Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs. Issue 1 (14th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Welch, Lisa C.; Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada; Chang, Hong; Mendel, Peter; Etchegaray, Jason M.; Qureshi, Nabeel; Fenwood-Hughes, Marguerite; Parajulee, Anshu; Selker, Harry P.
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical and translational science. Volume 5:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2020-12-14
• Subjects: Performance improvement, -- common metrics, -- network, -- translational science, -- CTSA; Clinical medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; Medicine, Experimental -- Periodicals; Human experimentation in medicine -- Periodicals; 616.027
• DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.565
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-8661

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, a network of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs, is charged with improving the national clinical and translational research enterprise. The CTSA Consortium and the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences implemented the Common Metrics Initiative comprised of standardized metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. This article summarizes hubs' perspectives on its value during the initial implementation. Methods: The value was assessed across 58 hubs. Survey items assessed change in perceived ability to manage performance and advance clinical and translational science. Semi-structured interviews elicited hubs' perspectives on meaningfulness and value-added of the Common Metrics Initiative and hubs' recommendations. Results: Hubs considered their abilities to manage performance to have improved, but there was no change in perceived ability to advance clinical and translational science. The initiative added value by providing a formal structured process, enabling strategic conversations, facilitating improvements in processes, providing an external impetus for improvement, and providing justification for funds invested. Hubs were concerned about the usefulness of the metrics chosen and whether the value-added was sufficient relative to the effort required. Hubs recommended useful benchmarking, disseminating best practices and promoting peer-to-peer learning, and expanding the use of data to inform the initiative. Conclusions: Implementing Common Metrics and a performance improvement framework yielded concrete short-term benefits, but concerns about usefulness remained, particularly considering the effort required. The Common Metrics Initiative should focus on facilitating cross-hub collaboration around metrics that address high-priority impact areas for individual hubs and the Consortium.