A qualitative assessment of key considerations for drug checking service implementation.

BACKGROUND: With many drug-related deaths driven by potent synthetic opioids tainting the illicit drug supply, drug checking services are becoming a key harm reduction strategy. Many drug checking technologies are available, ranging from fentanyl test strips to mass spectrometry. This study aimed to identify key considerations when implementing drug checking technologies and services to support harm reduction initiatives. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted with harm reduction stakeholders throughout Illinois. Participants included members of existing drug checking services and recovery centers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by two researchers using the framework method. Findings were contextualized according to micro (client)-, meso (organization)-, and macro (policy)-level themes. RESULTS: Seven interviews were conducted with ten participants. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was consistently identified as a technology of choice given its accuracy, range of substance detection, portability, and usability. Recommendations included the use of confirmatory testing, which can help address the limitations of technologies and provide a mechanism to train technicians. Locations of drug checking services should maximize public health outreach and leverage existing harm reduction agencies and staff with lived experience, who are critical to developing trust and rapport with clients. Criminalization and loss of privacy were major concerns for clients using drug checking services. Additional issues included the need to raise awareness of the legitimacy of services through public support from governing bodies, and funding to ensure the sustainability of drug checking services. CONCLUSIONS: This research facilitated the identification of issues and recommendations from stakeholders around key considerations for the adoption of drug checking technologies, which not only included the cost and technical specifications of instrumentation, but also broader issues such as accessibility, privacy, and well-trained personnel trusted by clients of the service. Successful implementation of drug checking services requires knowledge of local needs and capacity and an in-depth understanding of the target population.

Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Improve Patient Experience Among Adults During Transitions from Hospital to Home: the PArTNER study.

INTRODUCTION: Minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) need evidence-based strategies tailored to the populations they serve to improve patient-centered outcomes after hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) from October 2014 to January 2017 at a MSH comparing the effectiveness of a stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention vs. Usual care on post-hospital patient experience, outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Community health workers and peer coaches delivered the intervention which included (1) in-hospital visits to assess barriers to health/healthcare and to develop a personalized Discharge Patient Education Tool (DPET); (2) a home visit to review the DPET; and (3) telephone-based peer coaching. The co-primary outcomes were between-group comparisons of 30-day changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of anxiety and informational support (minimum important difference is 2 to 5 units change); a p-value <0.025 was considered significant using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included death, ED visits, or readmissions and measures of emotional, social, and physical health at 30 and 60 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 1029 adults hospitalized with heart failure (28%), pneumonia (22%), MI (10%), COPD (11%), or sickle cell disease (29%). Over 80% were non-Hispanic Black. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the 30-day change in anxiety (adjusted difference: -1.6, 97.5% CI -3.3 to 0.1, p=0.03), informational support (adjusted difference: -0.01, 97.5% CI -2.0 to 1.9, p=0.99), or any secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses suggested the Navigator intervention improved anxiety among participants with COPD, a primary care provider, a hospitalization in the past 12 months, or higher baseline anxiety; among participants without health insurance, the intervention improved informational support (all p-values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic RCT at a MSH, the Navigator intervention did not improve post-hospital anxiety, informational support, or other outcomes compared to Usual care. Benefits observed in participant subgroups should be confirmed in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02114515.

Secondary effects of an opioid-focused academic detailing program on non-opioid controlled substance prescribing in primary care.

Background: Educational outreach programs that focus on safe opioid prescribing and awareness of state prescription monitoring programs may modify clinicians' prescribing behavior. The objective of this study was to evaluate the secondary effects of an opioid-focused academic detailing (AD) program on non-opioid controlled substance prescribing in primary care. Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-post study of primary care clinicians exposed and unexposed to the AD program was conducted using data from the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program from December 2017 to February 2019. Outcomes were mean monthly prescriptions for benzodiazepines (BZD), non-BZD sedative-hypnotics, and carisoprodol, per clinician. A difference-in-differences (DID) approach utilizing repeated-measures mixed-effects linear regression models was used to compare changes in outcomes six-months before and after the program. Results: Mean monthly BZD prescriptions declined in both groups of clinicians (AD-exposed n = 151; controls n = 399) after implementation of the AD program. Although the mean monthly number of BZD prescriptions decreased in both groups after the AD program, BZD prescribing in the AD-exposed group declined at a slower rate following the AD program (DID = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.14, 1.31). The AD-exposed group had a 0.06 (95% CI: -0.11, -0.01) lower rate of mean monthly carisoprodol prescriptions compared to the control group following the AD program. There was no change in the rate of mean monthly non-BZD sedative-hypnotic prescriptions between the two groups. Conclusions: The higher relative rate of BZD prescribing in the AD-exposed group compared to the control group following the AD program may be reflective of an unintended consequence of opioid-focused AD programs as clinicians learn to be cautious about opioid prescribing. Our findings may suggest the need for incorporation of targeted education on appropriate BZD prescribing into opioid-focused AD programs as a featured component. These findings warrant further consideration and investigation before large-scale implementation of opioid-focused educational outreach programs.

Practice change intentions after academic detailing align with subsequent opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE: Self-reported behavior change is used to evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach interventions delivered to clinicians, such as academic detailing (AD). However, self-reported changes in behavior are often not corroborated with data on actual behavior change. To assess alignment between self-reported practice change intentions and actual opioid prescribing behavior among primary care clinicians after an AD intervention. METHODS: We used a difference-in-differences approach to compare pre-post changes in opioid prescribing using data from the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program. An opioid-focused AD intervention was delivered to primary care clinicians from a large health system in the Chicago metropolitan area from June 2018 to August 2018. Immediately after the AD intervention, clinicians were administered a single-item self-reported practice change measure. Clinicians were categorized into 2 groups on the basis of their responses: (1) intention to change and (2) no-to-moderate intention to change. Outcomes were mean total opioid prescriptions and high-dose opioid prescriptions (≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents) per clinician per month. Repeated measures linear regression models were used to compare changes in opioid prescribing outcomes between the 2 groups in the 6 months before and after the AD intervention. RESULTS: A total of 149 clinicians were included for analysis. An intention to change was reported by 72 clinicians and no-to-moderate intention to change was reported by 77 clinicians. In the 6 months after the AD intervention, there were 1.48 (95% CI -2.48 to -0.47) fewer total opioid prescriptions and 0.50 (-0.69 to -0.31) fewer high-dose opioid prescriptions per clinician per month in the intention to change group than in the no-to-moderate intention to change group. CONCLUSION: This study showed considerable alignment between self-reported practice change intentions and actual changes in opioid prescribing behavior. Future opioid-focused educational outreach interventions should consider using standardized single-item practice change measures as an immediate indicator of future behavior change.

Development of a measure of prescriber satisfaction with academic detailing: the PSAD.

INTRODUCTION: Academic detailing (AD) is an educational outreach strategy to provide clinicians with current evidence-based information, which has been shown to change prescribing behaviours. The overall effectiveness of AD interventions is associated with prescriber satisfaction; however, most approaches use single items or non-validated measures. This study aims to develop and validate an instrument to assess prescriber satisfaction with AD interventions. METHODS: A group of candidate items was generated and refined based on constructs identified through a literature review and in consultation with an expert panel. The initial instrument was piloted with 183 primary care providers who participated in an AD intervention on opioid-related pain management. To support the validity and reliability of the measure, psychometric properties were examined. RESULTS: Ten candidate items were developed based on the following themes: acceptability, feasibility of implementation, usefulness, perception of efficacy, overall satisfaction, willingness to repeat and willingness to change. One item related to willingness to change did not contribute to assessing an individual's ability and lowered the measure's internal consistency and was therefore dropped. CONCLUSION: Results supported the validity and reliability of a refined 9-item measure of Provider Satisfaction with Academic Detailing (the PSAD). This measure should be considered for broad use across educational outreach programmes as a standardized measure to assess provider satisfaction and provide continuous quality improvement.

Academic detailing interventions for opioid-related outcomes: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Academic detailing (AD) is a tailored, interactive educational outreach intervention that may improve patient outcomes. Insight into the design of AD interventions and the extent to which they are effective can help inform future AD-based programmes. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize opioid-focused AD interventions and describe their findings. METHODS: A scoping review focused on AD interventions for opioids was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases through July 1, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if written in English, included interactive opioid-focused educational interventions, and were conducted either in person, virtually or via telephone. Four independent reviewers reviewed titles and abstracts. Data extraction from full-text publications was completed using a standardized form. RESULTS: Of 6086 articles initially identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and 20 unique interventions were identified. The AD intervention was either delivered one-on-one (n=16) or in a small, interactive group setting (n=4). AD interventions varied in design. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of opioid and naloxone prescribing rates, provider knowledge gaps, provider adherence to guidelines, and intervention feasibility. Sixteen (80%) interventions resulted in statistically significant improvement in one or more outcomes. CONCLUSION: Generally, opioid-related AD was effective and programmes were primarily conducted one-on-one between pharmacists and primary care providers for 16-30 minutes. A variety of metrics and outcomes were used to assess the success/effectiveness of AD interventions, which is an important consideration in future studies as no single metric captures the effectiveness of an educational outreach-based intervention for pain management.

Identification of barriers to safe opioid prescribing in primary care: a qualitative analysis of field notes collected through academic detailing.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers to safe opioid prescribing in primary care is critical amid the epidemic of prescription opioid abuse, misuse, and overdose in the US. Educational outreach strategies, such as academic detailing (AD), provide a forum for identification of barriers to, and strategies to facilitate, safe opioid prescribing in primary care. AIM: To identify barriers to safe opioid prescribing among primary care providers (PCPs) through AD. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative analysis of data was collected through an existing AD intervention to improve safe opioid prescribing in primary care. The AD intervention was delivered from June 2018 to August 2018 to licensed PCPs with prescriptive authority within a large independent health system in the metropolitan Chicagoland area. METHOD: The AD intervention involved visits by trained detailers to PCPs who contemporaneously documented details from each visit via field notes. Using qualitative analysis, field notes were analysed to identify recurring themes related to opioid prescribing barriers. RESULTS: Detailer-entered field notes from 186 AD visits with PCPs were analysed. Barriers to safe opioid prescribing were organised into six themes: 1) gaps in knowledge; 2) lack of prescription monitoring programme (PMP) utilisation; 3) patient pressures to prescribe opioids; 4) insurance coverage policies; 5) provider beliefs; and 6) health system pain management practices. CONCLUSION: Barriers to safe opioid prescribing in primary care, identified through AD visits among this large group of PCPs, support the need for continued efforts to enhance pain-management education, maximise PMP utilisation, and increase access to, and affordability of, non-opioid treatments.

Design of the patient navigator to Reduce Readmissions (PArTNER) study: A pragmatic clinical effectiveness trial.

Previous work indicates the potential for community health workers and peer coaches serving as patient navigators to improve processes of care and health outcomes during care transitions, but have not been sufficiently tested to determine if such programs improve measures of patient experience in minority serving institutions. The objectives of the Patient Navigator to Reduce Readmissions (PArTNER) study was to: 1) conduct a pragmatic clinical effectiveness trial comparing a multi-faceted, stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention (in-person CHW visits in the hospital and after hospital discharge, plus telephone-based peer coaching) versus usual care on the experience of hospital-to-home care transitions in patients hospitalized with heart failure, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, or sickle cell disease; 2) examine the effectiveness of the Navigator intervention in patient subgroups; and 3) understand the barriers and facilitators of successfully implementing the Navigator intervention across patient populations. The co-primary outcomes are the 30-day changes in: 1) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) emotional distress-anxiety, and 2) PROMIS informational support. Secondary outcomes at 30 and 60 days include other PROMIS health measures and hospital readmissions. Innovative features of the PArTNER study include early and continuous engagement of patients, their caregivers, clinicians, health system administrators, and other stakeholders to inform the design and implementation of the Navigator intervention. In this report, we describe the design of the PArTNER study.

Engaging Patients and Caregivers to Design Transitional Care Management Services at a Minority Serving Institution.

Limited socioeconomic resources contribute to high readmission rates at minority serving institutions (MSIs). A better understanding of patient-level factors and need for patient navigators could inform approaches to enhance care transitions tailored to these vulnerable patient populations. We sought to understand the perspectives of patients and their caregivers about hospital to home transitions from an MSI, as well as their attitudes about patient navigators to facilitate care transitions. We conducted qualitative research using focus groups (FGs)-five disease-specific patient FGs and two caregiver FGs, including 23 patients and 10 caregivers. Findings support the need for additional services to address: (1) gaps in the hospital discharge; (2) socioeconomic resources; (3) access to post-discharge care; (4) patient's health care seeking behaviors; (5) patient anxiety; (6) self-management education; and (7) social supports for patients and caregivers. While caregivers uniformly expressed interest in patient navigators, support for navigators among patients was more variable.

Patient preferences in prostate cancer: a clinician's guide to understanding health utilities.

Prostate cancer treatments have positive and negative outcomes that must be taken into account when deciding how to proceed with a patient's care. One way to quickly determine a patient's preferences in this situation is to ascertain their health utilities for various health states. Health utilities are underutilized but powerful tools in aiding shared decision making between patients and physicians. This review is intended to inform physicians about the different techniques available, help the physician choose among them, and aid initial development of utilities for use in the clinic by way of the tables' references. A brief history, summary of applications and current directions of health utilities, and collection of references are provided to increase the reader's overall knowledge of health utilities and encourage their use in the clinic. Ultimately, the use and choice of one of these direct preference-based measures depends on the needs of the physician.

Opportunities for disease state management in prostate cancer.

In this paper, we examine how the management of prostate cancer lends itself to a disease state management (DSM)-based approach, and propose a framework that emphasizes the patient-provider-caregiver triad in managing the long-term implications of the condition. There is often no clearly superior approach to the management of patients with prostate cancer (eg, watchful waiting and hormonal therapy), and each option entails different trade-offs in quality of life. Ideally, the physician and patient discuss the options, issues, and patient preferences for treatment through the shared decision-making process. A family caregiver such as the spouse of the patient is often involved in the treatment decision and in the long-term management of the cancer experience. In order to develop a DSM program supporting both patient and caregiver, educational, psychosocial, and health care system support needs should be tailored to each phase of cancer treatment/management. To embrace the unique aspects of prostate cancer management, the proposed framework emphasizes communication among the patient-caregiver-provider triad, inclusion of family caregivers in the program, cancer phase-specific support, and psychosocial services as a basis for implementation and evaluation of a DSM program in prostate cancer.