Annual Assembly Abstract Review Process

Transcription

1 Annual Assembly Abstract Review Prcess AAHPM and HPNA cllabrate t review and select abstracts fr Annual Assembly. The cmmittees meet prir t the calls t review and update the Assembly bjectives (Planning Cmmittee), tpic areas, keywrds, criteria and prcess fr each call based n the evaluatins and pprtunities fr imprvement that are identified frm the previus planning and Assembly. (See Assembly Cmmittee Charges in Appendix A.) Members are respnsible fr cntent; staff are respnsible fr peratins. Call 1 Call 2 Call 3 Sessin Type wrkshps, cncurrent sessins (including SIG endrsed) scientific and quality imprvement prjects papers and psters cases (papers and psters) Respnsible Cmmittee Planning Cmmittee Scientific Subcmmittee Case Subcmmittee Membership AAHPM c chair + 4 HPNA c chair + 4 AAHPM c chair + 4 HPNA c chair + 4 AAHPM c chair + 4 HPNA c chair + 4 Abstract Reviews** ver reviewers frm AAHPM and HPNA (gal f equal representatin) and cmmittee ver reviewers frm AAHPM and HPNA (gal f equal representatin) and cmmittee c. 40 reviewers frm AAHPM and HPNA (gal f equal representatin) and cmmittee **The number f reviewers is apprximate. If mre express interest in reviewing, they can be utilized in the review prcess. Call 1 April/May Unblinded (reviewers see names and institutins f abstract authrs); this ffers the cmmittee the pprtunity t cnsider multiple variables when selecting sessins; it als assures that ne authr r institutin r gegraphic area is nt ver represented in the selectin prcess SIG review and endrsement prcess ccurs befre the clse f the call (separate prcess) Once the call is clsed, each abstract is assigned 4 reviewers, 2 each frm AAHPM and HPNA (Membership in a requisite fr serving as a reviewer.) Reviews are cmpleted based n the criteria that is included in the call fr abstracts. The definitin fr scres (1 5) are detailed in Appendix B. Staff wrks with the meetings management team t determine the ttal number f rms available fr each type f sessin and a schedule template is develped. Once all reviews are cmpleted, a summary reprt is develped that includes the abstract authrs, title, audience level, reviewer scres, average scre, tpic areas (primary and secndary) authr and reviewer cmments. These excel spreadsheets (ne each fr wrkshp, August 2017

2 SIG endrsed, and cncurrent) are presented t the c chairs srted by average scre and tpic categry. A cnference call r cmmunicatin with the c chairs and staff liaisn results in creating a cut ff scre fr each type f sessin that results in the apprximate number f accepted abstracts as there are sessin slts available. A call with the full Planning Cmmittee (ften 2 calls f minutes are needed) is cnvened t review the results f these cut ff scres. The discussin fcuses n whether the cntent is balanced acrss practice settings, tpics, and practice levels. Abstracts that fall near the cut ff are reviewed. Is there an utlying scre (3 reviewers scred high and ne scred lw)? D reviewer cmments help t discern value and need fr the sessin? Des it cver a tpic area that is underrepresented? Final selectins are made based n cnsensus. Regarding SIG endrsed sessins, if an abstract scred well but is nt accepted as a SIG endrsed sessin, it can be recnsidered fr acceptance as a regular cncurrent. This means that high quality SIG endrsed abstracts get cnsidered twice by the Planning Cmmittee. Primary authrs and c authrs are ntified f acceptance r nn acceptance. Sessins are sltted by staff based n tpic area (spreading similar cntent acrss the Assembly) and sltting is reviewed by the c chairs fr tpic balance. Once cnfirmed, authrs are ntified f the time and date f their presentatin. Call 2 July/August Blinded call (reviewers d nt see authrs r institutins f submissins); abstracts are research, science and quality imprvement prjects s blinding the reviews prmtes bjectivity. Once the call is clsed, each abstract is assigned 4 reviewers, 2 each frm AAHPM and HPNA (Membership is a requisite fr serving as a reviewer. The Research Cmmittees and SIGs frm bth rganizatins have representatin n the cmmittee and serve as reviewers.) Reviews are cmpleted based n the criteria that is included in the call fr abstracts. The definitin fr scres (1 5) are detailed in Appendix C. Staff clarifies the number f rms available fr paper sessins and the amunt f space available fr psters nsite t define the maximum number f abstracts papers and psters that can be accepted. Once all reviews are cmpleted, a summary reprt is develped that includes the abstract title, reviewer scres, average scre, type f abstract (riginal, systematic review r quality imprvement prject), tpic areas (primary and secndary), keywrds and authr and reviewers cmments. These excel spreadsheets (ne each fr abstracts t be cnsidered fr papers nly, psters nly, r either paper r pster) are presented t the c chairs srted by average scre and by average scre and keywrd. A cnference call with the c chairs and staff liaisn results in creating a cut ff scre fr papers and psters that results in the apprximate number f accepted abstracts as there are sessin slts and pster space available. A call with the full Scientific Subcmmittee (60 minutes) is cnvened t review the results f these cut ff scres. The discussin fcuses n whether the cntent has balanced tpics and practice levels. Abstracts that fall near the cut ff are reviewed. Is there an utlying scre (3 reviewers scred high and ne scred lw)? D reviewer cmments help t discern value and August 2017

3 need fr the sessin? The pririty is t feature the best and mst relevant research and quality imprvement prjects at Assembly. Final selectins are made based n cnsensus. Primary authrs are ntified f acceptance r nn acceptance. Sessins are sltted by staff based n keywrds r tpic area (attempting t grup paper presentatins with ther research and quality imprvement prjects that are related) and sltting is reviewed by the c chairs. Once cnfirmed, authrs are ntified f the time and date f their presentatin. Call 3 Octber Blinded call (reviewers d nt see authrs r institutins f submissins) based n the decisins f the c chairs starting in 2014 (fr the 2015 Assembly) Once the call is clsed, each abstract is assigned 4 reviewers, 2 each frm AAHPM and HPNA (Membership in a requisite fr serving as a reviewer.) Reviews are cmpleted based n the criteria that is included in the call fr abstracts. The definitin fr scres (1 5) are detailed in Appendix D. Staff clarifies the number f rms available fr case sessins and the amunt f space available fr psters nsite t define the maximum number f abstracts ral and pster that can be accepted. Once all reviews are cmpleted, a summary reprt is develped that includes the abstract title, reviewer scres, average scre, tpic areas, authr, and reviewer cmments. These excel spreadsheets (ne each fr abstracts t be cnsidered fr ral nly, psters nly, r either ral r pster) are presented t the c chairs srted by average scre and by average scre and dmains. A cnference call r cmmunicatin with the c chairs and staff liaisn results in creating a cut ff scre fr ral and psters that results in the apprximate number f accepted abstracts as there are sessin slts and pster space available. A call with the full Case Submissin Subcmmittee is cnvened t review the results f these cut ff scres. The discussin fcuses n whether the cntent has balanced tpics, practice levels and interdisciplinary. Abstracts that fall near the cut ff are reviewed. Is there an utlying scre (3 reviewers scred high and ne scred lw)? D reviewer cmments help t discern value and need fr the sessin? The pririty is t feature the best and mst relevant interdisciplinary case studies at Assembly. Final selectins are made based n cnsensus. Primary authrs are ntified f acceptance r nn acceptance. Sessins are sltted by staff based n tpic area (attempting t grup case presentatins with ther interdisciplinary case studies that is related) and sltting is reviewed by the c chairs. Once cnfirmed, authrs are ntified f the time and date f their presentatin. Cming fr 2018! Fellw and Schlar Pster Pilt AAHPM and HPNA are wrking with academic leaders t set up a call fr psters frm fellws and schlars currently enrlled in a Hspice and Palliative Care/Medicine educatin prgram. The call will be in the late fall. Fellws and schlars f all disciplines will be invited t submit an abstract related t research r quality prjects; wrk in prcess is welcme. Abstracts must be endrsed by a faculty member r mentr. Mre details t cme! August 2017

4 APPENDIX A ANNUAL ASSEMBLY PLANNING COMMITTEE Purpse: Charges: Design a cmprehensive educatinal experience including plenary, cncurrent, and paper/pster sessins using evaluatin and needs assessment data, educatinal abstract submissins, and knwledge f current issues. 1. Oversee prgram develpment and structure fr the Annual Assembly in cllabratin with HPNA, the jint spnsr. 2. Design a cmprehensive educatinal experience based n practice gaps, needs assessment data and previus evaluatins that incrprates palliative care cmpetencies. 3. Review educatinal cntent including plenary, cncurrent sessins, SIG sympsia pre-cnference wrkshps that address the educatinal needs f diverse HPM practice arenas. Mnitr disclsures and cntent fr cmmercial bias. 4. Plan t attend Annual Assembly and mderate sessins as needed. SCIENTIFIC SUBCOMMITTEE Purpse: Charges: Review, assess and select abstracts, as well as determine paper and pster award winners. 1. Review, scre, select abstracts and determine award winners per plicy in the research and fellw/resident/student categries fr presentatin as papers and psters at the Annual Assembly and fr publicatin in the jurnal. 2. Cllabrate with the research cmmittees and cmmunities f AAHPM and HPNA t prmte pprtunities fr attendees t interface with scientific cntent and research mentrs. 3. Participate in nline pster judging (befre Annual Assembly) and mderate paper sessins at Annual Assembly CASE SUBMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE Purpse: Charges: Review, scre, and select case abstracts fr ral and pster presentatins. 1. Review, scre, and select case abstracts fr ral and pster presentatin at the Annual Assembly. 2. Cllabrate with the Early Career SIG and cmmunities f AAHPM and HPNA t encurage submissins frm thse early in their hspice and palliative care careers and thse with mre experience. 3. Once cases are selected, participate in nline pster judging (befre Assembly) and mderate sessins at the Annual Assembly.

5 Criterin 1: Adds t Existing Knwledge 1: Old, utdated, basic 101 Call 1 Review Criteria Definitin 2: Repetitin f previus wrk with limited applicability 3: Perhaps unique, but nt necessarily imprtant t the field f hspice and palliative care 4: Unique slant/new apprach n a cmmn prblem r issue 5: Hypthesis r premise f the abstract is exceptinal and distinctive, nvel, nt been addressed. Criterin 2: Presents an Innvative/cutting edge tpic/new apprach 1: Will make n difference in practice 2: Repetitive and withut unique features 3: Imprtant infrmatin but applicatin is limited and/r difficult t replicate 4: Presents imprtant utcmes and infrmatin; COULD change practice 5: Presents imprtant utcmes and infrmatin; WILL change practice Criterin 3: Has significance/imprtance/relevance t hspice and palliative care 1: Nt related r relevant at all APPENDIX B 2: Sme relatinship and significance t hspice and palliative care, but nt critical 3: Critical infrmatin fr a select few practitiners/discipline 4: Critical knwledge fr many practitiners/multiple disciplines 5: Critical knwledge fr MOST all practitiners, regardless f discipline Criterin 4: Is well balanced in terms f time, teaching methds, interdisciplinary representatin and # f presenters 1: Inapprpriate number f presenters fr the tpic (t few r t many) 2: Straight didactic, n attempt t apply t multidisciplinary audience, unrealistic amunt f infrmatin (t much/t little) fr alltted time. 3: Questinable in terms f numbers and disciplines f presenters, little creativity in teaching methds, amunt f infrmatin t be presented.

6 4: Given the tpic, has sme representatin by multidiscipline, apprpriate number f presenters, beynd didactic teaching methds, amunt f material t be presented is apprpriate. 5: Given the tpic, has apprpriate and critical representatin by multidiscipline, apprpriate number f presenters, interactive and nvel presentatin appraches, amunt f material t be presented is apprpriate WITH time built in fr Q & A. Criterin 5: Is well written and clearly cmmunicated 1: Unclear, prly written and rganized, AND des nt adhere t AA frmat 2: Unclear, prly written and/r rganized, OR des nt adhere t AA frmat 3: Fairly well written and clear, acceptable rganizatin, adheres t AA frmat 4: Well written, clear, well rganized, adheres t AA frmat 5: Excels in presentatin, exceptinally clear, well written, rganized, includes references and adheres t AA frmat. (Yu dn t want t miss this ne based n the submitted abstract.)

7 APPENDIX C Call 2 Criteria Rating Descriptins Criterin 1: Advances hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice; represents a nvel tpic r an innvative apprach Des the abstract address a relevant and significant prblem? Des the abstract present either a new r nvel apprach t a cutting-edge tpic? Are the findings likely t impact the practice r delivery f hspice and palliative care? Des the abstract cntain results? 1. Will nt advance hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice and is nt nvel r innvative. 2. Prbably will nt advance hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice and is nt very nvel r innvative. 3. May advance hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice r may be cnsidered nvel r innvative. 4. Mre than likely will advance hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice and/r is nvel r innvative. 5. Will advance hspice and palliative care knwledge r practice and is nvel r innvative. Criterin 2: Research design and methdlgy are rigrus and apprpriate fr the study questin Is the study questin and/r hypthesis clearly and succinctly stated? Is the study design apprpriate fr the study questins? Is the sample apprpriate fr the study questins and methdlgy? If the abstract is a systematic review, des it utilize rigrus methdlgy? 1. The research design and methdlgy have serius flaws. 2. The research design and methdlgy have many flaws r missing infrmatin that is needed. 3. The research design and methdlgy have sme flaws r missing infrmatin that is needed. 4. The research design and methdlgy have minr flaws r missing infrmatin. 5. The research design and methdlgy are rigrus. Criterin 3: Cnclusins address the study questin and are supprted by apprpriate analyses and the results btained. Is the analysis sund, apprpriate and sufficiently described? Are the results clearly presented, and if applicable, are measures f significance r assciatin r effect sizes stated? Are the cnclusins substantiated by the results? 1. There are fatal flaws in the data analysis, thus results and cnclusins cannt be supprted. (Fr example, the analysis is inaccurate.) 2. There are many flaws r missing infrmatin regarding data analysis, thus results and cnclusins cannt be supprted. 3. There are sme flaws r missing infrmatin regarding data analysis, thus results and cnclusins may nt be supprted.

8 4. Data analysis is apprpriate and results and cnclusins are fairly clear. 5. Data analysis is apprpriate and clear; results and cnclusins are clear. Criterin 4: Overall presentatin Is the abstract well-rganized and clearly written? Des the abstract reflect a thughtful submissin? 1. Exceptinally clear, well written, rganized. 2. Well written, clear, well rganized. 3. Fairly well written and clear, acceptable rganizatin. 4. Unclear, prly written and/r rganized. 5. Extremely unclear, prly written, prly rganized.

9 Call 3 Case Review Criteria Definitin Criterin 1: Adds t Existing Knwledge, presents an innvative/cutting edge tpic 5: Nvel r exceptinal High ptential fr practice change 4: Unique r new apprach Culd change practice 3: Imprtant, but with limited applicatin r difficult t replicate 2: Repetitive Nthing new Limited applicability 1: T Basic Will nt impact practice change Criterin 2: Has significance/imprtance/relevance t hspice and palliative care 5: Critical knwledge fr MOST all practitiners, regardless f discipline 4: Critical knwledge fr many practitiners/multiple disciplines 3: Critical infrmatin fr a select few practitiners/discipline 2: Sme relatinship and significance t hspice and palliative care, but nt critical 1: Nt related r relevant at all Criterin 3: Scientific/Clinical cntent is valid and supprts the cnclusin 5: There is valid scientific r clinical cntent that clearly supprts the cnclusin fr use in practice 4: The scientific r clinical cntent is nly partially clear as t hw it wuld supprt practice 3: The scientific r clinical cntent is nt clearly related t practice 2: The scientific r clinical cntent is nt valid 1: Scientific r clinical cntent is absent APPENDIX D Criterin 4: Is well written and clearly cmmunicated 5: Excels in presentatin, exceptinally clear, well written, rganized, includes references and adheres t Annual Assembly frmat (Yu dn t want t miss this ne based n the submitted abstract.) (Submissins cannt cntain any infrmatin that culd persnally identify a patient r staff member, r any identifying gegraphical r facility names.) 4: Well written, clear, well rganized, adheres t Annual Assembly frmat (Submissins cannt cntain any infrmatin that culd persnally identify a patient r staff member, r any identifying gegraphical r facility names.)

10 3: Fairly well written and clear, acceptable rganizatin, adheres t Annual Assembly frmat (Submissins cannt cntain any infrmatin that culd persnally identify a patient r staff member, r any identifying gegraphical r facility names.) 2: Unclear, prly written and/r rganized, OR des nt adhere t Annual Assembly frmat (Submissins cannt cntain any infrmatin that culd persnally identify a patient r staff member, r any identifying gegraphical r facility names.) 1: Unclear, prly written and rganized, AND des nt adhere t Annual Assembly frmat (Submissins cannt cntain any infrmatin that culd persnally identify a patient r staff member, r any identifying gegraphical r facility names.)