Translational science is, by definition, groundbreaking; however, without an emphasis on quality and efficiency, some innovations in healthcare may translate into unnecessary risk, suboptimal solutions, and potentially loss of well-being and even lives. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Clinical and Translational Sciences Award Consortium’s response created an opportunity for quality and efficiency to be better defined, expediently and thoughtfully addressed, and further studied as central foundations in the translational science mission. This paper presents findings of an environmental scan of adaptive capacity and preparedness to illuminate the assets, institutional environment, knowledge, and forward-looking decision-making needed to optimize and sustain research quality and efficiency.

This paper is part of the Environmental Scan of Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, illuminating challenges, practices, and lessons learned related to CTSA hubs’ efforts of engaging community partners to reduce the spread of the virus, address barriers to COVID-19 testing, identify treatments to improve health outcomes, and advance community participation in research. CTSA researchers, staff, and community partners collaborated to develop evidence-based, inclusive, accessible, and culturally appropriate strategies and resources helping community members stay healthy, informed, and connected during the pandemic. CTSA institutions have used various mechanisms to advance co-learning and co-sharing of knowledge, resources, tools, and experiences between academic professionals, patients, community partners, and other stakeholders. Forward-looking and adaptive decision-making structures are those that prioritize sustained relationships, mutual trust and commitment, ongoing communication, proactive identification of community concerns and needs, shared goals and decision making, as well as ample appreciation of community members and their contributions to translational research. There is a strong need for further community-engaged research and workforce training on how to build our collective and individual adaptive capacity to sustain and improve processes and outcomes of engagement with and by communities—in all aspects of translational science.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities and rendered them acutely more visible. Special and underrepresented populations need to be fully integrated into the translational research process from the very beginning and all the way through. This article presents findings and rapid analysis mini-case studies from the Environmental Scan (E-Scan) of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, specific to the goal of integrating special and vulnerable populations in different institutional research settings. In our discussion of the findings and case studies, we flexibly apply local adaptive capacity framework concepts and characteristics, and, whenever possible, we present ideas on how to enhance capacity in those areas, based on the challenges and practices identified through the E-Scan. Although the past year has recorded incredible achievements in vaccine development, clinical trials, diagnostics, and overall biomedical research, these successes continue to be hampered by our inability to turn them into achievements equally available and accessible to all populations.

COVID-19 reinforced the need for effective leadership and administration within Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hubs in response to a public health crisis. The speed, scale, and persistent evolution of the pandemic forced CTSA hubs to act quickly and remain nimble. The switch to virtual environments paired with supporting program operations, while ensuring the safety and well-being of their team, highlight the critical support role provided by leadership and administration. The pandemic also illustrated the value of emergency planning in supporting organizations’ ability to quickly pivot and adapt. Lessons learned from the pandemic and from other cases of adaptive capacity and preparedness can aid program hubs in promoting and sustaining the overall capabilities of their organizations to prepare for future events.

As the USA and the rest of the world raced to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, years of investments from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences allowed for informatics services and resources at CTSA hubs to play a significant role in addressing the crisis. CTSA hubs partnered with local and regional partners to collect data on the pandemic, provide access to relevant patient data, and produce data dashboards to support decision-making. Coordinated efforts, like the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), helped to aggregate and harmonize clinical data nationwide. Even with significant informatics investments, some CTSA hubs felt unprepared in their ability to respond to the fast-moving public health crisis. Many hubs were forced to quickly evolve to meet local needs. Informatics teams expanded critical support at their institutions which included an engagement platform for clinical research, COVID-19 awareness and education activities in the community, and COVID-19 data dashboards. Continued investments in informatics resources will aid in ensuring that tools, resources, practices, and policies are aligned to meet local and national public health needs.

The ability of research networks and individual institutions to effectively and efficiently prepare, respond, and adapt to emergent challenges is essential for the biomedical research enterprise. At the beginning of 2021, a special Working Group was formed by individuals in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and approved by the CTSA Steering Committee to explore “Adaptive Capacity and Preparedness (AC&P) of CTSA Hubs.” The AC&P Working Group took a pragmatic Environmental Scan (E-Scan) approach of utilizing the diverse data that had been collected through existing mechanisms. The Local Adaptive Capacity framework was adapted to illustrate the interconnectedness of CTSA programs and services, while exposing how the demands of the pandemic forced them to quickly pivot and adapt. This paper presents a synopsis of the themes and lessons learned that emerged from individual sections of the E-Scan. Lessons learned from this study may improve our understanding of adaptive capacity and preparedness at different levels, as well as help strengthen the core service models, strategies, and foster innovation in clinical and translational science research.

Introduction: Email and text messaging holds the potential to not only contact patients after emergency department (ED) care for clinically important communications such as appointment reminders, but also to solicit feedback for quality improvement and/or participation in research. A necessary first step though is the collection of electronic contact information, but little is known about current practice in Ontario EDs. In this study, we sought to characterize current collection, consent and use of patient email and texting to communicate with ED patients at academic and community hospitals across Ontario. Methods: We developed a questionnaire, with a blend of multiple choice and open-ended questions, targeted at ED registration administrators. The questions focused on if and how EDs collect, store and consent for patient emails, how and what they utilize those emails for and if they text patients. The questionnaire was administered both online and by phone. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling, including facilitated dissemination of the questionnaire via an existing listserv of the Patient Registration Network of Ontario (PRNO). Results: Twenty-two respondents (41% response rate) completed the questionnaire. Seven of the 22 institutions were academic health centres (32%). Nine institutions (41%) collected patient email addresses in the ED and none collected or used text message technology. In all 9, registration staff were tasked with asking, consenting, collecting and storing patient details within their hospital admissions, discharge and transfer system (ADT). For sites with email address collection, respondents estimated 40-60% of ED patients shared an email address. Seven of 9 institutions had a verbal consent process, while 2 used implied consent. Only 2 institutions used email to send patients post-discharge feedback questionnaires and four used email to facilitate access to patient portals. Four institutions were looking at using text messages to direct patients at triage, sometime in the future. Conclusion: Engagement in optimized care and feedback requires communication which is quickly shifting to electronic format. Collection of electronic contact information continues to be slow and uneven in Ontario. There is an immediate need for clearer guidance to accelerate collection, storage, consent and use of email and text messaging technology.

The purpose of this qualitative interpretive design was to explore the perspectives of researchers, health care providers, policy makers, and decision makers on key risks, concerns, and emerging issues related to home care safety that would inform a line of research inquiry. Defining safety specifically in this home care context has yet to be described; consequently, gaining insight from various stakeholders about safety issues relevant to the home care sector is necessary in order to inform strategic directions for future research. To begin to map a research agenda, a three-part environmental scan was conducted: (a) a pilot study with home care recipients and providers; (b) key informant interviews with researchers, health care providers, policy makers, and decision makers; and (c) a review of literature in three topic areas. Only the results of the key informant interviews are reported here.