In Care Transitions, a Chance to Make or Break Patients' Recovery
A narrative on what happens when patients are harmed by poorly executed transitions between healthcare settings.
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by February 2019.|
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Providing more examples of the study’s stakeholder engagement, specifically related to how stakeholder partners participated in the development of the intervention. In response to reviewer concerns, researchers also acknowledged in the Discussion that increasing stakeholder influence earlier in the design process could have led to a stronger intervention, perhaps with more pronounced effects in this study.
- Highlighting the importance of tailoring the intervention to each patient’s level of health literacy, in response to reviewer concerns about lack of clarity in the report.
- Adding more description of the individual recruitment process and the study timeline in response to reviewer questions about how individual patients were recruited in a study testing interventions being deployed at the clinic level.
- Specifying how baseline covariate data were collected about each data point in an existing table.
- Elaborating on the possibility that the outcome adjudication processes changed over time. The researchers noted in the Methods and Limitations that although they made every effort to keep the adjudicators blinded to who received which intervention, the people filling this role might have determined that with a stepped design, patients with later hospitalizations were more likely to be in the intervention group.
- Acknowledging in the Limitations discussion that the stepped wedge design of the study could be subject to temporal trends in healthcare delivery, such that the later starting sites would be affected by changing healthcare policy. In response to reviewers about this issue, the researchers also noted the ways that they endeavored to reduce this potential limitation through maintaining a short study period for each study site.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form