A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Clinician Education Modules on Reducing Surgical Opioid Prescribing.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we developed online interactive clinician education modules highlighting best practices to minimize opioid prescribing at discharge after surgery. The modules were implemented as part of a multicomponent quality improvement initiative across a six-hospital health system. This article describes the development and evaluation of this educational intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinician education modules targeting surgical prescribers, nurses, and pharmacists were developed and implemented by an interdisciplinary team. Clinicians were invited to participate in an evaluation survey after completing the modules. Survey items assessed clinicians' rating of the module and intention to change clinical practice because of the module. Quantitative and qualitative survey responses were analyzed by the study team. RESULTS: A total of 2119 clinicians completed the module and 1831 of these clinicians (86.4%) completed the survey. Of clinicians completing the survey, 65.6% reported that they intend to change clinical practice after completing the module. Intended changes were related to increased knowledge and awareness, provider empowerment, opioid prescribing practices, nonopioid prescribing practices, and patient education. Many clinicians who indicated they do not intend to change practice reported that their clinical practices were already in line with module recommendations. Some clinicians did not perceive the module to be relevant to their role. CONCLUSIONS: Module completion was associated with the intention to improve clinical practice in areas related to provider empowerment, opioid prescribing, nonopioid prescribing, and patient education. Evaluation data will inform future module improvements. There is an opportunity to ensure that all clinicians, including those who are not prescribers, recognize their role in opioid stewardship.

Minimizing Opioid Prescribing in Surgery (MOPiS) Initiative: An Analysis of Implementation Barriers.

BACKGROUND: The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic. In response, our institution developed the Minimizing Opioid Prescribing in Surgery (MOPiS) initiative. MOPiS is a multicomponent intervention including: (1) patient education on opioid safety and pain management expectations; (2) clinician education on safe opioid prescribing; (3) prescribing data feedback; (4) patient risk screening to assess for addictive behavior; and (5) optimizations to the electronic health record (EHR). We conducted a preintervention formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 22 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (surgeons, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators) at six hospitals within a single health care system. Interviewees were asked about perceived barriers and facilitators to the components of the intervention. Responses were analyzed to identify common themes using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: We identified common themes of potential implementation barriers and classified them under 12 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains and three intervention domains. Time and resource constraints (needs and resources), the modality of educational material (design quality and packaging), and prescribers' concern for patient satisfaction scores (external policy and incentives) were identified as the most significant structural barriers. Resident physicians, pharmacists, and pain specialists were identified as potential key facilitating actors to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We identified specific barriers to successful implementation of an opioid reduction initiative in a surgical setting. In our MOPiS initiative, a preintervention formative evaluation enabled the design of strategies that will overcome implementation barriers specific to the components of our initiative.

Talk-time in the emergency department: duration of patient-provider conversations during an emergency department visit.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of patient flow through the emergency department (ED) typically focus on metrics such as wait time, total length of stay (LOS), or boarding time. Less is known about how much interaction a patient has with clinicians after being placed in a room, or what proportion of their in-room visit is also spent waiting. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the proportion of time that a patient spent in conversation with providers during an ED visit. METHODS: Seventy-four audio-taped encounters of patients with low-acuity diagnoses were analyzed. Recorded ED visits were edited to remove downtime. The proportion of time the patient spent in conversation with providers (talk-time) was calculated as follows: (talk-time = [edited audio time/{LOS - door-to-doctor time}]). RESULTS: Participants were 46% male; mean age was 41 years (standard deviation 15.7 years). Median LOS was 126 min (interquartile range [IQR] 96 to 163 min), median time in a patient care area was 76 min (IQR 55 to 122 min). Median time in conversation with providers was 19 min (IQR 14 to 27 min), corresponding to a talk-time percentage of 24.9% (IQR 17.8%-35%). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that patients with older age, longer visits, and those requiring a procedure had more talk-time: total talk-time = 13 s + 9 s × (total time in room in minutes) + 8 s × (years in age of patient) + 482 s × (procedural diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 75% of a patient's time in a care area is spent not interacting with providers. Although some of the time waiting is out of the providers' control (eg, awaiting imaging studies), this significant downtime represents an opportunity for both process improvement efforts and innovative patient-education efforts to make use of remaining downtime.

Development of a screening and brief intervention and referral for treatment for ED patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Providing a screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment (SBIRT) may encourage patients to obtain provider follow-up for definitive evaluation and treatment of undiagnosed hypertension (HTN). The aims of this study were to determine characteristics of an intervention that would persuade patients to follow-up with a primary care physician for further blood pressure (BP) evaluation, and encourage ED clinicians to provide an SBIRT for patients with elevated BP with no known history of HTN. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to analyze individual interviews with ED clinicians and patients. Questions focused on participants' opinions of the meaning of elevated BP, and facilitators and barriers to recommending referral for follow-up (clinicians) or facilitators and barriers to making and keeping a follow-up appointment (patients). Three reviewers coded the interviews using grounded theory. RESULTS: Clinicians identified time constraints and patient-specific factors such as difficulty securing follow-up as major barriers. Some clinicians considered an electronic reminder as a potential facilitator to providing counseling. Patients reported family support and information about complications of uncontrolled HTN such as stroke would increase the likelihood of follow-up. Patient-specific barriers to follow-up included inability to obtain time off from work, forgetfulness, and wait time for an appointment. CONCLUSIONS: An SBIRT-HTN could be developed to target patients with elevated BP during an ED visit. The intervention must be simple, easy to implement, and include automated processes to remind clinicians to deliver the intervention. The intervention should include a description of the complications of untreated HTN and an outpatient physician referral.

Patient input into the development and enhancement of ED discharge instructions: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research indicates that patients have difficulty understanding ED discharge instructions; these findings have important implications for adherence and outcomes. The objective of this study was to obtain direct patient input to inform specific revisions to discharge documents created through a literacy-guided approach and to identify common themes within patient feedback that can serve as a framework for the creation of discharge documents in the future. METHODS: Based on extensive literature review and input from ED providers, subspecialists, and health literacy and communication experts, discharge instructions were created for 5 common ED diagnoses. Participants were recruited from a federally qualified health center to participate in a series of 5 focus group sessions. Demographic information was obtained and a Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) assessment was performed. During each of the 1-hour focus group sessions, participants reviewed discharge instructions for 1 of 5 diagnoses. Participants were asked to provide input into the content, organization, and presentation of the documents. Using qualitative techniques, latent and manifest content analysis was performed to code for emergent themes across all 5 diagnoses. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of participants were female and the average age was 32 years. The average REALM score was 57.3. Through qualitative analysis, 8 emergent themes were identified from the focus groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient input provides meaningful guidance in the development of diagnosis-specific discharge instructions. Several themes and patterns were identified, with broad significance for the design of ED discharge instructions.

Examining emergency department communication through a staff-based participatory research method: identifying barriers and solutions to meaningful change.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We test an initiative with the staff-based participatory research (SBPR) method to elicit communication barriers and engage staff in identifying strategies to improve communication within our emergency department (ED). METHODS: ED staff at an urban hospital with 85,000 ED visits per year participated in a 3.5-hour multidisciplinary workshop. The workshop was offered 6 times and involved: (1) large group discussion to review the importance of communication within the ED and discuss findings from a recent survey of patient perceptions of ED-team communication; (2) small group discussions eliciting staff perceptions of communication barriers and best practices/strategies to address these challenges; and (3) large group discussions sharing and refining emergent themes and suggested strategies. Three coders analyzed summaries from group discussions by using latent content and constant comparative analysis to identify focal themes. RESULTS: A total of 127 staff members, including attending physicians, residents, nurses, ED assistants, and secretaries, participated in the workshop (overall participation rate 59.6%; range 46.7% to 73.3% by staff type). Coders identified a framework of 4 themes describing barriers and proposed interventions: (1) greeting and initial interaction, (2) setting realistic expectations, (3) team communication and respect, and (4) information provision and delivery. The majority of participants (81.4%) reported that their participation would cause them to make changes in their clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Involving staff in discussing barriers and facilitators to communication within the ED can result in a meaningful process of empowerment, as well as the identification of feasible strategies and solutions at both the individual and system levels.

Understanding patient-provider conversations: what are we talking about?

OBJECTIVES: Effective patient-provider communication is a critical aspect of the delivery of high-quality patient care; however, research regarding the conversational dynamics of an overall emergency department (ED) visit remains unexplored. Identifying both patterns and relative frequency of utterances within these interactions will help guide future efforts to improve the communication between patients and providers within the ED setting. The objective of this study was to analyze complete audio recordings of ED visits to characterize these conversations and to determine the proportion of the conversation spent on different functional categories of communication. METHODS: Patients at an urban academic ED with four diagnoses (ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, and laceration) were recruited to have their ED visits audio recorded from the time of room placement until discharge. Patients were excluded if they were age < 18 years, were non-English-speaking, had significant history of psychiatric disease or cognitive impairment, or were medically unstable. Audio editing was performed to remove all silent downtime and non-patient-provider conversations. Audiotapes were analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). RIAS is the most widely used medical interaction analysis system; coders assign each "utterance" (or complete thought) spoken by the patient or provider to one of 41 mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all 41 categories and then grouped according to RIAS standards for "functional groupings." The percentage of total utterances in each functional grouping is reported. RESULTS: Twenty-six audio recordings were analyzed. Patient participants had a mean (±SD) age of 38.8 (±16.0) years, and 30.8% were male. Intercoder reliability was good, with mean intercoder correlations of 0.76 and 0.67 for all categories of provider and patient talk, respectively. Providers accounted for the majority of the conversation in the tapes (median = 239 utterances, interquartile range [IQR] = 168 to 308) compared to patients (median = 145 utterances, IQR = 80 to 198). Providers' utterances focused most on patient education and counseling (34%), followed by patient facilitation and activation (e.g., orienting the patient to the next steps in the ED or asking if the patient understood; 30%). Approximately 15% of the provider talk was spent on data gathering, with the majority (86%) focusing on biomedical topics rather than psychosocial topics (14%). Building a relationship with the patient (e.g., social talk, jokes/laughter, showing approval, or empathetic statements) constituted 22% of providers' talk. Patients' conversation was mainly focused in two areas: information giving (47% of patient utterances: 83% biomedical, 17% psychosocial) and building a relationship (45% of patient utterances). Only 5% of patients' utterances were devoted to question asking. Patient-centeredness scores were low. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, both providers and patients spent a significant portion of their talk time providing information to one another, as might be expected in the fast-paced ED setting. Less expected was the result that a large percentage of both provider and patient utterances focused on relationship building, despite the lack of traditional, longitudinal provider-patient relationships.

Emergency Department Discharge Instructions: Lessons Learned through Developing New Patient Education Materials.

Our multidisciplinary team developed a new set of discharge instructions for five common emergency department diagnoses using recommended tools for creating literacy-appropriate and patient-centered education materials. We found that the recommended tools for document creation were essential in constructing the new instructions. However, while the tools were necessary, they were not sufficient. This paper describes the insights gained and lessons learned in this document creation process.

Patient understanding of emergency department discharge instructions: where are knowledge deficits greatest?

OBJECTIVES: Many patients are discharged from the emergency department (ED) with an incomplete understanding of the information needed to safely care for themselves at home. Patients have demonstrated particular difficulty in understanding post-ED care instructions (including medications, home care, and follow-up). The objective of this study was to further characterize these deficits and identify gaps in knowledge that may place the patient at risk for complications or poor outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort, phone interview-based study of 159 adult English-speaking patients within 24 to 36 hours of ED discharge. Patient knowledge was assessed for five diagnoses (ankle sprain, back pain, head injury, kidney stone, and laceration) across the following five domains: diagnosis, medications, home care, follow-up, and return instructions. Knowledge was determined based on the concordance between direct patient recall and diagnosis-specific discharge instructions combined with chart review. Two authors scored each case independently and discussed discrepancies before providing a final score for each domain (no, minimal, partial, or complete comprehension). Descriptive statistics were used for the analyses. RESULTS: The study population was 50% female with a median age of 41 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 29 to 53 years). Knowledge deficits were demonstrated by the majority of patients in the domain of home care instructions (80%) and return instructions (79%). Less frequent deficits were found for the domains of follow-up (39%), medications (22%), and diagnosis (14%). Minimal or no understanding in at least one domain was demonstrated by greater than two-thirds of patients and was found in 40% of cases for home care and 51% for return instructions. These deficits occurred less frequently for domains of follow-up (18%), diagnosis (3%), and medications (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrate the most frequent knowledge deficits for home care and return instructions, raising significant concerns for adherence and outcomes.