Detecting Dissonance in Clinical and Research Workflow for Translational Psychiatric Registries

Abstract

BackgroundThe interplay between the workflow for clinical tasks and research data collection is often overlooked, ultimately making it ineffective.Questions/purposesTo the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have developed standards that allow for the comparison of workflow models derived from clinical and research tasks toward the improvement of data collection processesMethodsIn this study we used the term dissonance for the occurrences where there was a discord between clinical and research workflows. We developed workflow models for a translational research study in psychiatry and the clinic where its data collection was carried out. After identifying points of dissonance between clinical and research models we derived a corresponding classification system that ultimately enabled us to re-engineer the data collection workflow. We considered (1) the number of patients approached for enrollment and (2) the number of patients enrolled in the study as indicators of efficiency in research workflow. We also recorded the number of dissonances before and after the workflow modification.ResultsWe identified 22 episodes of dissonance across 6 dissonance categories: actor, communication, information, artifact, time, and space. We were able to eliminate 18 episodes of dissonance and increase the number of patients approached and enrolled in research study trough workflow modification.ConclusionThe classification developed in this study is useful for guiding the identification of dissonances and reveal modifications required to align the workflow of data collection and the clinical setting. The methodology described in this study can be used by researchers to standardize data collection process.

Demonstrating the reliability of transdiagnostic mHealth Routine Outcome Monitoring in mental health services using experience sampling technology

“…Benchmark-ROM requires rigid standardization, both in terms of instruments and data collection, to allow cross-patient and cross-centre comparisons. The implementation of rigid benchmark-ROM negatively influences clinical ROM, which requires a more flexible approach [4–6]. Clinical ROM requires repeated assessments at specific time points over successive diagnostic and treatment phases.…”

A European venous registry: pitfalls and opportunities

“…In order to increase acceptance among physicians and enable efficiency and time savings it's important to match the daily workflow as closely as possible. 12 This would greatly increase compliance of the resulting registry and at the same time prevent errors in extracting or copying 8,13 the registry data. Time and costs are known to be major barriers for institutions when participating in clinical research.…”