IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/hcarem/v24y2021i1d10.1007_s10729-020-09521-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing an Institute for Health Care Delivery Science: successes, challenges, and solutions in the first five years

Author

Listed:
  • Madhu Mazumdar

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Jashvant V. Poeran

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Bart S. Ferket

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Nicole Zubizarreta

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Parul Agarwal

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Ksenia Gorbenko

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Catherine K. Craven

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Xiaobo (Tony) Zhong

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Alan J. Moskowitz

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Annetine C. Gelijns

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • David L. Reich

    (Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Queens)

Abstract

Medical knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate. At the same time, unexplained variations in practice and patient outcomes and unacceptable rates of medical errors and inefficiencies in health care delivery have emerged. Our Institute for Health Care Delivery Science (I-HDS) began in 2014 as a novel platform to conduct multidisciplinary healthcare delivery research. We followed ten strategies to develop a successful institute with excellence in methodology and strong understanding of the value of team science. Our work was organized around five hubs: 1) Quality/Process Improvement and Systematic Review, 2) Comparative Effectiveness Research, Pragmatic Clinical Trials, and Predictive Analytics, 3) Health Economics and Decision Modeling, 4) Qualitative, Survey, and Mixed Methods, and 5) Training and Mentoring. In the first 5 years of the I-HDS, we have identified opportunities for change in clinical practice through research using our health system’s electronic health record (EHR) data, and designed programs to educate clinicians in the value of research to improve patient care and recognize efficiencies in processes. Testing the value of several model interventions has guided prioritization of evidence-based quality improvements. Some of the changes in practice have already been embedded in the EHR workflow successfully. Development and sustainability of the I-HDS has been fostered by a mix of internal and external funding, including philanthropic foundations. Challenges remain due to the highly competitive funding environment and changes needed to adapt the EHR to healthcare delivery research. Further stakeholder engagement and culture change working with hospital leadership and I-HDS core and affiliate members continues.

Suggested Citation

  • Madhu Mazumdar & Jashvant V. Poeran & Bart S. Ferket & Nicole Zubizarreta & Parul Agarwal & Ksenia Gorbenko & Catherine K. Craven & Xiaobo (Tony) Zhong & Alan J. Moskowitz & Annetine C. Gelijns & Davi, 2021. "Developing an Institute for Health Care Delivery Science: successes, challenges, and solutions in the first five years," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 234-243, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:hcarem:v:24:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10729-020-09521-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10729-020-09521-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10729-020-09521-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10729-020-09521-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Kyle & Heidi Williams, 2017. "Is American Health Care Uniquely Inefficient? Evidence from Prescription Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 486-490, May.
    2. Joseph Doyle & Sarah Abraham & Laura Feeney & Sarah Reimer & Amy Finkelstein, 2019. "Clinical decision support for high-cost imaging: A randomized clinical trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Bart S Ferket & Bob J H van Kempen & M G Myriam Hunink & Isha Agarwal & Maryam Kavousi & Oscar H Franco & Ewout W Steyerberg & Wendy Max & Kirsten E Fleischmann, 2014. "Predictive Value of Updating Framingham Risk Scores with Novel Risk Markers in the U.S. General Population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-8, February.
    4. Susan M. Perkins & Peter Bacchetti & Cynthia S. Davey & Christopher J. Lindsell & Madhu Mazumdar & Robert A. Oster & Peter N. Peduzzi & David M. Rocke & Kyle D. Rudser & Mimi Kim, 2016. "Best Practices for Biostatistical Consultation and Collaboration in Academic Health Centers," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 187-194, May.
    5. Muge Capan & Anahita Khojandi & Brian T. Denton & Kimberly D. Williams & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal & Murat Kurt & Jennifer Mason Lobo & Mark S. Roberts & Greg Zaric & Shengfan Zhang & J. Sanford, 2017. "From Data to Improved Decisions: Operations Research in Healthcare Delivery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 849-859, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ari Bronsoler & John Van Reenen & Joseph Doyle, 2022. "The Impact of Health Information and Communication Technology on Clinical Quality, Productivity, and Workers," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 23-46, August.
    2. Margaret K. Kyle, 2018. "Are Important Innovations Rewarded? Evidence from Pharmaceutical Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 53(1), pages 211-234, August.
    3. Ari Bronsoler & Joseph J. Doyle Jr. & John Van Reenen, 2021. "The Impact of Healthcare IT on Clinical Quality, Productivity and Workers," NBER Working Papers 29218, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Kyle, Margaret, 2017. "Are Important Innovations Rewarded? Evidence from Pharmaceutical Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 12420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Wesley J. Marrero & Mariel S. Lavieri & Jeremy B. Sussman, 2021. "Optimal cholesterol treatment plans and genetic testing strategies for cardiovascular diseases," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Joshua Krieger & Danielle Li & Dimitris Papanikolaou, 2022. "Missing Novelty in Drug Development," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 636-679.
    7. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Roberto Aringhieri & Patrick Hirsch & Marion S. Rauner & Melanie Reuter-Oppermanns & Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann, 2022. "Central European journal of operations research (CJOR) “operations research applied to health services (ORAHS) in Europe: general trends and ORAHS 2020 conference in Vienna, Austria”," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Otilia Boldea & Bettina Drepper & Zhuojiong Gan, 2020. "Change point estimation in panel data with time‐varying individual effects," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(6), pages 712-727, September.
    10. Todd H. Wagner & Jeffrey K. Jopling, 2017. "Déjà Vu: Introducing Operations Research to Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 847-848, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:hcarem:v:24:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10729-020-09521-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.