Clinician Views of Proactive Tobacco Treatment Programs: A Qualitative Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Proactive tobacco treatment programs are an evidence-based strategy to recruit patients who smoke to make supported quit attempts. However, such programs are rarely implemented. We performed a qualitative assessment of clinicians to inform the creation of a proactive outreach program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who smoke. METHODS: Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted semi-structured interviews to assess clinician views of proactive outreach, including barriers, program structure, and the use of technology. Clinicians included primary and specialty care physicians, nurses and advanced practice providers, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, a psychologist, and relevant members of leadership. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians in all roles identified that proactive outreach could be an effective use of resources to help patients with COPD who smoke quit with several advantages over the current state. Clinicians disagreed on the priority population (e.g., younger patients, sicker patients), and to some extent on whether proactive outreach is a clinical priority. Though they supported that technology could be part of the outreach program, most advocated for multiple avenues (phone calls, drop-in clinic, texting), as these patients were perceived to be low technology utilizers. The primary implementation barriers were competing priorities and cost, as well as unclear billing and staffing models. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians support proactive outreach for patients with COPD, but the optimal way to structure, staff, and fund such programs remains unclear. Health systems should leverage implementation strategies to speed uptake of these potentially life-saving programs.

Using brief reflections to capture and evaluate end-user engagement: a case example using the COMPASS study.

BACKGROUND: Use of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of "brief reflections" with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources. RESULTS: Brief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: When paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

Identifying Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Preoperative Testing for Low-Risk Procedures: a Qualitative Study of Facilities with High or Recently Improved Levels of Testing.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare agencies and perioperative professional organizations recommend avoiding preoperative screening tests for low-risk surgical procedures. However, low-value preoperative tests are still commonly ordered even for generally healthy patients and active strategies to reduce this testing have not been adequately described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to learn from hospitals with either high levels of testing or that had recently reduced use of low-value screening tests (aka "delta sites") about reasons for testing and active deimplementation strategies they used to effectively improve practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study of semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We identified facilities in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with high or recently improved burden of potentially low-value preoperative testing for carpal tunnel release and cataract surgery. We recruited perioperative clinicians to participate. APPROACH: Questions focused on reasons to order preoperative screening tests for patients undergoing low-risk surgery and, more importantly, what strategies had been successfully used to reduce testing. A framework method was used to identify common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-five perioperative clinicians (e.g., hand surgeons, ophthalmologists, anesthesiologists, primary care providers, directors of preoperative clinics, nurses) from 29 VHA facilities participated. Facilities that successfully reduced the burden of low-value testing shared many improvement strategies (e.g., building consensus among stakeholders; using evidence/norm-based education and persuasion; clarifying responsibility for ordering tests) to implement different care delivery innovations (e.g., pre-screening to decide if a preop clinic evaluation is necessary; establishing a dedicated preop clinic for low-risk procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a menu of common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations that might be helpful for institutions trying to design their own quality improvement programs to reduce low-value preoperative testing given their unique structure, resources, and constraints.

What Contributes to Sustainability? Examining Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Low-Adopting VHA Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation can increase the availability of evidence-based treatments but continued patient access can be threatened if there is not deliberate focus on sustainment. Real-world examples are needed to elucidate contributors to sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examined sustainability of outcomes of a study which tested a 12-month external facilitation intervention. The study evaluated change in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD prescribing. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine providers and leaders from eight VHA facilities. APPROACH: Thirty-minute post-implementation telephone interviews explored whether barriers identified pre-implementation were successfully addressed, the presence of any new challenges, helpfulness of external facilitation, and plans for sustaining MOUD access. Interviews were analyzed using a rapid turn-around approach. VHA administrative data were used to characterize the facilities and assess their ratio of patients with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD (MOUD/OUD ratio) at the end of a 9-month sustainability period. KEY RESULTS: Commonly reported contributors to sustained MOUD access included national attention on the opioid epidemic, accountability created by study participation, culture shift in MOUD acceptability, leadership support, and plans to build on initial progress. Frequently reported barriers included staffing issues and lack of MOUD-devoted time; the need to overhaul existing policies, practices, and/or processes; and fear and anxiety about MOUD prescribing. All facilities either maintained MOUD/OUD ratio improvement (n = 2) or further improved (n = 6) at the end of sustainability. Facilities with the highest and lowest ratio at the end of sustainability used a team-based approach to MOUD delivery; however, organizational setting differences may have impacted overall MOUD access. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring stable and consistent staff, and sufficient time dedicated to MOUD are critical to sustaining access to evidence-based treatment in low-adopting facilities. This study highlights the importance of investing in local, system-level changes to improve and sustain access to effective treatments.

Advancing Pharmacological Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder (ADaPT-OUD): an Implementation Trial in Eight Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Identifying effective strategies to improve access to medication treatments for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is imperative. Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), provision of MOUD varies significantly, requiring development and testing of implementation strategies that target facilities with low provision of MOUD. OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of external facilitation in increasing the provision of MOUD among VHA facilities with low baseline provision of MOUD compared to matched controls. DESIGN: Pre-post, block randomized study designed to compare facility-level outcomes in a stratified sample of eligible facilities. Four blocks (two intervention facilities in each) were defined by median splits of both the ratio of patients with OUD receiving MOUD and number of patients with OUD not currently receiving MOUD (i.e., number of actionable patients). Intervention facilities participated in a 12-month implementation intervention. PARTICIPANTS: VHA facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD provision (35 facilities), eight of which were randomly assigned to participate in the intervention (two per block) with twenty-seven serving as matched controls by block. INTERVENTION: External facilitation included assessment of local barriers/facilitators, formation of a local implementation team, a site visit for action planning and training/education, cross-facility quarterly calls, monthly coaching calls, and consultation. MAIN MEASURES: Pre- to post-change in the facility-level ratio of patients with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD compared to control facilities. KEY RESULTS: Intervention facilities significantly increased the ratio of patients with OUD receiving MOUD from an average of 18% at baseline to 30% 1 year later, with an absolute difference of 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.6%, 17.0%). The difference in differences between intervention and control facilities was 3.0% (95% CI: - 0.2%. 6.7%). The impact of the intervention varied by block, with smaller, less complex facilities more likely to outperform matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive external facilitation improved the adoption of MOUD in most low-performing facilities and may enhance adoption beyond other interventions less tailored to individual facility contexts.

Adapting the Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results Protocol to Promote Benzodiazepine Cessation Among US Military Veterans: Focus Group Study With US Military Veterans and National Veterans Health Administration Leaders.

BACKGROUND: Long-term dependence on prescribed benzodiazepines is a public health problem. Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) is a promising self-management intervention, delivered directly to patients as a printed booklet, that is effective in promoting benzodiazepine reduction and cessation in older adults. EMPOWER has high potential to benefit large health care systems such as the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which cares for many veterans who use benzodiazepines for extended periods. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to adapt the original EMPOWER booklet materials for electronic delivery and for use among US military veterans receiving VHA care who were long-term benzodiazepine users. METHODS: We used elements of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation, a framework commonly used in the field of instructional design, to guide a qualitative approach to iteratively adapting EMPOWER Electronic Delivery (EMPOWER-ED). We conducted 3 waves of focus groups with the same 2 groups of VHA stakeholders. Stakeholders were VHA-enrolled veterans (n=16) with medical chart evidence of long-term benzodiazepine use and national VHA leaders (n=7) with expertise in setting VHA policy for prescription benzodiazepine use and developing electronically delivered educational tools for veterans. Qualitative data collected from each wave of focus groups were analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the initial focus groups included veterans' anxiety about self-tapering from benzodiazepines and prior negative experiences attempting to self-taper without support. Participants also provided feedback on the protocol's look and feel, educational content, the tapering protocol, and website functionality; for example, feedback from policy leaders included listing, on the cover page, the most commonly prescribed benzodiazepines to ensure that veterans were aware of medications that qualify for self-taper using the EMPOWER-ED protocol. Both groups of stakeholders identified the importance of having access to supportive resources to help veterans manage sleep and anxiety in the absence of taking benzodiazepines. Both groups also emphasized the importance of ensuring that the self-taper could be personalized and that the taper instructions were clear. The policy leaders emphasized the importance of encouraging veterans to notify their provider of their decision to self-taper to help facilitate provider assistance, if needed, with the taper process and to help prevent medication stockpiling. CONCLUSIONS: EMPOWER-ED is the first direct-to-patient electronically delivered protocol designed to help US military veterans self-taper from long-term benzodiazepine use. We used the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation framework to guide the successful adaption of the original EMPOWER booklet for use with this population and for electronic delivery. The next step in this line of research is to evaluate EMPOWER-ED in a randomized controlled trial.

Healthcare quality measures in implementation research: advantages, risks and lessons learned.

Implementation studies evaluate strategies to move evidence-based practices into routine clinical practice. Often, implementation scientists use healthcare quality measures to evaluate the integration of an evidence-based clinical practice into real-world healthcare settings. Healthcare quality measures have standardized definitions and are a method to operationalize and monitor guideline-congruent care. Implementation scientists can access existing data on healthcare quality measures through various sources (e.g. operations-calculated), or they can calculate the measures directly from healthcare claims and administrative data (i.e. researcher-calculated). Implementation scientists need a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods of obtaining healthcare quality data for designing, planning and executing an implementation study. The purpose of this paper is to describe the advantages, risks and lessons learned when using operations- versus researcher-calculated healthcare quality measures in site selection, implementation monitoring and implementation outcome evaluation. A key lesson learned was that relying solely on operations-calculated healthcare quality measures during an implementation study poses risks to site selection, accurate feedback on implementation progress to stakeholders, and the integrity of study results. A possible solution is using operations-calculated quality measures for monitoring of evidence-based practice uptake and researcher-calculated measures for site section and outcomes evaluation. This approach provides researchers greater control over the data and consistency of the measurement from site selection to outcomes evaluation while still retaining measures that are familiar and understood by key stakeholders whom implementation scientists need to engage in practice change efforts.

Alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy and treatment in primary care (ADaPT-PC) trial: Impact on identified barriers to implementation.

Background: A minority of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorders (AUD) receive any type of formal treatment. Developing options for AUD treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. A multi-faceted implementation intervention including provider and patient education, clinician reminders, development of local champions and ongoing facilitation was designed to enhance access to AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings at three large Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. This qualitative study compared pre-implementation barriers to post-implementation barriers identified via provider interviews to identify those barriers addressed and not addressed by the intervention to better understand the limited impact of the intervention. Methods: Following the nine-month implementation period, primary care providers at the three participating facilities took part in qualitative interviews to collect perceptions regarding which pre-implementation barriers had and had not been successfully addressed by the intervention. Participants included 20 primary care providers from three large VHA facilities. Interviews were coded using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Summary reports were created for each CFIR construct for each facility and the impact of each CFIR construct on implementation was coded as positive, neutral, or negative. Results: Some barriers identified during pre-implementation interviews were no longer identified as barriers in the post-implementation interviews. These included Relative Advantage, Relative Priority, and Knowledge & Beliefs about the Innovation. However, Compatibility, Design Quality & Packaging, and Available Resources remained barriers at the end of the implementation period. No substantial new barriers were identified. Conclusions: The implementation intervention appears to have been successful at addressing barriers that could be mitigated with traditional educational approaches. However, the intervention did not adequately address structural and organizational barriers to implementation. Recommendations for enhancing future interventions are provided.

Delta Studies: Expanding the Concept of Deviance Studies to Design More Effective Improvement Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The effects of improvement (implementation and de-implementation) interventions are often modest. Although positive and negative deviance studies have been extensively used in improvement science and quality improvement efforts, conceptual and methodological innovations are needed to improve our ability to use information about variation in quality to design more effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: We describe a novel mixed methods extension of the deviance study we term "delta studies." Delta studies seek to quantitatively identify sites that have recently changed from low performers to high performers, or vice versa, in order to qualitatively learn about active strategies that produced recent change, challenges change agents faced and how they overcame them, and where applicable, the causes of recent deterioration in performance-information intended to inform the design of improvement interventions for deployment in low performing sites. We provide examples of lessons learned from this method that may have been missed with traditional positive or negative deviance designs. DESIGN: Considerations for quantitatively identifying delta sites are described including which quality metrics to track, over what timeframe to observe change, how to account for reliability of observed change, consideration of patient volume and initial performance as implementation context factors, and how to define clinically meaningful change. Methods to adapt qualitative protocols by integrating quantitative information about change in performance are also presented. We provide sample data and R code that can be used to graphically display distributions of initial status, change, and volume that are essential to delta studies. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and facilities of the US Veterans Health Administration. KEY RESULTS: As an example, we discuss what decisions we made regarding the delta study design considerations in a funded study of low-value preoperative testing. The method helped us find sites that had recently reduced the burden of low-value testing, and learn about the strategies they employed and challenges they faced. CONCLUSIONS: The delta study concept is a promising mixed methods innovation to efficiently and effectively identify improvement strategies and other factors that have actually produced change in real-world settings.

Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers, Key Clinical Leaders, and Clinical Pharmacist Specialists' Perspectives on Opioids and Benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: Due to increased risks of overdose fatalities and injuries associated with coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, healthcare systems have prioritized deprescribing this combination. Although prior work has examined providers' perspectives on deprescribing each medication separately, perspectives on deprescribing patients with combined use is unclear. We examined providers' perspectives on coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines and identified barriers and facilitators to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: One multisite Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the United States of America. SUBJECTS: Primary care and mental health prescribers, key clinical leaders, clinical pharmacist specialists (N = 39). METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified iteratively, through a multidisciplinary team-based process. RESULTS: Analyses identified four themes related to barriers and facilitators to deprescribing: inertia, prescriber self-efficacy, feasibility of deprescribing/tapering, and promoting deprescribing, as well as a fifth theme, consequences of deprescribing. Results highlighted the complexity of deprescribing when multiple prescribers are involved, a need for additional support and time, and concerns about patients' reluctance to discontinue these medications. Facilitators included agreement with the goal of deprescribing and fear of negative consequences if medications are continued. Providers spoke to how deprescribing efforts impaired patient-provider relationships and informed their decisions not to start patients on these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers agree with the goal, prescribers' belief in a limited deprescribing role, challenges with coordination among prescribers, concerns about insufficient time and patients' resistance to discontinuing these medications need to be addressed for efforts to be successful.

Tailored to Fit: How an Implementation Framework Can Support Pragmatic Pain Care Trial Adaptation for Diverse Veterans Affairs Clinical Settings.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs (VA) has rolled out a holistic, multicomponent Whole Health care model nationwide, yet no pragmatic trials have been conducted in real-world clinical settings to compare its effectiveness against other evidence-based approaches for chronic pain management in veterans. OBJECTIVES: We describe the adaptation of the first large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the Whole Health model for chronic pain care for diverse VA clinical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: Informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Systems implementation framework, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews to obtain feedback on trial design from VA leadership, frontline clinicians, and veterans with chronic pain at 5 VA enrollment sites. Next, we convened in-person evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) meetings with study stakeholders (including frontline clinicians and administrators) at each site to discuss study design; review interview themes; and identify site-specific barriers, facilitators, and approaches to implementation. Ethnographic observations from EBQI meetings provided additional insight into implementation strategies. SUBJECTS: Seventy-four veteran and VA staff stakeholders were interviewed; 71 stakeholders participated in EBQI meetings. RESULTS: At each site, unique clinical contexts and varying resources for Whole Health and pain care delivery affected plans for trial implementation. We present examples of local adaptations that emerged through the formative evaluation process to facilitate implementation and yield a more pragmatic trial design. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic formative evaluation can facilitate engagement and buy-in of study stakeholders. Locally tailored pragmatic implementation strategies may improve the likelihood of successful trial execution as well as future implementation of evidence-based pain care approaches in real-world clinical settings.

Response to coronavirus 2019 in Veterans Health Administration facilities participating in an implementation initiative to enhance access to medication for opioid use disorder.

The actions needed to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) have forged rapid paradigm shifts across healthcare delivery. In a time of crisis, continued access to and delivery of medication for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) is essential to save lives. However, prior to COVID-19, large variability in M-OUD adoption existed across the Veteran Health Administration (VHA) and it is unknown whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated this divide. For the past two years, our team worked with eight VHA facilities to enhance adoption of M-OUD through a multi-component implementation intervention. This commentary explores these providers' responses to COVID-19 and the subsequent impact on their progress toward increasing adoption of M-OUD. Briefly, the loosening of regulatory restrictions fostered accelerated adoption of M-OUD, rapid support for telehealth offered a mechanism to increase M-OUD access, and reevaluation of current practices surrounding M-OUD strengthened adoption. Overall, during the COVID-19 crisis, facilities and providers responded positively to the call for increased access to M-OUD and appropriate care of patients with OUD. The VHA providers' responses and continued progress in enhancing M-OUD amidst a crisis may, in part, be attributable to their participation in an implementation effort prior to COVID-19 that established resources, expert support, and a community of practice. We anticipate the themes presented are generalizable to other healthcare systems grappling to deliver care to patients with OUD during a crisis. We propose areas of future research and quality improvement to continue to provide access and high quality, life-saving care to patients with OUD.

Patient perspectives on alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy and integration of treatment into primary care settings.

Background: Evidence-based pharmacotherapies for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are underutilized. This mixed-methods study reports supplementary findings from the alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy and treatment in primary care (ADaPT-PC) implementation study at 3 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospital sites to understand why prescription rates did not increase following the ADaPT-PC intervention. Methods: Qualitative interviews (N = 30) were conducted in advance of the ADaPT-PC intervention to understand patients' pharmacotherapy attitudes among those in AUD treatment, with previous treatment experience, or who needed assistance with their alcohol use. Following the ADaPT-PC intervention, chart reviews from a random sample of patients with AUD or a most recent Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption questions (AUDIT-C) score >8, and no active AUD prescription, were conducted to determine the frequency of alcohol-related conversations (N = 455). Results: Most interviewed patients welcomed a discussion about their alcohol use and pharmacotherapy. Of the 15 medication-naïve patients interviewed, 6 stated that they would be willing to try pharmacotherapy, 5 stated that they were unlikely, 2 identified reservations, 1 said no, and 1 was not asked. Fifteen patients were either currently taking medications (n = 10) or had taken medication in the past (n = 7; 2 patients had past and current experience). Chart reviews indicated that although 66% of charts (n = 299) documented a discussion of their alcohol use with the provider, only 7.5% (n = 22) of individuals with an AUD diagnosis had a documented discussion of AUD pharmacotherapy, and only 5 received pharmacotherapy. Conclusion: Most interviewed patients were open to discussing AUD treatment, including discussions of pharmacotherapy, with their provider. From documented conversations about alcohol use to treatment options, medical records suggests a continuous narrowing of the number of patients engaged in alcohol-related consultations. Although some interviewed patients expressed reticence about initiating pharmacotherapy, these findings suggest that the treatment cascade may have a greater influence on the number of pharmacotherapy prescriptions than patients' preferences.

Electronic Medical Record Alert Associated With Reduced Opioid and Benzodiazepine Coprescribing in High-risk Veteran Patients.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, overdoses involving opioids and benzodiazepines have risen at alarming rates, making reductions in coprescribing of these medications a priority, particularly among patients who may be susceptible to adverse events due to high-risk conditions. OBJECTIVES: This quality improvement project evaluated the effectiveness of a medication alert designed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among Veterans with known high-risk conditions (substance use, sleep apnea, suicide-risk, age 65 and above) at 1 Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: Prescribers were exposed to the point-of-prescribing alert for 12 months. For each high-risk cohort we used interrupted time series design to examine population trends in coprescribing 12 months after alert launch adjusting for coprescribing 12 months before launch, demographics and clinical covariates. Trends at the alert site were compared with those of a similar VA health care system without the alert. Secondary analyses examined population trends in opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing separately. RESULTS: Over 12 months, the alert activated for 1332 patients. Proportions of patients with concurrent prescriptions decreased significantly postalert launch among substance use [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.96-0.99; 12-month decrease=25.0%], sleep apnea (AOR=0.97, 95% CI=0.95-0.98, 12-month decrease=38.5%), and suicide-risk (AOR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91-0.98, 12-month decrease=61.5%) cohorts at the alert site. Decreases in coprescribing were significantly different from the comparison site among suicide-risk (AOR=0.92, 95% CI=0.86-0.97) and sleep apnea (AOR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-1.00) cohorts. Significant decreases in benzodiazepine prescribing trends were observed at the alert site only. CONCLUSIONS: Medication alerts hold promise as a means of reducing opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among certain high-risk groups.

Survey of Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers' Perspectives on Reducing Opioid and Benzodiazepine Co-Prescribing Among Veterans.

Background: Due to the involvement of opioids and benzodiazepines in rising pharmaceutical overdoses, a reduction in coprescribing of these medications is a national priority, particularly among patients with substance use disorders and other high-risk conditions. However, little is known about primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) prescribers' perspectives on these medications and efforts being implemented to reduce coprescribing. Design: An anonymous survey. Setting: One multisite VA health care system. Subjects: Participants were 55 PC and 31 MH prescribers. Methods: Survey development was guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) conceptual framework. PC and MH prescribers of opioids or benzodiazepines were invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey. Responses were collapsed to highlight agreement, disagreement, and neutrality and summarized with means and percentages. Results: Over 80% of both prescriber groups reported concern about concurrent use and > 75% strongly agreed with clinical practice guidelines (CPG) that recommend caution in coprescribing among patients with high-risk conditions. More than 40% of both prescriber groups indicated that coprescribing continues because of beliefs that patients appear stable without adverse events and tapering/discontinuation is too difficult. Over 70% of prescribers rated strategies for addressing patients who refuse to discontinue, more time with patients, and identification of high-risk patients as helpful in reducing coprescribing. Conclusion: Despite strong agreement with CPGs, prescribers reported several barriers that contribute to coprescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines and challenge their ability to taper these medications. Multiple interventions are likely needed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing.

Buprenorphine Receipt and Retention for Opioid Use Disorder Following an Initiative to Increase Access in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), is underutilized in general medical settings. Further, it is inequitably received by racialized groups and persons with comorbidities. The Veterans Health Administration launched an initiative to increase buprenorphine receipt in primary care. The project's objective was to identify patient-related factors associated with buprenorphine receipt and retention in primary care clinics (n = 18) participating in the initiative. METHODS: Retrospective cohort quality improvement evaluation of patients 18 years or older with 2 or more primary care visits in a 1-year period and an OUD diagnosis in the year before the first primary care visit (index date). Buprenorphine receipt was the proportion of patients with OUD who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions from primary care providers during the post-index year and retention the proportion who received buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. RESULTS: Of 2880 patients with OUD seen in primary care, 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-12.9%) received buprenorphine in primary care, 58.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-63.3%) of whom were retained on buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. Patients with alcohol use disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), nonopioid drug use disorder (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), and serious mental illness (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97) had lower buprenorphine receipt. Those with an anxiety disorder had higher buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95). Buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.87) and 180-day retention (AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.84) were less likely among non-Hispanic Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: Further integration of addiction services in primary care may be needed to enhance buprenorphine receipt for patients with comorbid substance use disorders, and interventions are needed to address disparities in receipt and retention among non-Hispanic Black patients.

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT. METHODS: Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04921787.

Stakeholder perceptions of using "opt-out" for tobacco use treatment in a cancer care setting: a qualitative evaluation of patients, providers, and desk staff.

BACKGROUND: Continued tobacco use in cancer patients increases the risk of cancer treatment failure and decreases survival. However, currently, most cancer patients do not receive evidence-based tobacco treatment. A recently proposed "opt-out" approach would automatically refer all cancer patients who use tobacco to tobacco treatment, but its acceptability to cancer patients and providers is unknown. We aimed to understand stakeholder beliefs, concerns, and receptivity to using the "opt-out" approach for tobacco treatment referrals in a cancer care setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology patients, providers, and desk staff. The sample size was determined when theoretical saturation was reached. Given the differences among participant roles, separate interview guides were developed. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Emergent codes were added to the codebook to account for themes not represented by a CFIR domain. Coded transcripts were then entered into the qualitative analysis software NVivo to generate code reports for CFIR domains and emergent codes for each stakeholder group. Data were presented by stakeholder group and subcategorized by CFIR domains and emergent codes when appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 21 providers, 19 patients, and 6 desk staff were interviewed. Overall acceptance of the "opt out" approach was high among all groups. Providers overwhelmingly approved of the approach as it requires little effort from them to operate and saves clinical time. Desk staff supported the opt-out system and believed there are clinical benefits to patients receiving information about tobacco treatment. Many patients expressed support for using an opt-out approach as many smokers need assistance but may not directly ask for it. Patients also thought that providers emphasizing the benefits of stopping tobacco use to cancer treatment and survival would be an important factor motivating them to attend treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While providers appreciated that the system required little effort on their part, patients clearly indicated that promotion of tobacco cessation treatment by their provider would be vital to enhance willingness to engage with treatment. Future implementation efforts of opt-out systems will require implementation strategies that promote provider engagement with their patients around smoking cessation while continuing to limit burden on providers.

Applying i-PARIHS to Identify Emerging Innovations in Hospital Discharge Decision Making in Response to System Stress: A Qualitative Study.

Background: The purpose of this qualitative study was to use a Learning Health System approach to identify factors influencing the emergence of innovation in rehabilitation hospital discharge decision-making during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Rehabilitation clinicians were recruited from the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and participated in individual semi-structured interviews guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Data were analyzed using a rapid qualitative, deductive team-based approach informed by directed content analysis. Results: Twenty-three rehabilitation clinicians representing physical (N = 11) and occupational therapy (N = 12) participated in the study. Three primary themes were generated: (1) Recipients: innovations emerged as approaches to communicating discharge recommendations changed (in-person to virtual) and strong patient/family preferences to discharge to the home challenged collaborative goal setting; (2) Context: the ability of rehabilitation clinicians to innovate and the form of innovations were influenced by the broader hospital system, interdisciplinary team dynamics, and policy fluctuations; (3) Innovation: emerging innovations in discharge processes included perceived increases in team collaboration, shifts in caseload prioritization, and alternative options for post-acute care. Conclusions: Our findings reinforce that rehabilitation clinicians developed innovative strategies to quickly adapt to multiple systems-level factors that were changing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is needed to assess the impact of innovations, remediate unintended consequences, and evaluate the implementation of promising innovations to respond to emerging healthcare delivery needs more rapidly.