Attachment G -- Federal Register Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Notices
research grant funds establish a lack of
trustworthiness and present
responsibility to be a steward of Federal
funds. 2 CFR 180.125, 180.800(d),
376.10.
The following administrative actions
have been implemented for a period of
five (5) years, beginning on January 23,
2012:
(1) Ms. Zach is debarred from
eligibility for any contracting or
subcontracting with any agency of the
United States Government and from
eligibility for, or involvement in,
nonprocurement programs of the United
States Government, referred to as
‘‘covered transactions’’ as defined in 2
CFR 180.200, 376.10; and
(2) Ms. Zach is prohibited from
serving in any advisory capacity to the
U.S. Public Health Service (PHS),
including but not limited to service on
any PHS advisory committee, board,
and/or peer review committee, or as a
consultant.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Investigative
Oversight, Office of Research Integrity,
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750,
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8800.
John Dahlberg,
Director, Division of Investigative Oversight,
Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 2012–2276 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

This notice announces the
intention of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approve the proposed
information collection project:
‘‘Assessing the Feasibility of
Disseminating EHC Products through
Educational Activities.’’ In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the
public to comment on this proposed
information collection.
This proposed information collection
was previously published in the Federal
Register on November 23rd, 2011 and
allowed 60 days for public comment. No
substantive comments were received.

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:04 Feb 01, 2012

Jkt 226001

The purpose of this notice is to allow an
additional 30 days for public comment.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by March 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be submitted to: AHRQ’s OMB Desk
Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974
(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer) or by
email at
[email protected]
(attention: AHRQ’s desk officer).
Copies of the proposed collection
plans, data collection instruments, and
specific details on the estimated burden
can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports
Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Project
Assessing the Feasibility of
Disseminating EHC Products through
Educational Activities
The Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 this collection of
information from users of products
provided by the John M. Eisenberg
Clinical Decisions and Communications
Science Center (Eisenberg Center).
Information collected consists of
feedback from managers, instructors,
and learners about these health care
guides and other products presented as
part of Continuing Medical Education
activities.
AHRQ is the lead agency charged
with supporting research designed to
improve the quality of healthcare,
reduce its cost, improve patient safety,
decrease medical errors, and broaden
access to essential services. AHRQ’s
Eisenberg Center’s mission is improving
communication of research findings to a
variety of audiences (‘‘customers’’),
including consumers, clinicians, and
health care policy makers. The
Eisenberg Center compiles research
results into useful formats for customer
stakeholders. The Eisenberg Center also
conducts investigations into effective
communication of research findings in
order to improve the usability and rapid
incorporation of findings into medical
practice. The Eisenberg Center is one of
three components of AHRQ’s Effective
Health Care (EHC) Program.
A primary goal of the Eisenberg
Center is to translate results from
systematic reviews of evidence
comparing the effectiveness of two or
more clinical care processes into

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

5255

information that can be used to support
clinical decision-making. The major
products of such efforts are brief guides
designed for clinicians, patients, and
policy makers that summarize the
evidence concerning the effectiveness of
various diagnostic and treatment
processes. All of the guides and other
products are designed to help decision
makers, including clinicians and health
care consumers, use research evidence
to maximize the benefits of health care,
minimize harm, and optimize the use of
health care resources.
The collections proposed under this
project include activities to assess the
feasibility of disseminating EHC
products through Continuing Medical
Education (CME) activities, specifically
those planned and implemented by
member organizations of the Society of
Academic Continuing Medical
Education (SACME). SACME is an
organization with members in both the
U.S. and Canada formed in 1976 to
‘‘promote the research, scholarship,
evaluation and development of CME
and Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) that helps to
enhance the performance of physicians
and other healthcare professionals
practicing in the United States, Canada,
and elsewhere for purposes of
improving individual and population
health.’’
For this project, the Eisenberg Center
will work with six organizations
selected from applications submitted by
SACME members that had been invited
to compete for funding. The Eisenberg
Center selected sites based on the size
of each organization’s CME audience,
the project’s ability to inform the CME
community, its degree of
generalizability and replicability, and
overall quality. Organizations selected
for participation in the feasibility study
have committed to specific activities
designed to disseminate EHC Program
summary guides to physicians, other
clinicians, instructional faculty, and
clinical researchers who participate in
CME activities. Another partner in these
efforts is the Association of American
Medical Colleges (AAMC), which is
assisting the project through access to
MedEdPORTAL and CME4docs, two
recently launched initiatives that are
designed to encourage use of high
quality CME resources by medical
school faculty and others involved in
development and delivery of CME.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Identify critical factors that
enhance or impede integration of EHC
products into CME activities;
(2) Assess strategies to remove,
overcome, or work around barriers to

E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM

02FEN1

5256

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Notices

integration of EHC products into CME
programming with selected audiences;
(3) Confirm approaches that can be
used in whole or in part to create and
deliver effective CME instruction about
EHC products (e.g., clinician guides,
consumer guides, faculty slide sets);
and,
(4) Review early educational program
outcomes associated with integration of
EHC products into CME activities.
This study is being conducted by
AHRQ through its contractor, the
Eisenberg Center—Baylor College of
Medicine (EC–BMC), pursuant to
AHRQ’s statutory authority to conduct
and support research, and disseminate
information, on healthcare and on
systems for the delivery of such care,
including activities with respect to both
the quality, effectiveness, efficiency,
appropriateness and value of healthcare
services and clinical practice. 42 U.S.C.
299a(a)(1) and (4).
Method of Collection
To achieve the goals of this project the
following activities and data collections
will be implemented:
(1) Interviews with CME Project
Directors—Semi-structured interviews
will be conducted with the
representative of each participating
CME institution leading the
development and implementation of the
educational activities associated with
the study. The director is typically, but
not always, an expert physician. The
interviews will be designed to: (a)
Assess perceived feasibility and obtain
feedback on strategies used to integrate
EHC products into their planned CME
activities involving varied content,
instructional methods, and delivery
formats; and, (b) characterize barriers
and facilitators to the integration of EHC
products into specific CME activities.
(2) Focus Group with CME Project
Directors—A focus group will also be
convened with the CME Project
Directors described above near the
midpoint of the project to: (a) Obtain
feedback on the perceived usefulness,
currency and quality of the EHC

products; and, (b) explore the overall
implications concerning CME activities
as an avenue for disseminating EHC
products.
(3) Interviews with Faculty
Members—Semi-structured interviews
will be conducted with clinicians who
served as faculty in the CME activities
associated with this study to: (a) Obtain
perspectives on the quality, relevance,
and utility of the resources that they
accessed and integrated into their CME
activities; (b) identify obstacles to the
integration of EHC products into
specific CME activities and contexts;
and, (c) identify additional tools or
resources that could facilitate the
integration of EHC content into CME
activities.
(4) Initial Survey Assessments of CME
Participants—Learner questionnaires
will be administered to each clinician
participating in a CME activity to
determine the degree to which the
learning activities with integrated EHC
products affected educational outcomes
such as levels of knowledge about
specific clinical treatment issues and
incorporation of new knowledge into
clinical practice. The initial
questionnaire will be distributed by
paper or electronically at the immediate
conclusion of participation in the CME
activity.
(5) Follow-up Survey Assessments of
CME Participants—A second
questionnaire will be distributed
electronically two months after each
activity to each clinician learner and
will be accessible through the Eisenberg
Center Web site. An email message will
be sent to invite participation and will
include a link to the questionnaire.
Gathering such data will provide a view
of current awareness of EHC products
and learners’ intentions to use the
products in practice as well as
perceptions of barriers to
implementation.
The collected data will be used to
determine the feasibility of: (a)
Including EHC products (i.e., clinician
guides, consumer guides, faculty slide

sets) in CME activities that employ
varied delivery modalities; and, (b)
initiating additional studies to identify
factors that promote effective integration
of evidence-based content into
educational activities. The data gathered
from physicians and other clinical
professionals who are participating in
CME activities will foster understanding
of the current state of awareness of and
willingness to learn about results from
comparative effectiveness research
studies. The planned assessment
approaches will promote better
understanding of strategies that are most
appropriate for use in incorporating
comparativeness effectiveness research
findings into CME activities, as well as
understanding which strategies produce
desired educational outcomes and are
most acceptable to targeted learners in
this case clinical professionals. The
information generated will be used in
designing learning programs for delivery
through the Eisenberg Center for
Clinical Decisions and Communications
Science and will be shared with others
in the CME community through journal
articles, Web-based publications, and
scientific presentations.
Estimated Annual Respondent Burden
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated
annualized burden for the respondents’
time to participate in this research.
Interviews will be conducted with each
CME Project Director and will last about
30 minutes, while the focus group will
last about 90 minutes. A maximum of 30
interviews will be conducted with CME
faculty members. These are estimated to
take 30 minutes to complete. The initial
survey assessment of CME participant
learners will take about 5 minutes to
complete per questionnaire, as will the
follow-up survey assessment. These
questionnaires will be administered to
the approximately 4,500 clinicians who
will complete one of the study’s CME
activities. Each learner will be asked to
complete both the initial and follow-up
surveys.

EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Type of data collection

Number of
responses
per
respondent

Hours per
response

Total burden
hours

Interviews with CME Project Directors ............................................................
Focus Group with CME Project Directors .......................................................
Interviews with Faculty Members ....................................................................
Initial Survey Assessment of CME Participants ..............................................
Follow up Survey Assessment of CME Participants .......................................

10
10
30
4,500
4,500

1
1
1
1
1

30/60
1.5
30/60
5/60
5/60

5
15
15
375
375

Total ..........................................................................................................

9,050

na

na

785

VerDate Mar<15>2010

18:06 Feb 01, 2012

Jkt 226001

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM

02FEN1

5257

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Notices
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated
annualized cost burden associated with
the respondent’s time to participate in

this research. The total annual cost
burden is estimated to be $65,233.

EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN
Number of
respondents

Type of data collection

Total burden
hours

Average
hourly wage
rate

Total cost
burden

Interviews with CME Project Directors ............................................................
Focus Group with CME Project Directors .......................................................
Interviews with Faculty Members ....................................................................
Initial Survey Assessment of CME Participants ..............................................
Follow up Survey Assessment of CME Participants .......................................

10
10
30
4,500
4,500

5
15
15
375
375

$64.31+
64.31+
83.59++
83.59++
83.59++

$322
965
1,254
31,346
31,346

Total ..........................................................................................................

9,050

785

na

65,233

+Based upon the mean wages for clinicians (29–1062 family and general practitioners), National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in
the United States May 2010, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
++Based upon the mean wages for clinicians (29–1062 family and general practitioners) and medical and health services managers (11–
9111), National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2010, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

Estimated Annual Cost to the
Government

components. The maximum cost to the
Federal Government is estimated to be
$166,417 annually.

Exhibit 3 shows the total and
annualized cost by the major cost

EXHIBIT 3—ESTIMATED TOTAL AND ANNUALIZED COST
Cost component

Annualized
cost

Project Development ...............................................................................................................................................
Data Collection Activities .........................................................................................................................................
Data Processing and Analysis .................................................................................................................................
Project Management ................................................................................................................................................
Overhead .................................................................................................................................................................

$110,846
47,563
38,250
73,675
62,500

$55,423
23,781
19,125
36,838
31,250

Total ..................................................................................................................................................................

332,834

166,417

Request for Comments

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Total cost

In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s
information collection are requested
with regard to any of the following: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of AHRQ healthcare
research and healthcare information
dissemination functions, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including
hours and costs) of the proposed
collection(s) of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and,
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information upon the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the Agency’s subsequent
request for OMB approval of the
proposed information collection. All

VerDate Mar<15>2010

19:07 Feb 01, 2012

Jkt 226001

comments will become a matter of
public record.

Control and Prevention (CDC)
announces the aforementioned meeting:

Dated: January 20, 2012.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.

Time and Date: 1 p.m.–5 p.m., March 26,
2012 (Closed).
Place: Teleconference.
Status: The meeting will be closed to the
public in accordance with provisions set
forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director,
Management Analysis and Services Office,
CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92–463.
Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will
include the initial review, discussion, and
evaluation of applications received in
response to ‘‘Detecting Emerging Vector
Borne Zoonotic Pathogens in Indonesia, FOA
CK12–002, initial review.’’
Contact Person for More Information: Greg
Anderson, M.P.H., M.S., Scientific Review
Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE.,
Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,
Telephone: (404) 718–8833.
The Director, Management Analysis and
Services Office, has been delegated the
authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and
other committee management activities, for
both the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.

[FR Doc. 2012–2130 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–90–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Disease, Disability, and Injury
Prevention and Control Special
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review
The meeting announced below
concerns Detecting Emerging Vector
Borne Zoonotic Pathogens in Indonesia,
Funding Opportunity Announcement
(FOA), CK12–002, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM

02FEN1