142 Using evaluation methods to improve evaluation processes: Creation and implementation of a new continuous improvement process at Duke Univ. Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: (1) Assess challenges with our current continuous improvement processes via stakeholders. (2) Implement a revised continuous improvement process. (3) Evaluate the revised processes to assess implementation and use for strategic improvement. (4) Implement analysis mechanisms for new process to assess trends across the CTSI. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used a mixed-methods, multi-phased, stakeholder-engaged approach with different processes per objective. Obj. 1: We implemented focus groups, surveys, and listening sessions incorporating two populations: both teams required to participate in reporting process, and CTSI leadership. Obj. 2: We utilized data from Obj. 1 processes to develop a revised continuous improvement process. Obj. 3: We integrated qualitative feedback processes onto the structure of continuous improvement processes, and we implemented a survey to assess use and value for the new process. Obj. 4: We developed a qualitative coding schema to assess key trends across teams and over time. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Obj. 1: Numerous challenges in metrics format and process, including significant limitations in data use to inform decision-making and appropriately assess impact. Obj. 2: Resultant changes to continuous improvement processes, including a restructured reporting format and use-oriented approach that enhanced organizational integration; changes included added focus on facilitators of success, challenge, and key opportunities to better inform decision-making. Obj. 3: The majority of teams experienced the new quarterly process as a better tool for program monitoring and communicating program needs to leadership, but that fuller integration into vertical communication is needed. Obj. 4: Implementation of new analysis process enabling examination of trends and themes across diverse teams within the CTSI. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This work has particular relevance within ACTS given our focus on a clinical and translational research enterprise, the complexity in evaluating the diverse work of translation research entities, and limitations in a commonly-used metrics-monitoring approach. Our focus on improving translational processes advances translational science.