Cogan, Jacob C.

Abstract Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging discipline focused on optimizing care delivery for patients with hematologic disorders within complex health care systems. Despite its growing importance, the field lacks a formal definition, standardized curriculum, and clear career pathway, hindering widespread adoption and training of future SBH experts. We sought to define core principles, competencies, challenges, and future directions of SBH to identify foundational components for a potential educational curriculum. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 SBH experts. Expert participants were identified through their committee involvement with the American Society of Hematology. Five overarching themes emerged: (1) The accidental expert: SBH careers have developed organically and reactively in response to pressing institutional needs, not through formal training; (2) Defining the unseen: experts define the field pragmatically by its function and roles; (3) The SBH toolkit: success requires a hybrid skillset combining clinical hematology expertise with health systems science (HSS) principles; (4) The architect's dilemma: the field's growth is hindered by interdependent challenges of building a curriculum, awareness, and securing resources; and (5) Charting the future: the discipline is poised for growth, driven by increasing health care complexity and specialization. SBH represents the nexus of HSS principles and hematology care. Formalizing SBH requires a multipronged approach, including developing a standardized curriculum that equips learners with a hybrid skillset, creating clear value for health systems and patients, and fostering a community of practice through professional societies. These findings provide a foundational framework for developing educational resources and institutional support necessary to continue advancing SBH.

Introduction: Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging field focused on improving hematology care delivery through quality improvement (QI) and health systems science (HSS). However, a universal definition and standardized training curriculum are lacking. This study aimed to explore experts' perspectives on defining SBH, identify core knowledge and skills, and discuss challenges and opportunities in developing a curriculum. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight hematologists who have expertise in SBH through practical experience, scientific publications, and serve on related committees for the American Society of Hematology. These interviews were automatically transcribed through Microsoft Teams. Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive coding, was employed to identify themes and subthemes from the verbatim interview transcripts. This was accomplished with a large language model (LLM; Google Gemini Advanced, June 2024). Results: In combination, these semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 400 minutes and generated 231 pages of transcript text with 63117 words for analysis. Five main themes and associated subthemes were identified. (1) Defining SBH: experts highlighted the lack of a universal definition for SBH, emphasizing the reason it is often defined by its functions, such as improving healthcare delivery, ensuring appropriate use of resources, and addressing disparities in care. They often compared SBH to other fields like antimicrobial stewardship or implementation science to illustrate its expansive role and scope. (2) The Role and Scope of SBH: experts described SBH as encompassing a broad range of activities, including improving healthcare delivery, implementing QI initiatives, conducting pragmatic research, and advocating for policy changes at various levels. They emphasized the importance of data-driven approaches and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. (3) Training and Education in SBH: the lack of formal training programs and curricula for SBH was a recurring theme. Experts suggested that a comprehensive curriculum should include QI methodologies, implementation science, clinical informatics, health economics, leadership skills, and hematology-specific examples and case studies. They proposed various delivery methods, including asynchronous online modules, virtual workshops, and in-person sessions, targeting hematology fellows, junior faculty, and other healthcare professionals involved in hematology care. They unanimously agreed that a SBH curriculum could borrow heavily from an established HSS curriculum but should incorporate hematology-specific examples. (4) Challenges and Barriers to Implementing SBH: experts identified several challenges, including the lack of awareness and recognition of SBH among healthcare professionals and administrators, resource constraints, and the need for institutional buy-in. They also highlighted the technical difficulty of measuring and demonstrating the value of SBH interventions, particularly in terms of cost savings and improved patient outcomes. (5) The Future of SBH: despite the challenges, experts expressed optimism about the future of SBH, predicting its growing importance and expanding scope, including malignant hematology, community practice, and pediatrics. They envisioned SBH playing a crucial role in addressing rising healthcare costs, quality concerns, and disparities in care. They also anticipated the integration of new technologies like artificial intelligence, “virtual” care delivery, and molecular genetics into SBH practice. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the current state of SBH and the need for a standardized curriculum. The findings can inform the development of educational resources and training programs to equip future practitioners with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively practice SBH and improve hematology care delivery. This study also sheds light on the utility of qualitative research within SBH and the emerging analytical tools that will require further exploration and standardization (e.g., LLM prompt engineering).