Abstract Submission Procedures
Submission Deadline: Monday, August 5, 2013, 5:00 pm, CST
The primary goal of the University of Texas System Clinical Safety and Effectiveness (CS&E) conference is to encourage the transfer of learning and applicable best practices across the UT System. Therefore all graduates of the CS&E course are encouraged to submit abstracts using the attached matrix for potential presentation at the conference.
Oral and poster presentations are scheduled on both days of the conference and will be grouped by content similarity. Posters (4’ x 4’ in size) will be requested of all accepted abstracts with some authors also asked to make an oral presentation. Authors of abstracts should expect to be present during their scheduled sessions.
Consistent with the commitment of the University of Texas System to provide high quality and safe care to the people of Texas, the System will confer awards to selected graduates of the University of Texas Clinical Safety and Effectiveness course that demonstrate extraordinary results in the improvement of safety and quality improvements.
All graduates of a University of Texas Clinical Safety and Effectiveness Course who are on the faculty or staff of the University of Texas System are encouraged to submit an abstract to the 2013 UT CS&E Conference. Abstracts may also be submitted by others as long as the CS & E template is followed. Abstracts may be submitted for the project pursued by the graduate during the CS&E course or a subsequent project that demonstrates the successful use of quality tools and methods taught in the course. Teams whose project was completed over the past several years should re-survey in order to evaluate continued achievement of goals. Submitting an abstract does not preclude you from submitting to regional, national or international conferences or from publication. Projects submitted to previous CS & E conferences may be resubmitted if there is sustained and/or new information.
Complimentary registration will be given to the primary and secondary author of each accepted abstract. In the event an abstract is selected for a monetary award, that monetary prize will be given to the primary and/or secondary authors only and will be divided among these authors with no one person receiving more than $3,000. Students are not eligible for monetary awards.
Procedure and Selection Criteria
Abstracts should be submitted using the attached format, single spaced with one-inch margins and no less than 11 pt. font in Arial typeface. Judges will use the scoring rubric to identify projects to be presented at the conference, as well as, projects to be considered for the awards. Applicants must select which of the following project categories their project fits best: emergency department, general efficiency, general quality improvement, ICU, infectious disease, information technology or systems, lab, medical homes/reform or surgery. Applicants may describe their problem and results in narrative or graphic format. The total abstract should not exceed 1500 words (not including text on graphs or charts). Applicants should demonstrate an understanding of the concepts taught in the course through the use of quality tools, measures of success and the use and interpretation of data.
Abstracts may also be submitted for education or research projects. Both of these categories have a unique structured abstract format with a word limit of 500 words. A sample format for both these categories is indicated below. These abstracts are NOT ELIGIBLE for the Quality Improvement project awards. Abstracts submitted in the "Education" category will describe educational interventions for patient safety and quality improvement at UME, GME, continuing professional development level. Abstracts submitted in the "Research" category will describe research projects that generate new knowledge about patient safety and health care quality.
All Abstracts are to be submitted following the online submission process with the actual abstract to be sent as an e-mail attachment to Susan Onion at firstname.lastname@example.org. The link to the online submission process can be found at www.utsystem.edu/hea/buildingbridge/abstract . Both the online submission form and a copy of the abstract sent by e-mail must be completed by the deadline of Monday, August 5 at 5:00 p.m. To print a copy of the online abstract process, please refer to that link at the top of this page.
Abstracts will undergo review by members of The University of Texas CS& E and Patient Safety Steering Committee and CS& E Fellows using the scoring rubric. Recommendations will be made to the Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs who will confer the awards at the conference recognition dinner. The notification of acceptance of abstracts will include specific directions for posters. Those abstracts selected for oral presentation in addition to a poster presentation will be given the specific date and time for their 20 minute presentation. Notification of the status of all submitted abstracts will be given by August 26, 2013.
We expect to confer first, second and third place awards for the most outstanding patient safety and quality improvement projects. Awards will also be considered for sustained CS&E projects that continue to achieve excellence. Monetary awards of up to $3,000 will be given to the primary and secondary authors of the winning abstracts. The award money is to be used by the recipients to participate in national quality improvement conferences. Those teams or individuals that received award money at previous UT CS & E conferences are not eligible to receive award money for the same projects in 2013. Students and are not eligible for monetary awards. Students are defined as a person participating in an undergraduate or graduate medical training program.
How to Submit an Abstract
New this year, the online abstract submission process will include all the required CME and CNE information needed for the identified primary and secondary authors. The process also gives the person submitting the abstract the opportunity to complete the complimentary registration for the primary and secondary abstract author. You are encouraged to download a hard copy of the abstract submission process to make sure that you have all the necessary information before the online process is started. To do this, please refer to the tab at the top of abstract submission procedures portion of the conference website, http://www.utsystem.edu/hea/buildingbridge/
1. Once you have confirmed you have all the necessary information, go to the conference website http://www.utsystem.edu/hea/buildingbridge/ and select
"Abstract Submission Procedures" and choose "Submit an Abstract"
*Note – the online submission form is not complete until the “thank you page” is reached. An abstract is considered submitted once the entire online process is completed AND the abstract is sent as an e-mail attachment to email@example.com.
The deadline for completing the submission process is
Monday, August 5th at 5:00 p.m.
2. Once the online abstract submission form has been completed,
e-mail your abstract as an attachment to Susan Onion at firstname.lastname@example.org with the title of the project as the subject line.
Please do not e-mail your abstract until you have completed the online abstract submission form.
Checklist for Submitting an Abstract
Complete "submit an abstract" online information form.
Send abstract as an e-mail attachment to email@example.com
Make hotel reservation at Grand Hyatt San Antonio (if needed)
Contact for questions
Please send abstract to Susan Onion, Conference Planner
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, cell phone: (512) 636-2835.
Jan E. Patterson, MD, University of Texas Fellow in Clinical Safety and Effectiveness
E-mail: email@example.com; phone: (210) 567-4445.
CS&E Project Scoring Rubric
|I. Purpose/Aim (covers Overview, Aim, Metric(s) to be used to determine impact)|
|1. Project’s alignment with organizational goals is identified and clear (Business Case) (Score reflects knowledge of organization’s goals written clearly for the audience. This includes making the business case for the project)|
|2. Project’s alignment with organizational goals is identified and clear (Business Case) (Score reflects knowledge of organization’s goals written clearly for the audience. This includes making the business case for the project)|
|3. Project’s alignment with organizational goals is identified and clear (Business Case) (Score reflects knowledge of organization’s goals written clearly for the audience. This includes making the business case for the project)|
|4. Project timeframe is provided|
|5. Key stakeholders are identified (Instead of key stakeholders being identified in intervention, they should be identified here)|
|II. Tools and Measurement|
|1. Appropriate tools were used for measuring and identifying current conditions (Pareto charts, cause-and-effect diagrams (fishbone), process maps, control charts, etc.)|
|2. All tools were used correctly (full points given if tools identified are used correctly – even if they are NOT the correct tools).|
|3. Interpretation of results for current conditions is complete and correct (an interpretation of results should be given and be correct; points can be deducted if, for example, the team does not interpret a Pareto chart correctly.)|
|4. Possible (competing) interventions are detailed with chosen intervention identified (Provide some discussion of all various solutions considered and why the final intervention was identified as the one to use)|
|5. Presentation of results are clear, well-annotated, and free from significant errors (Credit is given for how well results are presented in the abstract; graphs and figures are well annotated; discussion is clear; “free from error” means only minor (and very few) errors are present; that is, errors do not disrupt reading and comprehension of what is being presented)|
|III. Intervention and Improvement|
|1. Strategy for implementation of intervention is clearly stated and appropriate for given aim statement (stated purpose)
(Discuss the how, who, why, when, what; who will be involved? How will the intervention be implemented, etc.)
|2. The intervention was piloted (Provide evidence that the improvement was implemented as a test basis and was correct. Correct piloting would include piloting to people who represent the population of interest, piloting in the correct location(s), impacting the right people)|
|3. A specific action plan is provided and detailed (As a result of testing and feedback, a specific plan of action for implementing the improvement plan is presented and clear)|
|4. Plan for communication of intervention plan to key stakeholders is present and reasonable (How will dissemination of the improvement plan be carried out? Is this a good plan and why was it chosen?)|
|5. Timeline for proposed changes is provided (Why is this time frame is appropriate? Ex. Because of upcoming changes in software – might cause a delay? etc.)|
|IV. Intervention Results|
|1. The results are measureable and tied to aim statement (Data should back up stated results; the data should also tie back to the aim statement given. Even if aim not achieved, substantial progress made in achieving aim)|
|2. Appropriate tools were used to analyze the data collected (Appropriate graphical displays used, if testing is done (hypothesis testing, confidence interval estimation) it is the appropriate test)|
|3. Results are valid and interpreted correctly (Valid may mean enough data has been collected to be able to make their claim; interpretation of results (graphs, analysis) is correct for the type of tool used.)|
|4. Plan for continued monitoring and control of improvement is well documented and appropriate (Control charts or other methods for monitoring the process should be given; this may include scheduled evaluation of people, methods)|
|5. Presentation of results is clear, well-annotated, and free from significant errors (Credit is given for how results are presented in the abstract/poster; graphs, figures are well annotated; discussion is clear; “free from error” means only minor (and very few) errors are present; that is, errors do not disrupt reading and comprehension of what is being presented)|
|V. Revenue Enhancement/Cost Avoidance/Generalizability|
|1. Metrics are clearly identified and appropriate (What metric is be used? Dollars saved, cost avoidance, revenue generated; the metric should align with the aim statement given)|
|2. Data used to demonstrate impact are provided and complete (Data collected from sources to calculate values for the stated metrics (from Finance, for example))|
|3. Generalization of results is present, clear, and appropriate (Were the results of this intervention implemented in multiple sites? If not, discuss why; points are given for either actually implementing the change in multiple areas, or discuss the plan for implementation in multiple areas. The plan or actual implementation should be appropriate – the populations are identical or similar enough that the intervention makes sense)|
|4. Discussion of lessons learned is provided (Discuss what worked well, what did not, what would you do differently, for example)|
|5. Recommendations for future work are clearly identified (Plans for further work should be discussed; this can be very specific or general, but a plan is needed; what other projects? Revision of intervention for new application, etc.)|