(O-D5) The Stanford Emergency Medicine Partnership Program: A Novel Approach to Streamlining the Evaluation and Implementation of Emerging Health Technologies Through Academic-private Partnerships

Objectives: We describe a novel, step-wise approach to rapidly screening opportunities to create emergency medicine research partnerships with private companies developing innovative medical devices, digital health tools, and artificial intelligence algorithms. The Stanford Emergency Medicine Partnership Program (STEPP) applies best practices from venture capital, including both a funnel and evaluation practices, to centralize and streamline the evaluation and execution of innovative partnerships.

Over a 1.5-year period, STEPP evaluated 68 potential partners and initiated partnerships or collaborations with 10 of them; engaged 64 faculty, fellows, residents, and students; and produced nine peer-reviewed articles and conference presentations. STEPP has provided operational benefits, increased faculty and learner development, and improved engagement with industry to innovate in the emergency medicine space. Our model could be adapted and applied to other healthcare departments seeking to promote innovation and improve operations to enhance patient care.

Methods: STEPP was developed in response to the realization that our department struggled with a few different issues:
1. We did not have an easy way for innovative companies to interface with our department if they were interested in a partnership.
2. We found that we did not have a standardized way of evaluating these companies when approached, and in fact, a number of our faculty ended up pursuing partnerships that were ill-advised or not worth the time.
3. As the complexity of the healthcare system increased, we found that our faculty needed help with the numerous hurdles that needed to be navigated in order to take a partnership from concept to execution.

Department leadership, including representatives from research, strategy, operations, digital health, and education, designed a new program that would address these issues and improve our ability to execute innovative partnerships.

As there are limited models for industry partnership evaluation in healthcare, we examined best practices in business. Based on the parallels related to the evaluation of new ideas, we ultimately patterned STEPP after the process used by venture capital firms to evaluate companies for investment. Specifically, we incorporated and applied two best practices used in the venture capital industry—the pipeline funnel and company evaluation.

While there is no standardized approach to evaluate and determine what to invest in, most venture capital firms follow a general process that resembles a funnel (Figure 1). This process involves several stages through which a large number of potential investments are evaluated and gradually narrowed down to a few select opportunities (typically <0.1%). After sourcing potential opportunities through active searching and accepting unsolicited pitches from entrepreneurs, the first step is the initial screening. Here, each opportunity is assessed based on various factors, including the problem space, product approach, go-to-market strategy, and the team. For those opportunities that pass the initial screening, venture capital firms will conduct more in-depth research and analysis, for example, assessing the technology or intellectual property and verifying claims made. Venture capital firms may also seek input from industry experts or consult third-party sources to validate the potential for impact and return on investment. The next step is to decide whether to invest in the opportunity or not, which is often done collectively by the firm’s investment committee, which weighs the potential risks and rewards. If the venture capital firm decides to invest, they will negotiate the terms of the investment, and the deal is closed. They will also contribute to the company’s success as advisors, as board members, and with strategic introductions. Ultimately, they will report on the company’s progress to their investors. (Figure 1)

Results: Between July 1, 2021, and December 1, 2022, the STEPP team screened 68 companies that sought partnership through the STEPP website or networking events (Figure 2). Almost half of these companies (n=32) moved on to evaluation in an SME meeting. Of those, 12 were recommended for further evaluation in a partner specification meeting. Of these 12 potential partners, eight were found to have a potential impact on clinical operations or involved EHR integration and were evaluated by IPEC. Collaborations were pursued with the other four companies, and these projects are in various stages of completion. Of the eight companies that gave IPEC presentations, six were cleared and are in various stages of implementation. The six partnerships and four collaborations that emerged from the STEPP funnel include efforts to pair AI and blood banking to identify new diagnostic biomarkers, develop monitoring devices that can identify intracranial hemorrhage without advanced imaging, a device that uses computer vision to focus room-cleaning and improve patient turnover, and a bedside test that diagnoses and quantifies concussions, among others.

Of the original 68 companies seeking partnerships, 58 did not move on to either SME evaluation (n=36) or Partner Specification meetings (n=20), and two were not cleared by IPEC. Of these 58 companies, 43 continue to be actively tracked for future potential opportunities while 15 have been rejected from the STEPP process. (Figure 2)

A total of 44 faculty members were engaged at various steps of the STEPP funnel to evaluate potential partners and their projects, participating as STEPP team members, SMEs, or IPEC members (Supplemental Table). In addition to faculty, 20 fellows, residents, and medical students were members of the STEPP team, participated in SME calls and IPEC meetings, or engaged with STEPP during an elective rotation. The STEPP process resulted in three publications. In addition, eight abstracts were submitted for presentation, of which six have been accepted and will be featured as talks and poster presentations.

Conclusions: Four specific lessons were learned from the implementation of STEPP:
1. Leveraging industry concepts: The successful application of sales funnels and venture capital evaluation methods within an academic department context underscores their utility in providing a structured framework for evaluating and implementing innovative partnerships.
2. Centralizing processes: By centralizing the evaluation and execution of partnerships, we achieved operational benefits that streamline our department’s ability to tackle the complex, yet essential, aspects of remaining a forward-thinking and innovative institution.
3. Promoting faculty engagement: Contrary to concerns that centralization might limit faculty stakeholder participation, faculty participated in various aspects of STEPP, including serving as STEPP team members, SMEs, and research partnership evaluation committee members, and authoring scholarly publications.
4. Early partnership implementation: STEPP projects had the most success when stakeholders from research and digital health were involved early. Involving these experts helped accelerate the evaluation of each company and its technology, address project financing, and ensure appropriate technology capabilities and approval. Early engagement of industry partners with key stakeholders can also help reduce friction and anticipate needs early in the process to improve implementation.

Our findings build upon existing research that establishes the relevance of business concepts, such as lean principles and throughput analytics, for enhancing ED operations. Additionally, our contribution showcases the successful implementation of industry and innovation within the medical field.

References (Optional):
1. DeLaney M. Emergency department boarding: The canary in the coal mine. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2021;2(1):e12290. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12290
2. Berchet C. Emergency Care Services. 2015. doi: 10.1787/5jrts344crns-en
3. Seixas AA, Olaye IM, Wall SP, Dunn P. Optimizing healthcare through digital health and wellness solutions to meet the needs of patients with chronic disease during the COVID-19 era. Front Public Health. 2021;9:667654. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.667654
4. Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. 2016;4(1):11-4. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.002
5. Nundy S, Cooper LA, Mate KS. The quintuple aim for health care improvement: A new imperative to advance health equity. JAMA. 2022;327(6):521-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.25181
6. Jackson MJ, Vaughan G, Ledley FD. Association between expedited review designations and the US or global burden of disease for drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration 2010–2019. medRxiv. 2023:2023.06.01.23290833. doi: 10.1101/2023.06.01.23290833
7. Dilling JA, Swensen SJ, Hoover MR, Dankbar GC, Donahoe-Anshus AL, Murad MH, et al. Accelerating the use of best practices: the Mayo Clinic Model of Diffusion. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(4):167-76. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(13)39023-0
8. Abdulwahid MA, Booth A, Kuczawski M, Mason SM. The impact of senior doctor assessment at triage on emergency department performance measures: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Emerg Med J. 2016;33(7):504-13. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2014-204388
9. Chartier L, Josephson T, Bates K, Kuipers M. Improving emergency department flow through Rapid Medical Evaluation unit. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2015;4(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjquality.u206156.w2663
10. Ferrand YB, Magazine MJ, Rao US, Glass TF. Managing responsiveness in the emergency department: Comparing dynamic priority queue with fast track. J Operations Manage. 2018;58-59(1):15-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2018.03.001
11. Wiler JL, Gentle C, Halfpenny JM, Heins A, Mehrotra A, Mikhail MG, et al. Optimizing emergency department front-end operations. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(2):142-60 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.05.021
12. Chen TL, Wang CC. Multi-objective simulation optimization for medical capacity allocation in emergency department. J Simulation. 2016;10(1):50-68. doi: 10.1057/jos.2014.39
13. Duguay C, Chetouane F. Modeling and Improving Emergency Department Systems using Discrete Event Simulation. Simulation. 2007;83(4):311-20. doi: 10.1177/0037549707083111
14. Gul M, Guneri AF. A comprehensive review of emergency department simulation applications for normal and disaster conditions. Comp Indust Eng. 2015;83:327-44. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.02.018
15. Zeinali F, Mahootchi M, Sepehri MM. Resource planning in the emergency departments: A simulation-based metamodeling approach. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2015;53:123-38. doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2015.02.002
16. Austin EE, Blakely B, Tufanaru C, Selwood A, Braithwaite J, Clay-Williams R. Strategies to measure and improve emergency department performance: a scoping review. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020;28(1):55. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00749-2
17. Song H, Tucker AL, Murrell KL. The diseconomies of queue pooling: an empirical investigation of emergency department length of stay. Manag Sci. 2015;61(12):3032-53. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2118
18. Wiler JL, Welch S, Pines J, Schuur J, Jouriles N, Stone-Griffith S. Emergency department performance measures updates: proceedings of the 2014 emergency department benchmarking alliance consensus summit. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22(5):542-53. doi: 10.1111/acem.12654
19. Zachariasse JM, Nieboer D, Oostenbrink R, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW. Multiple performance measures are needed to evaluate triage systems in the emergency department. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.004
20. Kane M, Chui K, Rimicci J, Callagy P, Hereford J, Shen S, et al. Lean manufacturing improves emergency department throughput and patient satisfaction. J Nurs Adm. 2015;45(9):429-34. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000228
21. Souza DL, Korzenowski AL, Alvarado MM, Sperafico JH, Ackermann AEF, Mareth T, et al. A systematic review on lean applications' in emergency departments. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(6). doi: 10.3390/healthcare9060763
22. Vashi AA, Sheikhi FH, Nashton LA, Ellman J, Rajagopal P, Asch SM. Applying lean principles to reduce wait times in a VA emergency department. Mil Med. 2019;184(1-2):e169-e78. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usy165
23. Oh C, Novotny AM, Carter PL, Ready RK, Campbell DD, Leckie MC. Use of a simulation-based decision support tool to improve emergency department throughput. Operations Res Health Care. 2016;9:29-39. doi: 10.1016/j.orhc.2016.03.002
24. Yang KK, Lam SSW, Low JMW, Ong MEH. Managing emergency department crowding through improved triaging and resource allocation. Operations Res Health Care. 2016;10:13-22. doi: 10.1016/j.orhc.2016.05.001
25. Zocchi MS, McClelland MS, Pines JM. Increasing throughput: Results from a 42-hospital collaborative to improve emergency department flow. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(12):532-42. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41070-0
26. Hess M, Wolff Y, Wincent J, Grichnik D. It's a process, isn't it? Venture captial decision-making along the well-defined investment funnel stages. Front Entrepren Res. 2021.
27. Gompers PA, Gornall W, Kaplan SN, Strebulaev IA. How do venture capitalists make decisions? J Financial Econ. 2020;135(1):169-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.011
28. Kabeer R, Dayton J. STEMI X Symposium Holds Health Care Innovation Ideas Competition: ACEPNow; 2022 updated October 13, 2022. Available from: https://www.acepnow.com/article/stemi-x-symposium-holds-health-care-innovation-ideas-competition/.
29. Preiksaitis C, Dayton JR, Kabeer R, Bunney G, Boukhman M. Teaching principles of medical innovation and entrepreneurship through hackathons: case study and qualitative analysis. JMIR Med Educ. 2023;9:e43916. doi: 10.2196/43916
30. Preiksaitis C, Kabeer R, Lowe J, Bunney G, Imler D, Dayton J. HackED! A new way to teach innovation and entrepreneurship for emergency medicine physicians: Doximity; 2022 updated October 7, 2022. Available from: https://opmed.doximity.com/articles/hacked-a-new-way-to-teach-innovation-and-entrepreneurship-for-emergency-medicine-physicians.