Qualitative Interviews to Add Patient Perspectives in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Improvements in a Learning Health System.

Health systems are interested in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates as CRC is a leading cause of preventable cancer death. Learning health systems are ones that use data to continually improve care. Data can and should include qualitative local perspectives to improve patient and provider education and care. This study sought to understand local perspectives on CRC screening to inform future strategies to increase screening rates across our integrated health system. Health insurance plan members who were eligible for CRC screening were invited to participate in semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative content analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. Forty member interviews were completed and analyzed. Identified barriers included ambivalence about screening options (e.g., "If it had the same performance, I'd rather do home fecal sample test. But I'm just too skeptical [so I do the colonoscopy]."), negative prior CRC screening experiences, and competing priorities. Identified facilitators included a positive general attitude towards health (e.g., "I'm a rule follower. There are certain things I'll bend rules. But certain medical things, you just got to do."), social support, a perceived risk of developing CRC, and positive prior CRC screening experiences. Study findings were used by the health system leaders to inform the selection of CRC screening outreach and education strategies to be tested in a future simulation model. For example, the identified barrier related to ambivalence about screening options led to a proposed revision of outreach materials that describe screening types more clearly.

Barriers and Facilitators to Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are designed to help primary care clinicians (PCCs) implement evidence-based guidelines for chronic disease care. CDS tools may also be helpful for opioid use disorder (OUD), but only if PCCs use them in their regular workflow. This study's purpose was to understand PCC and clinic leader perceptions of barriers to using an OUD-CDS tool in primary care. METHODS: PCCs and leaders (n = 13) from clinics in an integrated health system in which an OUD-CDS tool was implemented participated in semistructured qualitative interviews. Questions aimed to understand whether the CDS tool design, implementation, context, and content were barriers or facilitators to using the OUD-CDS in primary care. Recruitment stopped when thematic saturation was reached. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to generate overall themes. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: (1) PCCs prefer to minimize conversations about OUD risk and treatment; (2) PCCs are enthusiastic about a CDS tool that addresses a topic of interest but lack interest in treating OUD; (3) contextual barriers in primary care limit PCCs' ability to use CDS to manage OUD; (4) CDS needs to be simple and visible, save time, and add value to care; and (5) CDS has value in identifying and screening patients and facilitating referrals. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several factors that impact use of an OUD-CDS tool in primary care, including PCC interest in treating OUD, contextual barriers, and CDS design. These results may help others interested in implementing CDS for OUD in primary care.

The potential impact of clinical decision support on nonwaivered primary care clinicians' prescribing of buprenorphine.

Elimination of the X-waiver increased potential buprenorphine prescribers 13-fold, but growth in prescribing will likely be much lower. We explored self-assessments of nonwaivered primary care clinicians (PCCs) for factors affecting their likelihood to prescribe buprenorphine were the X-waiver eliminated (since realized January 2023) and the potential impacts of a clinical decision-support (CDS) tool for opioid use disorder (OUD). Cross-sectional survey data were obtained between January 2021 and March 2022 from 305 nonwaivered PCCs at 3 health systems. Factors explored were patient requests for buprenorphine, PCC access to an OUD-CDS, and PCC confidence and abilities for 5 OUD-care activities. Relationships were described using descriptive statistics and odds ratios. Only 26% of PCCs were more likely to prescribe buprenorphine upon patient request, whereas 63% were more likely to prescribe with the OUD-CDS. PCC confidence and abilities for some OUD-care activities were associated with increased prescribing likelihood from patient requests, but none were associated with the OUD-CDS. The OUD-CDS may increase buprenorphine prescribing for PCCs less likely to prescribe upon patient request. Future research is needed to develop interventions that increase PCC buprenorphine prescribing. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04198428. Clinical trial name: Clinical Decision Support for Opioid Use Disorders in Medical Settings (Compute 2.0).

Design of a pragmatic clinical trial to improve screening and treatment for opioid use disorder in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-related deaths continue to rise in the U.S. A shared decision-making (SDM) system to help primary care clinicians (PCCs) identify and treat patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) could help address this crisis. METHODS: In this cluster-randomized trial, primary care clinics in three healthcare systems were randomized to receive or not receive access to an OUD-SDM system. The OUD-SDM system alerts PCCs and patients to elevated risk of OUD and supports OUD screening and treatment. It includes guidance on OUD screening and diagnosis, treatment selection, starting and maintaining patients on buprenorphine for waivered clinicians, and screening for common comorbid conditions. The primary study outcome is, of patients at high risk for OUD, the percentage receiving an OUD diagnosis within 30 days of index visit. Additional outcomes are, of patients at high risk for or with a diagnosis of OUD, (a) the percentage receiving a naloxone prescription, or (b) the percentage receiving a medication for OUD (MOUD) prescription or referral to specialty care within 30 days of an index visit, and (c) total days covered by a MOUD prescription within 90 days of an index visit. RESULTS: The intervention started in April 2021 and continues through December 2023. PCCs and patients in 90 clinics are included; study results are expected in 2024. CONCLUSION: This protocol paper describes the design of a multi-site trial to help PCCs recognize and treat OUD. If effective, this OUD-SDM intervention could improve screening of at-risk patients and rates of OUD treatment for people with OUD.

Patient Perspectives on Opioid Risk Discussions in Primary Care.

Purpose: Both patients and clinicians have described discussions of potential opioid risks as challenging. This study's goal was to understand patient perspectives on discussing opioid risks with primary care clinicians (PCCs). Methods: Patients identified to be at elevated risk for problems with opioids (ie, opioid use disorder [OUD] diagnosis, taking a medication for OUD, or having ≥3 opioid prescriptions in the last year) were recruited from an integrated, Upper Midwest health system to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Interview questions aimed to better understand patient views on conversations about opioid risks with PCCs and perceptions of OUD screening and treatment in primary care. Interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: A total of 20 patients participated (mean age: 53.5 years; 65% male). Six themes emerged: 1) archetypes of patient relationships with opioids (long-term opioid use, acute opioid use, OUD in treatment, OUD no treatment) require different approaches in discussing opioid risks; 2) patients may develop their own archetypes about PCCs and opioids; 3) these archetypes may help guide how conversations about opioids are conducted (eg, PCC demeanor, terminology); 4) most patients believe that primary care is an appropriate setting for opioid risk discussions; 5) patients may have limited awareness of the availability and value of overdose rescue medications; and 6) handouts are more acceptable if perceived to come from the PCC's assessment instead of a computer. Conclusions: Results suggest that patients generally perceive discussing opioid risks with PCCs acceptable. PCCs should tailor opioid risk conversations to patients' specific situations and needs.