Factor Analysis in Distinguishing Coronavirus Disease 2019 From Other Influenza-like Illness Using a Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument FLU-PRO Plus: A Prospective Real-world Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: InFLUenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO Plus) is a 34-item patient-reported outcome instrument designed to capture the intensity and frequency of viral respiratory symptoms. This study evaluates whether FLU-PRO Plus responses could discriminate between symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza-like illness (ILI) with no COVID diagnosis, as well as forecast disease progression. METHODS: FLU-PRO Plus was administered daily for 14 days. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the FLU-PRO Plus responses on the first day to 3 factors interpreted as "symptom clusters." The 3 clusters were used to predict COVID-19 versus ILI diagnosis in logistic regression. Correlation between the clusters and quality of life (QoL) measures was used to assess concurrent validity. The timing of self-reported return to usual health in the 14-day period was estimated as a function of the clusters within COVID-19 and ILI groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients completed day 1 FLU-PRO Plus, of which 65% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 symptom clusters: (1)general Body, (2) tracheal/bronchial, and (3) nasopharyngeal. Higher nasopharyngeal scores were associated with higher odds of COVID-19 compared with ILI diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio = 1.61 (1.21, 2.12)]. Higher tracheal/bronchial scores were associated with lower odds of COVID-19 [0.58 (0.44, 0.77)]. The 3 symptom clusters were correlated with multiple QoL measures ( r = 0.14-0.56). Higher scores on the general body and tracheal/bronchial symptom clusters were associated with prolonged time to return to usual health [adjusted hazard ratios: 0.76 (0.64, 0.91), 0.80 (0.67, 0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Three symptom clusters identified from FLU-PRO Plus responses successfully discriminated patients with COVID-19 from non-COVID ILI and were associated with QoL and predicted symptom duration.

Vocational Outcomes of Service Members and Veterans After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate the current literature related to vocational outcomes among US service members and veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Seven research databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) were queried for human studies between the database inception and February, 2020. We included studies that focused on US service members and veterans who sustained a TBI and their vocational outcomes. Conference abstracts, systematic reviews, literature reviews, editorials, consensus reports, commentaries, dissertations, and qualitative studies were excluded. Two rounds of independent reviews were performed. Details of study design, intervention, and vocational outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The search yielded 5667 articles; 48 articles met inclusion criteria. Forty-three studies were observational (90%), and 5 were randomized controlled trials. A majority of interventions were in the outpatient setting (71%). Interventions related to return to work and duty utilized physical therapy and occupational therapy to address cognitive skills and functional deficits and provide supportive employment. CONCLUSION: Community reintegration research among service members and veterans with brain injuries is underdeveloped. Because of heterogeneity of severity and smaller sample sizes, no consensus was reached on interventions that improve vocational outcomes. Evidence thus far suggests that future studies should incorporate an interdisciplinary team approach beyond physical therapy and occupational therapy, longer-term outcomes, and sample subgroups.

Pain management after third molar extractions in adolescents: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how adolescent patients make decisions about pain management after complex dental procedures could help reduce the use of opioid medications and the potential for future opioid misuse in this population. This qualitative study explores how adolescents manage pain, including how decision making with parents and providers affect their experience with opioid and non-opioid analgesics after third molar dental extractions. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach for the analysis of 30 telephone-based semi-structured interviews completed by 15 dyads between May and August 2019, which included 15 adolescents (15-17 years) who underwent a dental extraction, and a parent or guardian for each adolescent. The total sample included 30 participants. Interviews were conducted separately for patients and parents. De-identified interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative analysis software using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 15 patient/parent dyads were interviewed. Key themes associated with pain management included sources of information, pain management behaviors engaged in by the adolescents and their caregivers, and the use of medication. In addition to conversations with their dental provider, most patients and their parents discussed pain management plans that included non-medication options, over-the-counter medications, and opioid medications to be taken as needed, which guided their post-extraction behaviors. All participants reported that the adolescent received an opioid prescription for post-extraction pain management, to be taken on an "as needed" basis, but most only took it the day of the extraction and up to 2 days following, usually based on the patient's reported pain levels and perceptions of over-the-counter medication adequacy. Participants said they did not receive guidance from their provider concerning disposal of unused opioid medications. CONCLUSIONS: Involving adolescents in the pain management decision making process and allowing them to carry out the plan with some caregiver support was acceptable and well executed following third molar extractions. Providers may have an opportunity to reduce the number of opioids prescribed, since respondents reported little to no use of opioids that they were prescribed. Providers should educate patients and their parents about safe disposal of opioids to mitigate the potential for diversion.

Primary care clinicians' opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms. METHODS: This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Systematic surveillance of patient-reported symptoms of viral respiratory tract infectious Syndromes in diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care and be crucial for symptom tracking especially during disease outbreaks. FLU-PRO Plus is a validated PROM used to track viral respiratory symptoms. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using FLU-PRO© Plus, to track symptoms across three healthcare systems. METHODS: The prospective, longitudinal study recruited adults between February-May 2021 from HealthPartners Institute (HP), Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA), and Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS). Adult members were eligible if they had a positive lab or diagnosis for either COVID-19 or influenza-like illness (ILI) or exhibited 2 + viral respiratory symptoms. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the patient characteristics for participants that were eligible for FLU-PRO Plus, successfully contacted, attempted to log in to the FLU-PRO Plus website, and participants who completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression using PROC GLIMMIXX investigated the patient characteristics associated with (1) successful contact and (2) FLU-PRO Plus Day 1 completion. RESULTS: We identified a total of 15,650 eligible participants during the enrollment period: 9,582 from HP, 1,740 from KPGA, and 4,328 from KPMAS. Among the total of 409 eligible adults who attempted to participate in FLU-PRO Plus, 317 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Among the 317 individuals that completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1, 205 (67.5%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; 112 adults diagnosed with COVID-19 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 14. Among adults successfully contacted, adults aged 35-64 (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.05, 1.87), females (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.38, 2.27), and adults diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.27, 2.17) had higher odds of completing FLU-PRO Plus Day 1; Asian adults (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) and Black and African American adults (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) had lower odds compared to White adults. CONCLUSION: Our study reports on the feasibility of patients across three integrated healthcare systems utilizing FLU-PRO Plus to monitor their respiratory symptoms. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care, quality of life, and reduce the strain of limited resources on healthcare systems. Future FLU-PRO Plus studies should develop an implementation strategy to fully integrate FLU-PRO Plus within clinical care and patient management.

FINDINGS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FROM A SMOKING CESSATION TRIAL UTILIZING A CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOL.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of disease, death, and disability in the United States. Dental practitioners are advised to provide evidence-based smoking cessation interventions to their patients, yet dental practitioners frequently fail to deliver brief smoking cessation advice. OBJECTIVES: To test whether giving dental practitioners a clinical decisions support (CDS) system embedded in their electronic dental record would increase the rate at which patients who smoke (1) report receiving a brief intervention or referral to treatment during a recent dental visit, (2) taking action related to smoking cessation within 7 days of visit, and (3) stop smoking for 1 day or more or reduce the amount smoked by 50% within 6 months. METHODS: Two-group, parallel arm, cluster-randomized trial. From March through December 2019, 15 nonacademic primary care dental clinics were randomized via covariate adaptive randomization to either a usual care arm or the CDS arm. Adult smokers completed an initial telephone survey within 7 days of their visit and another survey after 6 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients from 5 CDS and 13 patients from 2 usual care clinics completed the 7-day survey. While the proportion of patients who reported receipt of a brief intervention or referral to treatment was significantly greater in the CDS arm than the usual care arm (84.3% vs 58.6%; P = .005), the differences in percentage of patients who took any action related to smoking cessation within 7 days (44.4% vs 22.3%; P = .077), or stopped smoking for one day or more and/or reduced amount smoked by 50% within 6 months (63.1% vs 46.2%; P = .405) were large but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite interruption by COVID-19, these results demonstrate a promising approach to assist dental practitioners in providing their patients with smoking cessation screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. METHODS: We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. RESULTS: Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) juggle patient cancer prevention and screening along with managing acute and chronic health problems. However, clinical decision support (CDS) may assist PCPs in addressing patients' cancer prevention and screening needs during short clinic visits. In this paper, we describe pre-implementation study design and cancer screening and prevention CDS changes made to maximize utilization and better fit a healthcare system's goals and culture. We employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), useful for evaluating the implementation of CDS interventions in primary care settings, in understanding barriers and facilitators that led to those changes. METHODS: In a three-arm, pragmatic, 36 clinic cluster-randomized control trial, we integrated cancer screening and prevention CDS and shared decision-making tools (SDMT) into an existing electronic medical record-linked cardiovascular risk management CDS system. The integrated CDS is currently being tested within a predominately rural upper Midwestern healthcare system. Prior to CDS implementation, we catalogued pre-implementation changes made from 2016 to 2018 based on: pre-implementation site engagement; key informant interviews with healthcare system rooming staff, providers, and leadership; and pilot testing. We identified influential barriers, facilitators, and changes made in response through qualitative content analysis of meeting minutes and supportive documents. We then coded pre-implementation changes made and associated barriers and facilitators using the CFIR. RESULTS: Based on our findings from system-wide pre-implementation engagement, pilot testing, and key informant interviews, we made changes to accommodate the needs of the healthcare system based on barriers and facilitators that fell within the Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, and Outer Setting CFIR domains. Changes included replacing the expansion of medical assistant roles in one intervention arm with targeted SDMT, as well as altering cancer prevention CDS and study design elements. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-implementation changes to CDS may help meet healthcare systems' evolving needs and optimize the intervention by being responsive to real-world implementation barriers and facilitators. Frameworks like the CFIR are useful tools for identifying areas where pre-implementation barriers and facilitators may result in design changes, both to research studies and CDS systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02986230.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, primary care providers (PCPs) routinely balance acute, chronic, and preventive patient care delivery, including cancer prevention and screening, in time-limited visits. Clinical decision support (CDS) may help PCPs prioritize cancer prevention and screening with other patient needs. In a three-arm, pragmatic, clinic-randomized control trial, we are studying cancer prevention CDS in a large, upper Midwestern healthcare system. The web-based, electronic health record (EHR)-linked CDS integrates evidence-based primary and secondary cancer prevention and screening recommendations into an existing cardiovascular risk management CDS system. Our objective with this study was to identify adoption barriers and facilitators before implementation in primary care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) with 28 key informants employed by the healthcare organization in either leadership roles or the direct provision of clinical care. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: EHR, CDS workflow, CDS users (providers and patients), training, and organizational barriers and facilitators were identified related to Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals CFIR domains. CONCLUSION: Identifying and addressing key informant-identified barriers and facilitators before implementing cancer prevention CDS in primary care may support a successful implementation and sustained use. The CFIR is a useful framework for understanding pre-implementation barriers and facilitators. Based on our findings, the research team developed and instituted specialized training, pilot testing, implementation plans, and post-implementation efforts to maximize identified facilitators and address barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. RESULTS: In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Prioritizing research topics: a comparison of crowdsourcing and patient registry.

PURPOSE: A cornerstone of patient-centered outcome research is direct patient involvement throughout the research process. Identifying and prioritizing research topics is a critical but often overlooked point for involvement, as it guides what research questions are asked. We assess the feasibility of involving individuals with low back pain in identifying and prioritizing research topics using two approaches: an existing patient registry and an online crowdsourcing platform. We compare and contrast the diversity of participants recruited, their responses, and resources involved. METHODS: Eligible participants completed a survey ranking their five highest priority topics from an existing list and supplying additional topics not previously identified. We analyzed their responses using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: The patient registry yielded older (mean age 72.4), mostly White (70%), and well-educated (95% high school diploma or higher) participants; crowdsourcing yielded younger (mean age 36.6 years), mostly White (82%), and well-educated (98% high school diploma or higher) participants. The two approaches resulted in similar research priorities by frequency. Both provided open-ended responses that were useful, in that they illuminate additional and nuanced research topics. Overall, both approaches suggest a preference towards topics related to diagnosis and treatment over other topics. CONCLUSION: Using a patient registry and crowdsourcing are both feasible recruitment approaches for engagement. Researchers should consider their approach, community, and resources when choosing their recruitment approach, as each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses. These approaches are likely most appropriate to supplement or to complement in-person and ongoing engagement strategies.

Surgeon attitudes and practice patterns in managing small bowel obstruction: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Historical training instructs surgeons to, "never let the sun set on a small bowel obstruction (SBO)" due to concern for bowel ischemia. However, the routine use of computed tomography scans for ruling out ischemia provides the opportunity for trial of nonoperative management, allowing time for resolution of adhesive SBO. In light of advances in practice, little is known about how surgeons manage these patients, in particular, whether there is consistency in the stated duration for safe nonoperative management. METHODS: Using a case vignette (a patient with computed tomography scan diagnosed complete SBO without bowel ischemia), we interviewed a purposive sample of general surgeons practicing in Washington State to understand stated approaches to clinical management. Interview questions addressed typical practice, preferred timing of surgery, and approach. We conducted a content analysis to understand current practice and attitudes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 surgeons practicing across Washington State. Surgical practice patterns for patients with SBO varied widely. The period of time that surgeons were willing to manage patients nonoperatively ranged from 1-7 d. Interviews revealed insight into surgical decision-making, the importance of patient preferences, variation in practice, and evidence gaps. All surgeons acknowledged a lack of evidence to support appropriate management of patients with SBO. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews with practicing surgeons highlight a changing paradigm away from routine early surgery for patients with adhesive SBO. However, there is lack of consensus in the appropriate duration of nonoperative management and practices vary considerably. These revealed attitudes inform the feasibility and design of future randomized studies of patients with adhesive SBO.

The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Crowdsourcing in Research Prioritization for Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of patients in research better aligns evidence generation to the gaps that patients themselves face when making decisions about health care. However, obtaining patients' perspectives is challenging. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) has gained popularity over the past decade as a crowdsourcing platform to reach large numbers of individuals to perform tasks for a small reward for the respondent, at small cost to the investigator. The appropriateness of such crowdsourcing methods in medical research has yet to be clarified. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to (1) understand how those on MTurk who screen positive for back pain prioritize research topics compared with those who screen negative for back pain, and (2) determine the qualitative differences in open-ended comments between groups. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional surveys on MTurk to assess participants' back pain and allow them to prioritize research topics. We paid respondents US $0.10 to complete the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) to categorize participants as those "with back pain" and those "without back pain," then offered both those with (RMDQ score ≥7) and those without back pain (RMDQ <7) an opportunity to rank their top 5 (of 18) research topics for an additional US $0.75. We compared demographic information and research priorities between the 2 groups and performed qualitative analyses on free-text commentary that participants provided. RESULTS: We conducted 2 screening waves. We first screened 2189 individuals for back pain over 33 days and invited 480 (21.93%) who screened positive to complete the prioritization, of whom 350 (72.9% of eligible) did. We later screened 664 individuals over 7 days and invited 474 (71.4%) without back pain to complete the prioritization, of whom 397 (83.7% of eligible) did. Those with back pain who prioritized were comparable with those without in terms of age, education, marital status, and employment. The group with back pain had a higher proportion of women (234, 67.2% vs 229, 57.8%, P=.02). The groups' rank lists of research priorities were highly correlated: Spearman correlation coefficient was .88 when considering topics ranked in the top 5. The 2 groups agreed on 4 of the top 5 and 9 of the top 10 research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk support efforts to efficiently reach large groups of individuals to obtain input on research activities. In the context of back pain, a prevalent and easily understood condition, the rank list of those with back pain was highly correlated with that of those without back pain. However, subtle differences in the content and quality of free-text comments suggest supplemental efforts may be needed to augment the reach of crowdsourcing in obtaining perspectives from patients, especially from specific populations.

Engineering the Brain: Ethical Issues and the Introduction of Neural Devices.

Neural devices now under development stand to interact with and alter the human brain in ways that may challenge standard notions of identity, normality, authority, responsibility, privacy and justice.

Scoping review of common secondary conditions after stroke and their associations with age and time post stroke.

BACKGROUND: Health care providers need to be alert to secondary conditions that might develop after stroke so that these conditions can be prevented or treated early to reduce further deterioration of health and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review and describe the prevalence of secondary conditions after stroke and to summarize associations between secondary conditions and age and time post stroke. METHODS: A scoping review of studies pertaining to secondary conditions after stroke published between 1986 and 2011 was conducted. RESULTS: Seventy-six articles provided information regarding 6 secondary conditions: depression, pain, falls, fatigue, bowel/bladder problems, and sleep difficulties. Prevalence varied widely across studies for each condition. The limited repeated-measures evidence suggests that secondary conditions tend to occur in the first weeks or months post stroke and may remain relatively stable over time. Other evidence from regression analyses suggests either no significant associations between time post stroke or age or mixed results. Secondary conditions appear to be most commonly associated with severity of impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers need to be alert to the development of secondary conditions after stroke in individuals as they age as well as in the poststroke time span. Obtaining a clear understanding of the prevalence of secondary conditions and associations with age and time post stroke is difficult because of variations in research methodologies. Future research is needed to define secondary condition prevalence and risk factors more clearly and to identify interventions that could reduce the prevalence and impact of these conditions on quality of life.

Protocol of a patient randomized clinical trial to improve medication adherence in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced awareness of poor medication adherence could improve patient care. This article describes the original and adapted protocols of a randomized trial to improve medication adherence for cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: The original protocol entailed a cluster randomized trial of 28 primary care clinics allocated to either (i) medication adherence enhanced chronic disease care clinical decision support (eCDC-CDS) integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) or (ii) usual care (non-enhanced CDC-CDS). Enhancements comprised (a) electronic interfaces printed for patients and clinicians at primary care encounters that encouraged discussion about specific medication adherence issues that were identified, and (b) pharmacist phone outreach. Study subjects were individuals who at an index visit were aged 18-74 years and not at evidence-based care goals for hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), or lipid management, along with low medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] <80%) for a corresponding medication. The primary study outcomes were improved medication adherence and clinical outcomes (BP and A1C) at 12 months. Protocol adaptation became imperative in response to major implementation challenges: (a) the availability of EHR system-wide PDC calculations that superseded our ability to limit PDC adherence information solely to intervention clinics; (b) the unforeseen closure of pharmacies committed to conducting the pharmacist outreach; and (c) disruptions and clinic closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: This manuscript details the protocol of a study to assess whether enhanced awareness of medication adherence issues in primary care settings could improve patient outcomes. The need for protocol adaptation arose in response to multiple implementation challenges.

De-Implementing Opioids for Dental Extractions (DIODE): a multi-clinic, cluster-randomized trial of clinical decision support strategies in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain relievers are commonly prescribed following dental extractions, but evidence shows that non-opioid analgesics often provide adequate pain relief with fewer risks. The current study examined clinical decision support (CDS) as a tool for de-implementing opioid prescribing in dentistry. METHODS: This prospective, cluster-randomized trial examined CDS for dental pain management at 22 HealthPartners Dental Group clinics in Minnesota. Dental providers (n = 49) were randomized to deliver care using CDS, CDS with patient education materials (CDS-E), or standard practice (SP). Randomization was stratified by provider type (dentist vs. oral surgeon) and baseline opioid prescribing volume. Patient records of dental extractions were examined for January 2019 through May 2021, representing a 12-month baseline and 15-month intervention period (N = 12,924). Opioid prescription at the visit (no vs. yes) was the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, adjusting for patient sex and age, extraction complexity, and baseline prescribing strata (volume and provider type). RESULTS: Patients were 56.2% female, with a mean age of 46.7 (SD = 20.0) years. Providers were 8% oral surgeons, 57% female, and with a mean age of 43.7 (SD = 11.2) years. There were significant decreases in opioid prescribing during the study (P < 0.001), representing a continuation of pre-existing trends to reduce opioid prescribing in these dental practices. There were no significant differences in opioid prescribing between CDS and SP (OR = 1.29; 97.5% CI = 0.93, 1.79; P = 0.08), or CDS-E and SP arms (OR = 1.27; 97.5% CI = 0.86, 1.79; P = 0.18). The direction of the association favored greater reductions in opioid prescribing in the SP arm. Despite training and implementation support, utilization of the CDS was low, particularly among oral surgeons, who were significantly more likely than other dentists to prescribe opioids. Among non-oral surgeon providers with the opportunity to access it, CDS utilization was not significantly associated with opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Equipping dentists with CDS resources, whether alone or accompanied by patient education materials, did not accelerate reductions in opioid prescribing beyond those observed in standard practice. Strategies are needed to enhance CDS utilization for patient care and safety surrounding analgesia following dental extractions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03584789.

De-implementing opioid prescribing in a dental group practice: Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose has become a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of deaths from drug overdoses increased 137%, including a 200% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioids (including opioid pain relievers and heroin). Unnecessary opioid prescribing is one of the factors driving this epidemic. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this paper is to share lessons learned while conducting a randomized trial to de-implement opioids for post-extraction pain management utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) with and without patient education. The lessons learned from conducting this trial in a real-world setting can be applied to future dissemination and implementation oral health research. METHODS: The sources informing lessons learned were generated from qualitative interviews conducted with 20 of the forty-nine dental providers involved in the study following the implementation phase of the trial. Ongoing policy, social and environmental factors were tracked throughout the study. RESULTS: Dental providers in the trial identified the impact of training that involved health professionals sharing information about the personal impact of pain and opioid use. Additionally, they found utility in being presented with a dashboard detailing their prescribing patterns related to other dentists. For the 30 general dentists with access to the CDS, use of its portal varied widely, with most using it 10%-49% of the time related to extractions. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a downward trend in opioid prescribing and considering the influence of the COVID pandemic during the trial, dental providers indicated benefit in training about negative personal impacts of prescribing opioids, and personally relevant feedback about their prescribing patterns. Only modest use of the CDS was realized. Implementation of this trial was impacted by governmental and health system policies and the COVID pandemic, prompt the consideration of implications regarding continuing ways to limit opioid prescribing among dental providers.

Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Opioid Prescriptions for Dental Extractions using SMART on FHIR: Implementation Report.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has the potential to improve clinical decision-making consistent with evidence-based care. CDS can be designed to save health care providers time and help them provide safe and personalized analgesic prescribing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe the development of a CDS system designed to provide dentists with personalized pain management recommendations to reduce opioid prescribing following extractions. The use of CDS is also examined. METHODS: This study was conducted in HealthPartners, which uses an electronic health record (EHR) system that integrates both medical and dental information upon which the CDS application was developed based on SMART (Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies) on FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources). The various tools used to bring relevant medical conditions, medications, patient history, and other relevant data into the CDS interface are described. The CDS application runs a drug interaction algorithm developed by our organization and provides patient-specific recommendations. The CDS included access to the state Prescription Monitoring Program database. IMPLEMENTATION (RESULTS): The pain management CDS was implemented as part of a study examining opioid prescribing among patients undergoing dental extraction procedures from February 17, 2020, to May 14, 2021. Provider-level use of CDS at extraction encounters ranged from 0% to 87.4% with 12.1% of providers opening the CDS for no encounters, 39.4% opening the CDS for 1%-20% of encounters, 36.4% opening it for 21%-50% of encounters, and 12.1% opening it for 51%-87% of encounters. CONCLUSIONS: The pain management CDS is an EHR-embedded, provider-facing tool to help dentists make personalized pain management recommendations following dental extractions. The SMART on FHIR-based pain management CDS adapted well to the point-of-care dental setting and led to the design of a scalable CDS tool that is EHR vendor agnostic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03584789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03584789.