Opioid Prescribing and Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has taken a multifaceted approach to addressing opioid safety and promoting system-wide opioid stewardship. AIM: To provide a comprehensive evaluation of current opioid prescribing practices and implementation of risk mitigation strategies in VHA. SETTING: VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: VHA prescribing data in conjunction with implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies are routinely tracked and reviewed by VHA's Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (including Academic Detailing Service) and the Pain Management Program Office. Additional data are derived from the Partnered Evidence-Based Policy Resource Center (PEPReC) and from a 2019 survey of interdisciplinary pain management teams at VHA facilities. Prescribing data are reported quarterly until first quarter fiscal year 2020 (Q1FY2020), ending December 31, 2019. PROGRAM EVALUATION: VHA opioid dispensing peaked in 2012 with 679,376 Veterans receiving an opioid prescription, and when including tramadol, in 2013 with 869,956 Veterans. Since 2012, the number of Veterans dispensed an opioid decreased 56% and co-prescribed opioid/benzodiazepine decreased 83%. Veterans with high-dose opioids (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalent daily dose) decreased 77%. In Q1FY2020, among Veterans on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), 91.1% had written informed consent, 90.8% had a urine drug screen, and 89.0% had a prescription drug monitoring program query. Naloxone was issued to 217,469 Veterans and resulted in > 1,000 documented overdose reversals. In 2019, interdisciplinary pain management teams were fully designated at 68%, partially designated at 28%, and not available at 4% of 140 VA parent facilities. Fifty percent of Veterans on opioids at very high risk for overdose/suicide received interdisciplinary team reviews. IMPLICATIONS: VHA clinicians have greatly reduced their volume of opioid prescribing for pain management and expanded implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies. IMPACTS: VHA's integrated health care system provides a model for opioid stewardship and interdisciplinary pain care.

Implementation and sustainability of a medication reconciliation toolkit: A mixed methods evaluation.

PURPOSE: MARQUIS (Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study) provided participating hospitals with a toolkit to assist in developing robust medication reconciliation programs. Here we describe hospitals' implementation of the MARQUIS toolkit, barriers and facilitators, and important factors that may enhance the spread and sustainability of the toolkit. METHODS: We used a mixed methods, quantitative-qualitative study design. We invited site leaders of the 5 hospitals that participated in MARQUIS to complete a Web-based survey and phone interview. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided question development. We analyzed the collected data using descriptive statistics (for survey responses) and thematic content analysis (for interview results). RESULTS: Site leaders from each MARQUIS hospital participated. They reported that MARQUIS toolkit implementation augmented their hospitals' existing but limited medication reconciliation practices. Survey results indicated executive leadership support for toolkit implementation but limited institutional support for hiring staff (reported by 20% of respondents) and/or budgetary support for implementation (reported by 60% of respondents). Most participating hospitals (80%) shifted staff responsibilities to support medication reconciliation. Interview findings showed that inner setting (ie, organizational setting) and process factors (eg, designation of champions) both inhibited and facilitated implementation. Hospitals adopted a variety of toolkit interventions (eg, discharge medication counseling) using a range of implementation strategies, including development of educational tools and tip sheets for staff members and electronic health record templates. CONCLUSION: Despite limited institutional support, hospitals can successfully implement, spread, and sustain the MARQUIS toolkit by shifting staff responsibilities, adding pharmacy staff, and using a variety of strategies to facilitate implementation. Although leadership support and resources for data collection and dissemination facilitated implementation, limited staff buy-in and competing priorities may hinder implementation.

The Rural VA Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (R-VA-MARQUIS).

PURPOSE: High-quality medication reconciliation reduces medication discrepancies, but smaller hospitals serving rural patients may have difficulty implementing this because of limited resources. We sought to adapt and implement an evidence-based toolkit of best practices for medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals, evaluate the effect on unintentional medication discrepancies, and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year mentored-implementation quality improvement feasibility study in 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals serving rural patients. The primary outcome was unintentional medication discrepancies per medication per patient, determined by comparing the "gold standard" preadmission medication history to the documented preadmission medication list and admission and discharge orders. RESULTS: In total, 797 patients were included; their average age was 68.7 years, 94.4% were male, and they were prescribed an average of 9.6 medications. Sites 2 and 3 implemented toolkit interventions, including clarifying roles among clinical personnel, educating providers on taking a best possible medication history, and hiring pharmacy professionals to obtain a best possible medication history and perform discharge medication reconciliation. Site 1 did not implement an intervention. Discrepancies improved in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 3 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.67) but increased in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 2 (adjusted IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based toolkit for medication reconciliation adapted to the VA setting was adopted in 2 of 3 small, rural, resource-limited hospitals, resulting in both reduced and increased unintentional medication discrepancies. We highlight facilitators and barriers to implementing evidence-based medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals.

An environmental scan of medication history technician programs within the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: Results of a study to identify medication history technician (MHT) programs within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and to evaluate the personnel, structure, and scope of such programs are reported. METHODS: Specially trained pharmacy technicians can take accurate patient medication histories and contribute to the medication reconciliation process. An environmental scan of MHT programs within VHA was conducted via an email query of pharmacy personnel. Semistructured interviews of personnel at each responding site (an MHT, a pharmacist, or both) were conducted. RESULTS: Ten VHA sites had existing MHT programs; the earliest was initiated in 2010. Sites employed from 1 to 4 MHTs, who most commonly worked in the inpatient setting (7 sites). At most sites (9), MHTs obtained a "best possible medication history" through systematic collection of medication information using 2 reliable sources, such as patients, caregivers, and medical records. Survey respondents at all sites reported benefits of MHT programs, including dedicated time to obtain medication histories, allowing for more effective use of pharmacists' time. Six sites were eager to increase the reach of their programs. MHT training, oversight, and quality assurance varied across the sites. The survey results indicated that there are opportunities nationally-within and outside VHA-to develop standardized training, competency assessments, and quality assurance measures for MHT programs. CONCLUSION: Ten VHA sites with MHT programs were identified. MHTs most commonly worked in inpatient settings as part of admission medication reconciliation processes.