Clinical Validity of the PROMIS Healthcare Engagement 8-Item Short Form.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare engagement is a key measurement target for value-based healthcare, but a reliable and valid patient-reported measure has not yet been widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a newly developed patient-reported measure of healthcare engagement, the 8-item PROMIS Healthcare Engagement (PHE-8a). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of the association between healthcare engagement and quality of care over 1 year. We fit mixed effects models of quality indicators as a function of engagement scores, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, rural residence, and risk scores. PARTICIPANTS: National stratified random sample of 9552 Veterans receiving Veterans Health Administration care for chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes) or mental health conditions (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder). MAIN MEASURES: Patient experience: Consumer Assessment of Health Plans and Systems communication and self-management support composites; no-show rates for primary care and mental health appointments; use of patient portal My HealtheVet; and Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set electronic quality measures: HbA1c poor control, controlling high blood pressure, and hyperlipidemia therapy adherence. KEY RESULTS: Higher engagement scores were associated with better healthcare quality across all outcomes, with each 5-point increase (1/2 standard deviation) in engagement scores associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains in quality. Across the continuum of low to high engagement scores, we observed a concomitant reduction in primary care no-show rates of 37% and 24% for mental health clinics; an increased likelihood of My HealtheVet use of 15.4%; and a decreased likelihood of poor diabetes control of 44%. CONCLUSIONS: The PHE-8a is a brief, reliable, and valid patient-reported measure of healthcare engagement. These results confirm previously untested hypotheses that patient engagement can promote healthcare quality.

Effect of a Predictive Analytics-Targeted Program in Patients on Opioids: a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Risk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans. DESIGN: A 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event. INTERVENTION: A mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide. MAIN MEASURES: Nine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Mandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Among VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16012111.

Randomized Policy Evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM).

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a dashboard Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STROM) to guide clinical practice interventions. VHA released a policy mandating that high-risk patients of an adverse event based on the STORM dashboard are to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of clinicians. AIM: Randomized program evaluation to evaluate if patients in the oversight arm had a lower risk of opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs) or death compared to those in the non-oversight arm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred and forty VHA facilities (aka medical centers) were randomly assigned to two groups: oversight and non-oversight arms. VHA patients who were prescribed opioids between April 18, 2018, and November 8, 2019, were included in the cohort. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We hypothesized that patients cared for by VHA facilities that received the policy with the oversight accountability language would achieve lower opioid-related SAEs or death. PROGRAM EVALUATION: We did not observe a relationship between the oversight arm and opioid-related SAEs or death. Patients in the non-oversight arm had a significantly higher chance of receiving a case review compared to those in the oversight arm. DISCUSSION: Even though our findings were unexpected, the STORM policy overall was likely successful in focusing the provider's attention on very high-risk patients.

Psychometric evaluation of a patient-reported item bank for healthcare engagement.

PURPOSE: Healthcare engagement is a core measurement target for efforts to improve healthcare systems. This construct is broadly defined as the extent to which healthcare services represent collaborative partnerships with patients. Previous qualitative work operationalized healthcare engagement as generalized self-efficacy in four related subdomains: self-management, collaborative communication, health information use, and healthcare navigation. Building on this work, our objective was to establish a healthcare engagement instrument that is sufficiently unidimensional to yield a single score. METHOD: We conducted cognitive interviews followed by a nation-wide mail survey of US Veteran Administration (VA) healthcare users. Data were collected on 49 candidate healthcare engagement items, as well as measures of self-efficacy for managing symptoms, provider communication, and perceived access. Items were subjected to exploratory bifactor, statistical learning, and IRT analyses. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews were completed by 56 patients and 9552 VA healthcare users with chronic conditions completed the mail survey. Participants were mostly white and male but with sizable minority participation. Psychometric analyses and content considerations reduced the item pool to 23 items, which demonstrated a strong general factor (OmegaH of .89). IRT analyses revealed a high level of reliability across the trait range and little DIF across groups. Most health information use items were removed during analyses, suggesting a more independent role for this domain. CONCLUSION: We provide quantitative evidence for a relatively unidimensional measure of healthcare engagement. Despite developed with VA healthcare users, the measure is intended for general use. Future work includes short-form development and validation with other patient groups.

Opportunity or Burden? A Behavioral Framework for Patient Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients as partners in their care is clinically appealing, yet challenging to implement, and we lack a measurement framework that is applicable to vulnerable populations. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study to refine a conceptual framework that reflects an individual's propensity to engage with care. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to refine the framework's domains of engagement behavior; identify key behaviors within each domain that describe engagement with providers, health systems or settings; and illustrate examples for each behavior where higher self-efficacy describes an opportunity to enhance engagement, and lower self-efficacy describes difficulties with engagement that risk burden. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We elicited patient perspectives by conducting individual semistructured interviews with veterans receiving care for mental health and/or chronic conditions from the Veterans Health Administration. Data were analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: The resulting engagement framework encompassed 4 interrelated domains: Self-Management, Health Information Use, Collaborative Communication, and Healthcare Navigation. The propensity to engage with care was conceptualized as the cumulative self-efficacy to engage in behaviors across these domains. Results emphasize the collaborative nature of engagement behaviors and the impact of veteran cultural influences via perceptions of collective efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework can be applied to judgments regarding a patient's propensity to engage in care. Because self-efficacy is an individual's context-specific judgment of their capabilities, this framework may inform health care and social service interventions that aim to engage patients. This maybe especially useful for public sector settings and populations with social risks.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers' Unneeded Lumbar Spine MRI Orders for Acute, Uncomplicated Low-Back Pain: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH: Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

Overdose Risk Associated with Opioid Use upon Hospital Discharge in Veterans Health Administration Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an association between opioid use upon hospital discharge (ongoing and newly started) in surgical patients and risks of opioid overdose and delirium for the first year. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: Population-level study of Veterans Health Administration patients. SUBJECTS: All Veterans Health Administration patients (N = 64,391) who underwent surgery in 2011, discharged after one or more days, and without a diagnosis of opioid overdose or delirium from 90 days before admission through 30 days postdischarge (to account for additional opioid dosing in the context of chronic use). METHODS: Patients' opioid use was categorized as 1) no opioids, 2) tramadol only, 3) short-acting only, 4) long-acting only, 5) short- and long-acting. We calculated unadjusted incidence rates and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for opioid overdose and drug delirium for two time intervals: postdischarge days 0-30 and days 31-365. We then modeled outcomes of opioid overdose and delirium for postdischarge days 31-365 using a multivariable extended Cox regression model. Sensitivity analysis examined risk factors for overdose for postdischarge days 0-30. RESULTS: Incidence of overdose was 11-fold greater from postdischarge days 0-30 than days 31-365: 26.3 events/person-year (N = 68) vs 2.4 events/person-year (N = 476; IRR = 10.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.37-13.92). Higher-intensity opioid use was associated with increasing risk of overdose for the year after surgery, with the highest risk for the short- and long-acting group (hazard ratio = 4.84, 95% CI = 3.28-7.14). Delirium (IRR = 10.66, 95% CI = 7.96-14.29) was also associated with higher opioid intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients should be treated with the lowest effective intensity of opioids and be monitored to prevent opioid-related adverse events.

Randomized program evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM): A research and clinical operations partnership to examine effectiveness.

The United States is facing an opioid crisis in which overdose is the leading cause of injury death-misuse of opioids constitutes the vast majority of those deaths. In 2016 alone, over 42,000 people died from opioid overdose, an increase of 27% from the prior year. Deployment of the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a clinical decision support tool to improve opioid safety, is one response by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to the opioid crisis. STORM identifies VHA patients at very high risk of opioid-related adverse events and lists potential risk mitigation strategies. Deployment of STORM also helps VHA meet certain requirements of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. In alignment with the VHA's learning health care system initiative, a multidisciplinary team designed a randomized evaluation of a policy approach to mandating case reviews of very-high-risk patients identified by STORM and the impacts of patient inclusion versus exclusion in mandated STORM case reviews using a stepped-wedge design. The STORM evaluation involves drafting the policy notice, shepherding it through the VHA approval process, and implementing the cluster randomized design. This mixed-methods evaluation includes (1) a qualitative assessment of medical center implementation strategies with the aim of understanding of how STORM is incorporated into practice, and (2) quantitative analyses of the relations between policy mandates and STORM inclusion on opioid-related adverse events. The findings from this synergistic research design will yield critical insights for VHA leadership to refine opioid prescribing-related policy and practice.

Time-to-Cessation of Postoperative Opioids: A Population-Level Analysis of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine 1) the epidemiology of perioperative opioid use; and 2) the association between patterns of preoperative opioid use and time-to-cessation of postoperative opioids. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: National, population-level study of Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) electronic clinical data. SUBJECTS: All VHA patients (n = 64,391) who underwent surgery in 2011, discharged after stays of ≥1 day, and receiving ≥1 opioid prescription within 90 days of discharge. METHODS: Patients' preoperative opioid use were categorized as 1) no opioids, 2) tramadol only, 3) short-acting (SA) acute/intermittent (≤ 90 days fill), 4) SA chronic (> 90 days fill), or 5) any long-acting (LA). After defining cessation as 90 consecutive, opioid-free days, the authors calculated time-to-opioid-cessation (in days), from day 1 to day 365, after hospital discharge. The authors developed extended Cox regression models with a priori identified predictors. Sensitivity analyses used alternative cessation definitions (30 or 180 consecutive days). RESULTS: Almost 60% of the patients received preoperative opioids: tramadol (7.5%), SA acute/intermittent (24.1%), SA chronic (17.5%), and LA (5.2%). For patients opioid-free preoperatively, median time-to-cessation of opioids postoperatively was 15 days. The SA acute/intermittent cohort (HR =1.96; 95% CI =1.92-2.00) had greater risk for prolonged time-to-cessation than those opioid-free (reference), but lower risk than those taking tramadol only, SA chronic (HR = 9.09; 95% CI = 8.33-9.09), or LA opioids (HR = 9.09; 95% CI = 8.33-10.00). Diagnoses of chronic pain, substance-use, or affective disorders were weaker positive predictors. Sensitivity analyses maintained findings. CONCLUSION: Greater preoperative levels of opioid use were associated with progressively longer time-to-cessation postoperatively.

Patient perspectives on an opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution program in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to prevent opioid overdose mortality among Veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities began implementing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) in 2013 and a national program began in 2014. VA is the first national health care system to implement OEND. The goal of this study is to examine patient perceptions of OEND training and naloxone kits. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted between December 2014 and February 2015 with 21 patients trained in OEND. Participants were recruited from a VA residential facility in California with a substance use disorder treatment program (mandatory OEND training) and a homeless program (optional OEND training). Data were analyzed using matrices and open and closed coding approaches to identify participants' perspectives on OEND training including benefits, concerns, differing opinions, and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Veterans thought OEND training was interesting, novel, and empowering, and that naloxone kits will save lives. Some veterans expressed concern about using syringes in the kits. A few patients who never used opioids were not interested in receiving kits. Veterans had differing opinions about legal and liability issues, whether naloxone kits might contribute to relapse, and whether and how to involve family in training. Some veterans expressed uncertainty about the effects of naloxone. Suggested improvements included active learning approaches, enhanced training materials, and increased advertisement. CONCLUSIONS: OEND training was generally well received among study participants, including those with no indication for a naloxone kit. Patients described a need for OEND and believed it could save lives. Patient feedback on OEND training benefits, concerns, opinions, and suggestions provides important insights to inform future OEND training programs both within VA and in other health care settings. Training is critical to maximizing the potential for OEND to save lives, and this study includes specific suggestions for improving the effectiveness and acceptability of training.

How Can eHealth Technology Address Challenges Related to Multimorbidity? Perspectives from Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Patient eHealth technology offers potential support for disease self-management, but the value of existing applications for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To understand self-management and health care navigation challenges that patients face due to MCCs and to identify opportunities to support these patients through new and enhanced eHealth technology. DESIGN: After administering a screening survey, we conducted 10 focus groups of 3-8 patients grouped by age, sex, and common chronic conditions. Patients discussed challenges associated with having MCCs and their use of (and desires from) technology to support self-management. Three investigators used standard content analysis methods to code the focus group transcripts. Emergent themes were reviewed with all collaborators, and final themes and representative quotes were validated with a sample of participants. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three individuals with ≥3 chronic conditions and experience using technology for health-related purposes. KEY RESULTS: Focus group participants had an average of five chronic conditions. Participants reported using technology most frequently to search for health information (96%), communicate with health care providers (92%), track medical information (83%), track medications (77%), and support decision-making about treatment (55%). Three themes emerged to guide eHealth technology development: (1) Patients with MCCs manage a high volume of information, visits, and self-care tasks; (2) they need to coordinate, synthesize, and reconcile health information from multiple providers and about different conditions; (3) their unique position at the hub of multiple health issues requires self-advocacy and expertise. Focus groups identified desirable eHealth resources and tools that reflect these themes. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with multiple health issues use eHealth technology to support self-care for specific conditions, they also desire tools that transcend disease boundaries. By addressing the holistic needs of patients with MCCs, eHealth technology can advance health care from a disease-centered to a patient-centered model.

Sex differences in chronic pain management practices for patients receiving opioids from the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Women experience chronic pain and use pain-related health care at higher rates than men. It is not known whether the pain-related health care female veterans receive is consistent with clinical practice guideline recommendations or whether receipt of this care differs between men and women. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify whether sex differences in chronic pain management care exist for patients served by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN: Data on patient demographics, diagnostic criteria, and health care utilization were extracted from VHA administrative databases for fiscal year 2010 (FY10). PATIENTS: Patients in this study included all VHA patients (excluding metastatic cancer patients) who received more than 90 days of a short-acting opioid medication or a long-acting opioid medication prescription in FY10 study. MEASURES: Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted to identify sex differences in receipt of guideline-recommended chronic pain management. RESULTS: A total of 480,809 patients met inclusion criteria. Female patients were more likely to receive most measures of guideline-recommended care for chronic pain including mental health assessments, psychotherapy, rehabilitation therapy, and pharmacy reconciliation. However, women were more likely to receive concurrent sedative prescriptions, which is inconsistent with guideline recommendations. Most of the observed sex differences persisted after controlling for key demographic and diagnostic differences. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that female VHA patients are more likely to receive an array of pain management practices than male patients, including both contraindicated and recommended polypharmacy. Quality improvement efforts to address underutilization of mental health and rehabilitative services for pain by male patients and polypharmacy in female patients should be considered.

Opioid use patterns and association with pain severity and mental health functioning in chronic pain patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between patterns of opioid use, pain severity, and pain-related mental health in chronic pain patients prescribed opioids. DESIGN: The study was designed as a one-time patient interview with structured pain and opioid use assessments. SETTING: The study was set in a tertiary care medical center in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. PATIENTS. Study participants were primary care patients with a pain condition for greater than 6 months who received at least one prescription for an opioid in the prior 12 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Prescription Drug Use Questionnaire was used to assess patterns of opioid use. The Pain Outcomes Questionnaire was used to assess pain-related functioning. RESULTS: Symptomatic use of opioid medication (e.g., taking an opioid in response to increased pain) was more common than scheduled (i.e., taking an opioid at regular times) or strategic use of opioid medication (e.g., taking an opioid specifically to engage in activities). Symptomatic use of opioids was associated with poorer pain-related mental health, after controlling for pain duration and pain-related physical functioning. Use of opioids in a scheduled pattern was associated with better pain-related mental health. Patients rarely reported that they used opioids strategically to facilitate functional activities. CONCLUSIONS: The patterns in which patients use their opioid medications are associated with their psychological functioning. This is consistent with theory regarding the potential impact of reinforcing effects of opioid medication on functional outcomes. Interventions to encourage strategic or scheduled opioid use warrant investigation as methods to improve pain outcomes with opioids.

Opioid use in primary care: asking the right questions.

Pain is one of the most common reasons that patients seek treatment from health care professionals, often their primary care providers. One tool for treating pain is opioid therapy, and opioid prescriptions have increased dramatically in recent years in the United States. This article will review recent research about opioids that is most relevant to treating chronic pain in the context of a typical primary care practice. It will focus on four key practices that providers can engage in before and during the course of opioid therapy that we believe will enhance the likelihood that opioids, when used, are an effective tool for pain management: avoiding sole reliance on opioids; using adequate opioid doses to address pain; mitigating the risk of opioid misuse by patients; and fostering collaborative relationships for treating complex patients.

Practical considerations to guide development of access controls and decision support for genetic information in electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing is increasingly used as a tool throughout the health care system. In 2011 the number of clinically available genetic tests is approaching 2,000, and wide variation exists between these tests in their sensitivity, specificity, and clinical implications, as well as the potential for discrimination based on the results. DISCUSSION: As health care systems increasingly implement electronic medical record systems (EMRs) they must carefully consider how to use information from this wide spectrum of genetic tests, with whom to share information, and how to provide decision support for clinicians to properly interpret the information. Although some characteristics of genetic tests overlap with other medical test results, there are reasons to make genetic test results widely available to health care providers and counterbalancing reasons to restrict access to these test results to honor patient preferences, and avoid distracting or confusing clinicians with irrelevant but complex information. Electronic medical records can facilitate and provide reasonable restrictions on access to genetic test results and deliver education and decision support tools to guide appropriate interpretation and use. SUMMARY: This paper will serve to review some of the key characteristics of genetic tests as they relate to design of access control and decision support of genetic test information in the EMR, emphasizing the clear need for health information technology (HIT) to be part of optimal implementation of genetic medicine, and the importance of understanding key characteristics of genetic tests when designing HIT applications.

Reasons for under-use of prescribed opioid medications by patients in pain.

BACKGROUND: With the growth in opioid therapy for the treatment of chronic pain, health care providers have focused their attention on avoiding over-use of opioid medications, specifically to avoid addiction, dependency, and other misuse. Qualitative and quantitative reviews of medication adherence, in contrast, focus primarily on why patients under-use or do not take their medications as prescribed and find nonadherence rates of approximately 25%. OBJECTIVE: To identify the prevalence of under-use of opioid medications and the reasons and implications of under-use. DESIGN: As part of a variety of structured assessments, subjects were asked detailed questions about how they used their opioid medication in their daily lives. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety-one veterans who received an opioid prescription for any pain problem within the 12 months before the interview. MEASURES: We defined a patient who under-used his/her medication as one who took less than their prescribed dose of medication and reported that pain impaired their ability to engage in normal daily activities. RESULTS: Under-use of opioids (20%) was more common than over-use (9%), consistent with research on medication adherence. Patients who under-used their opioids offered the same reasons for under-use that patients report for other medications. However, while under-users reported more pain than other opioid users they filled only slightly fewer opioid prescriptions. Communication problems between patients and providers about opioids were common. CONCLUSIONS: Improved communication between patients and providers and shared decision-making regarding opioid prescriptions may improve pain management and minimize the problems associated with over-prescription of opioids (i.e., diversion).

"They are interrelated, one feeds off the other": A taxonomy of perceived disease interactions derived from patients with multiple chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' experiences with condition interactions and develop a taxonomy to inform care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis of free-text data from patient surveys in which respondents were asked to indicate their most bothersome chronic condition and describe how their other conditions affect their self-care for that condition. Using standard content analysis, we developed a taxonomy comprising how patients perceive interactions among their conditions, and examined cross-cutting themes that reflect qualities of these interactions. RESULTS: Among 383 eligible survey respondents, the mean (SD) number of chronic conditions was 4 (2); common conditions included hypertension (60%), chronic pain (49%), arthritis (41%), depression (32%), diabetes (29%), and post-traumatic stress disorder (26%). Patients' perceived condition interactions took four broad forms: 1) unidirectional interactions among conditions and/or treatments, 2) cyclical or multidimensional interactions, 3) uncertain or indistinct interactions, and 4) no perceived interaction. Cross-cutting themes included beliefs about causal relationships between conditions, identification of interactions as negative vs. positive, and interactions between physical and mental health. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel taxonomy of condition interactions from the patient perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Understanding perceived condition interactions may support patient self-management and shared decision-making efforts.

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. METHODS: Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. RESULTS: Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

"I had to change so much in my life to live with my new limitations": Multimorbid patients' descriptions of their most bothersome chronic conditions.

Objective To characterize diseases that are described as most bothersome by individuals with multiple chronic conditions and to identify themes that characterize their experiences with their most bothersome condition. Methods In a survey of patients at an academic center and a Veterans Affairs hospital, we asked individuals with multiple chronic conditions to identify their most bothersome chronic condition and describe why it is challenging. Standard content analysis methods were used to code responses and identify themes reflecting characteristics of most bothersome conditions. Results The most commonly cited bothersome conditions were chronic pain (52%), diabetes (43%), post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), heart failure (24%), and lung problems (20%). Conditions were described as most bothersome due to: (a) impact on function and quality of life (e.g. active symptoms, activity limitations), (b) health consequences or sequelae (e.g. risk of complications), and (c) challenges associated with treatment or self-management. Patterns of theme dominance varied for conditions with different characteristics. Discussion The conditions that patients with multiple chronic conditions identify as most bothersome vary depending on individuals' diseases and their health-related preferences and priorities. Ascertaining patients' most bothersome conditions and associated challenges, stress, and frustrations may help ensure that management decisions are aligned with patient preferences and priorities.