Search

Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had substantial global morbidity and mortality. Clinical research related to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19 is a top priority. Effective and efficient recruitment is challenging even without added constraints of a global pandemic. Recruitment registries offer a potential solution to slow or difficult recruitment. Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to describe the design and implementation of a digital research recruitment registry to optimize awareness and participant enrollment for COVID-19-related research in Baltimore and to report preliminary results. Methods: Planning began in March 2020, and the registry launched in July 2020. The primary recruitment mechanisms include electronic medical record data, postcards distributed at testing sites, and digital advertising campaigns. Following consent in a Research Electronic Data Capture survey, participants answer questions related to COVID-19 exposure, testing, and willingness to participate in research. Branching logic presents participants with studies they might be eligible for. Results: As of March 24, 2021, 9010 participants have enrolled, and 64.2% are female, 80.6% are White, 9.4% are Black or African American, and 6% are Hispanic or Latino. Phone outreach has had the highest response rate (13.1%), followed by email (11.9%), text (11.4%), and patient portal message (9.4%). Eleven study teams have utilized the registry, and 4596 matches have been made between study teams and interested volunteers. Conclusion: Effective and efficient recruitment strategies are more important now than ever due to the time-limited nature of COVID-19 research. Pilot efforts have been successful in connecting interested participants with recruiting study teams.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Leveraging Patient’s Experience to improve Diagnosis (LEAPED) is our proposed method of measuring diagnostic error through seeking patient feedback on their understanding of their diagnosis and health status following emergency department discharge. To pilot test LEAPED’s feasibility, we deployed and determined patient uptake of LEAPED. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To test LEAPED, we employed a longitudinal cohort study design at emergency departments across one academic health system in the Mid-Atlantic region. Patients consented to complete questionnaires regarding their understanding of their diagnosis and/or follow-up steps and their health status at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months following emergency department discharge. People aged 18 and older who were seen at the emergency department within the past 7 days with at least one chronic condition (hypertension, diabetes, history of stroke, arthritis, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, depression, and/or chronic obstructive lung disease) and one or more of the following common chief complaints: chest pain, upper back pain, abdominal pain, shortness of breath/cough, dizziness, and headache were eligible to join the study. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of those enrolled (n = 59), 95% (n = 53) responded to the two week post-ED discharge questionnaire (1 and 3-month ongoing). Of the 6 non-responders, 1 had died and 3 were hospitalized at two weeks. The average age was 50 years (SD 16) and 64% were female. Over half of participants (53%) were white and 41% were black. Almost one-third (27%) reported they were not given an explanation of their health problem on leaving the ED, and of those, a third did not have an understanding of what steps to take after leaving the ED. Participants reported a new health problem was identified after ED discharge (19%), worsening health status (12%), and health status stayed the same (16%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Patient uptake of LEAPED was high, which suggests that patient-report is a feasible method of evaluating diagnostic decision making and delivery to patients and yields insightful information beyond administrative data. The next steps are to validate the accuracy of patient-reported diagnostic error by comparing with administrative data.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Determine person (sex, age, education level), environment (marital status, living alone, insurance), and health and illness (BMI, type of AF, comorbidities) characteristics that are associated with outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). (2) Determine the association of symptom management strategies (ablation, cardioversion, and rate and rhythm control medications) and outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). (3) Test person (sex, age, and education level) and environment (marital status, living alone, insurance) characteristics as moderators of the effect of symptom management strategies (ablation, cardioversion, and rate and rhythm control medications) on outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: AF patients (≥18 years of age) already enrolled in the PaTH study will be included. To date, 1026 total participants have been enrolled. Based on the enrolled participants, 92% (945) of our study population are Caucasian and 36% (362) are female. The age range of the enrolled participants is: 2% (16) 18−39, 4% (42) 40−49, 11% (108) 50−59, 33% (343) 60−69, 34% (353) 70−79, and 16% (162) 80+. Participants are recruited through in-person, email, phone, patient portal messaging and post mail techniques to ensure a representative sample. The PaTH study integrates electronic health record and insurance claims data with patient-reported outcome measures collected through online surveys. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We hypothesize that sex, older age, low education level, living alone, absence of partner, absence of insurance coverage, high BMI, and a high number of comorbidities will be associated with lower QOL, high symptom severity, and low emotional and functional status. We further hypothesize that symptom management strategies will be associated with higher QOL, low symptom severity, and high emotional and functional status, and that these associations will be moderated by person and environment characteristics. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The proposed research is an important first step in determining potential causes of person and environment differences in symptom severity. It will lead to tailored symptom management interventions for individuals most at risk for experiencing high symptom severity.