Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 28;5(1):e25.
doi: 10.1017/cts.2020.517.

Evaluation of initial progress to implement Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium

Lisa C Welch  1   2 , Andrada Tomoaia-Cotisel  3 , Farzad Noubary  1   2 , Hong Chang  1   2 , Peter Mendel  3 , Anshu Parajulee  1 , Marguerite Fenwood-Hughes  1 , Jason M Etchegaray  3 , Nabeel Qureshi  3 , Redonna Chandler  4 , Harry P Selker  1   2
Affiliations

Evaluation of initial progress to implement Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium

Lisa C Welch et al. J Clin Transl Sci. .

Abstract

Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, about 60 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported CTSA hubs at academic health care institutions nationwide, is charged with improving the clinical and translational research enterprise. Together with the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the Consortium implemented Common Metrics and a shared performance improvement framework.

Methods: Initial implementation across hubs was assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods over a 19-month period. The primary outcome was implementation of three Common Metrics and the performance improvement framework. Challenges and facilitators were elicited.

Results: Among 59 hubs with data, all began implementing Common Metrics, but about one-third had completed all activities for three metrics within the study period. The vast majority of hubs computed metric results and undertook activities to understand performance. Differences in completion appeared in developing and carrying out performance improvement plans. Seven key factors affected progress: hub size and resources, hub prior experience with performance management, alignment of local context with needs of the Common Metrics implementation, hub authority in the local institutional structure, hub engagement (including CTSA Principal Investigator involvement), stakeholder engagement, and attending training and coaching.

Conclusions: Implementing Common Metrics and performance improvement in a large network of research-focused organizations proved feasible but required substantial time and resources. Considerable heterogeneity across hubs in data systems, existing processes and personnel, organizational structures, and local priorities of home institutions created disparate experiences across hubs. Future metric-based performance management initiatives across heterogeneous local contexts should anticipate and account for these types of differences.

Keywords: CTSA; Common Metrics; Performance improvement; clinical and translational science; evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Completion of Common Metrics and performance improvement activities per hub: three metrics combined (0–30 points possible).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Committee to Review the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Institute of Medicine; Leshner AI, Terry SF, Schultz AM, Liveman CT, editors. The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013. doi: 10.17226/18323. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pannick S, Sevdalis N, Athanasiou T. Beyond clinical engagement: a pragmatic model for quality improvement interventions, aligning clinical and managerial priorities. BMJ Quality & Safety 2016; 25: 716–725. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patrick M, Alba T. Health care benchmarking: a team approach. Quality Management in Health Care 1994; 2: 38–47. - PubMed
    1. Catuogno S, et al. Balanced performance measurement in research hospitals: the participative case study of a haematology department. BMC Health Services Research 2017; 17: 522. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moxham C. Understanding third sector performance measurement system design: a literature review. International Journal of Productivity 2014; 63: 704–726.

LinkOut - more resources