly JM, Berry-Stoelzle MA, et al.. Prognostic indices for advance care planning in primary care: a scoping review. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33:322-338.
- Charlson ME, Horwitz RI. Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984;289:1281-1284.
- Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, Bizjack S, Hornung R, Harris CM. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2272-2277.
- Duncan M, Korszun A, White P, Eva G; SURECAN Investigators. Qualitative analysis of feasibility of recruitment and retention in a planned randomised controlled trial of a psychosocial cancer intervention within the NHS. Trials. 2018;19:327.
- Rahman S, Majumder MA, Shaban SF, et al.. Physician participation in clinical research and trials: issues and approaches. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011;2:85-93.
- Spaar A, Frey M, Turk A, Karrer W, Puhan MA. Recruitment barriers in a randomized controlled trial from the physicians’ perspective: a postal survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:14.
- Donovan JL, Paramasivan S, de Salis I, Toerien M. Clear obstacles and hidden challenges: understanding recruiter perspectives in six pragmatic randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2014;15:5.
- Sahin D, Yaffe MJ, Sussman T, McCusker J. A mixed studies literature review of family physicians’ participation in research. Fam Med. 2014;46:503-514.
- Raftery J, Bryant J, Powell J, Kerr C, Hawker S. Payment to healthcare professionals for patient recruitment to trials: systematic review and qualitative study. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:1-128, iii.
Source: PubMed