Implementing Telestroke in the Inpatient Setting: Identifying Factors for Success.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient telestroke programs have emerged as a solution to provide timely stroke care in underserved areas, but their successful implementation and factors influencing their effectiveness remain underexplored. This study aimed to qualitatively evaluate the perspectives of inpatient clinicians located at spoke hospitals participating in a newly established inpatient telestroke program to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. METHODS: This was a formative evaluation relying on semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 inpatient providers (physicians and nurse practitioners) at 5 spoke sites of a hub-and-spoke inpatient telestroke program. The Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework guided data analysis, focusing on the innovation, recipients, context, and facilitation aspects of implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen themes were identified in the data and mapped to the Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Themes related to the innovation (the telestroke program) included easy access to stroke specialists, the benefits of limiting patient transfers, concerns about duplicating tests, and challenges of timing inpatient telestroke visits and notes to align with discharge workflow. Themes pertaining to recipients (care team members and patients) were communication gaps between teams, concern about the supervision of inpatient telestroke advanced practice providers and challenges with nurse empowerment. With regard to the context (hospital and system factors), providers highlighted familiarity with telehealth technologies as a facilitator to implementing inpatient telestroke, yet highlighted resource limitations in smaller facilities. Facilitation (program implementation) was recognized as crucial for education, standardization, and buy-in. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation is crucial to determining where programmatic changes may need to be made to ensure the success and sustainment of inpatient telestroke services.

Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Guide Adoption of the American Heart Association Telemetry Monitoring Practice Standards.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate telemetry use pre- and postimplementation of clinical decision support tools to support American Heart Association practice standards for telemetry monitoring and (2) understand the factors that may contribute to variation of telemetry monitoring in practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: First, we captured overall variability in telemetry use pre- and postimplementation of the clinical decision support intervention. We then conducted semistructured interviews with telemetry-ordering providers to identify key barriers and facilitators to adoption. During the study period, 399 physicians met criteria for inclusion and were divided into excessive and nonexcessive orderers. Distribution of telemetry use was bimodal. Among nonexcessive users, 24.4% of patient days were with telemetry compared with 51.6% among excessive users. On average, both excessive (6.1% reduction) and nonexcessive users (2.8% reduction) decreased telemetry use postimplementation, and these reductions were sustained over a 16-month period. Sixteen interviews were conducted. Physicians believed that the tool was successful because it caused them to more closely consider if telemetry was indicated for each patient. Physicians also voiced frustration with interruptions to their workflow, and some noted that they commonly use telemetry outside of practice standards to monitor patients who were acutely but not critically ill. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding telemetry practice standards into the electronic health record in the form of clinical decision support is effective at reducing excess telemetry use. Although the intervention was well received, there are persistent barriers, such as preexisting views on telemetry and existing workflow habits, that may inhibit higher adoption of standards.

Building to learn: Information technology innovations to enable rapid pragmatic evaluation in a learning health system.

Background: Learning health systems (LHSs) iteratively generate evidence that can be implemented into practice to improve care and produce generalizable knowledge. Pragmatic clinical trials fit well within LHSs as they combine real-world data and experiences with a degree of methodological rigor which supports generalizability. Objectives: We established a pragmatic clinical trial unit ("RapidEval") to support the development of an LHS. To further advance the field of LHS, we sought to further characterize the role of health information technology (HIT), including innovative solutions and challenges that occur, to improve LHS project delivery. Methods: During the period from December 2021 to February 2023, eight projects were selected out of 51 applications to the RapidEval program, of which five were implemented, one is currently in pilot testing, and two are in planning. We evaluated pre-study planning, implementation, analysis, and study closure approaches across all RapidEval initiatives to summarize approaches across studies and identify key innovations and learnings by gathering data from study investigators, quality staff, and IT staff, as well as RapidEval staff and leadership. Implementation Results: Implementation approaches spanned a range of HIT capabilities including interruptive alerts, clinical decision support integrated into order systems, patient navigators, embedded micro-education, targeted outpatient hand-off documentation, and patient communication. Study approaches include pre-post with time-concordant controls (1), randomized stepped-wedge (1), cluster randomized across providers (1) and location (3), and simple patient level randomization (2). Conclusions: Study selection, design, deployment, data collection, and analysis required close collaboration between data analysts, informaticists, and the RapidEval team.

Decreasing Opioid Addiction and Diversion Using Behavioral Economics Applied Through a Digital Engagement Solution: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite strong and growing interest in ending the ongoing opioid health crisis, there has been limited success in reducing the prevalence of opioid addiction and the number of deaths associated with opioid overdoses. Further, 1 explanation for this is that existing interventions target those who are opiate-dependent but do not prevent opioid-naïve patients from becoming addicted. OBJECTIVE: Leveraging behavioral economics at the patient level could help patients successfully use, discontinue, and dispose of their opioid medications in an acute pain setting. The primary goal of this project is to evaluate the effect of the 3 versions of the Opioid Management for You (OPY) tool on measures of opioid use relative to the standard of care by leveraging a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: A team of researchers from the Center for Learning Health System Sciences (CLHSS) at the University of Minnesota partnered with M Health Fairview to design, build, and test the 3 versions of the OPY tool: social influence, precommitment, and testimonial version. The tool is being built using the Epic Care Companion (Epic Inc) platform and interacts with the patient through their existing MyChart (Epic Systems Corporation) personal health record account, and Epic patient portal, accessed through a phone app or the MyChart website. We have demonstrated feasibility with pilot data of the social influence version of the OPY app by targeting our pilot to a specific cohort of patients undergoing upper-extremity procedures. This study will use a group sequential RCT design to test the impact of this important health system initiative. Patients who meet OPY inclusion criteria will be stratified into low, intermediate, and high risk of opiate use based on their type of surgery. RESULTS: This study is being funded and supported by the CLHSS Rapid Prospective Evaluation and Digital Technology Innovation Programs, and M Health Fairview. Support and coordination provided by CLHSS include the structure of engagement, survey development, data collection, statistical analysis, and dissemination. The project was initially started in August 2022. The pilot was launched in February 2023 and is still running, with the data last counted in August 2023. The actual RCT is planned to start by early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Through this RCT, we will test our hypothesis that patient opioid use and diverted prescription opioid availability can both be improved by information delivery applied through a behavioral economics lens via sending nudges directly to the opioid users through their personal health record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06124079; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06124079. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/52882.

Barriers and activities to implementing or expanding influenza vaccination programs in low- and middle-income countries: A global survey.

INTRODUCTION: Despite considerable global burden of influenza, few low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have national influenza vaccination programs. This report provides a systematic assessment of barriers to and activities that support initiating or expanding influenza vaccination programs from the perspective of in-country public health officials. METHODS: Public health officials in LMICs were sent a web-based survey to provide information on barriers and activities to initiating, expanding, or maintaining national influenza vaccination programs. The survey primarily included Likert-scale questions asking respondents to rank barriers and activities in five categories. RESULTS: Of 109 eligible countries, 62% participated. Barriers to influenza vaccination programs included lack of data on cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination programs (87%) and on influenza disease burden (84%), competing health priorities (80%), lack of public perceived risk from influenza (79%), need for better risk communication tools (77%), lack of financial support for influenza vaccine programs (75%), a requirement to use only WHO-prequalified vaccines (62%), and young children require two vaccine doses (60%). Activities for advancing influenza vaccination programs included educating healthcare workers (97%) and decision-makers (91%) on the benefits of influenza vaccination, better estimates of influenza disease burden (91%) and cost of influenza vaccination programs (89%), simplifying vaccine introduction by focusing on selected high-risk groups (82%), developing tools to prioritize target populations (80%), improving availability of influenza diagnostic testing (79%), and developing collaborations with neighboring countries for vaccine procurement (74%) and regulatory approval (73%). Responses varied by country region and income status. CONCLUSIONS: Local governments and key international stakeholders can use the results of this survey to improve influenza vaccination programs in LMICs, which is a critical component of global pandemic preparedness for influenza and other pathogens such as coronaviruses. Additionally, strategies to improve global influenza vaccination coverage should be tailored to country income level and geographic location.