Pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of simulation training on high-risk prescribing to older adults by junior physicians.

BACKGROUND: High-risk medications like benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for hospitalized older adults, despite guidelines recommending avoidance. Prior interventions have not fully addressed how physicians make such prescribing decisions, particularly when experiencing stress or cognitive overload. Simulation training may help improve prescribing decision-making but has not been evaluated for overprescribing. METHODS: In this two-arm pragmatic trial, we randomized 40 first-year medical resident physicians (i.e., interns) on inpatient general medicine services at an academic medical center to either intervention (a 40-minute immersive simulation training) or control (online educational training) groups. The primary outcome was the number of new benzodiazepine, sedative hypnotic, or antipsychotic orders for treatment-naïve older adults during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the same outcome by all providers, being discharged on one of the medications, and orders for related or control medications. Outcomes were measured using electronic health record data over each intern's service period (~2 weeks). Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations, adjusting for clustering. RESULTS: In total, 522 treatment-naïve older adult patients were included in analyses. Over follow-up, interns prescribed ≥1 high-risk medication for 13 (4.9%) intervention patients and 13 (5.0%) control patients. The intervention led to no difference in the number of new prescriptions (Rate Ratio [RR]: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.31-2.35) versus control and no difference in secondary outcomes. In secondary analyses, intervention interns wrote significantly fewer "as-needed" ("PRN") order types for the high-risk medications (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.08-0.99), and instead tended to write more "one-time" orders than control interns, though this difference was not statistically significant (RR: 2.20, 95%CI: 0.60-7.99). CONCLUSIONS: Although this simulation intervention did not impact total high-risk prescribing for hospitalized older adults, it did influence how the interns prescribed, resulting in fewer PRN orders, suggesting possibly greater ownership of care. Future interventions should consider this insight and implementation lessons raised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04668248).

"How" Versus "Why" Messaging to Increase Uptake of Booster Vaccination Against COVID-19: Results of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Messages aimed at increasing uptake of vaccines have been modestly successful, perhaps in part because they often focus on why individuals should receive a vaccine. Construal Level Theory posits that messages emphasizing "how" to get a vaccine may be more effective at encouraging vaccination than emphasizing "why." This message framing may be particularly important for COVID-19 booster acceptance. OBJECTIVE: To determine if pre-visit patient portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory increase rates of COVID-19 booster vaccination. DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: This 3-arm randomized trial was conducted across three large, diverse primary care clinics in Massachusetts between February and May 2022, testing the impact of "how" versus "why" framed pre-visit messages versus no messages ("usual care"). Messages were sent by patient portal two business days before a visit. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with upcoming primary care visits who had electronic health record evidence of receiving their initial COVID-19 vaccination series but not a booster dose. MAIN MEASURES: Receipt of a COVID-19 booster vaccination after the message was sent through the visit date (primary outcome) or 6 weeks (secondary outcome). KEY RESULTS: A total of 3665 patients were randomized (mean age: 53.5 years (SD: 17.3), 59% female, 65.2% White, 26.6% Hispanic), with 1249 to "how" 1199 to "why," and 1217 to usual care arms. Except for clinic and preferred language, characteristics were well balanced across arms. Rates of COVID-19 booster were 13.6% (usual care), 11.7% ("how") (odds ratio (OR) "how" vs usual care: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.67-1.14), and 13.7% ("why") ("why" vs usual care: OR: 1.01, 95%CI: 0.81-1.28). At 6 weeks, "why" outperformed "how" for vaccination (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 1.06-1.49), with no difference versus usual care. CONCLUSIONS: We found no differences on visit booster receipt after single pre-visit portal messages designed using Construal Level Theory. Further studies to identify effective messaging interventions are needed, especially as additional doses are recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT04871776 . Initial release occurred 04/30/2021.

Prescribing decision making by medical residents on night shifts: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing of medications with well-known adverse effects, like antipsychotics or benzodiazepines, during hospitalisation is extremely common despite guideline recommendations against their use. Barriers to optimal prescribing, including perceived pressure from allied health professionals and fatigue, may be particularly pronounced for less experienced medical residents, especially during night shifts when these medications are often prescribed. Under these circumstances, physicians may be more likely to use 'quick', often referred to as System 1 choices, rather than 'considered' System 2 strategies for decisions. Understanding how medical residents use, these different cognitive approaches could help develop interventions to improve prescribing. METHODS: To understand decision-making and contextual contributors that influence suboptimal prescribing during night coverage by medical residents, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with residents in general medicine inpatient settings. The interviews elicited perspectives on shift routines, stressful situations, factors influencing prescribing decision making and hypothetical measures that could improve prescribing. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using codes developed by the team to generate themes using immersion/crystallisation approaches. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 21 medical residents; 47% were female, 43% were White, and 43% were Asian. We identified five key themes: (i) time pressures affecting prescribing decisions, (ii) fears of judgement by senior physicians and peers and being responsible for patient outcomes, (iii) perceived pressure from nursing staff, amplified by nurses' greater experience, (iv) clinical acuity as a key factor influencing prescribing, and (v) strategies to improve communication between members of the care team, like ensuring adequate hand-off by day teams. CONCLUSION: Medical residents highlighted numerous contextual factors that promote quick thinking rather than slower thinking when prescribing on night shifts, particularly time constraints, perceived pressure and patient clinical acuity. Interventions aimed at reducing prescribing should address how to manage stress and perceived pressure in decision making.

Overcoming Decisional Gaps in High-Risk Prescribing by Junior Physicians Using Simulation-Based Training: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Gaps between rational thought and actual decisions are increasingly recognized as a reason why people make suboptimal choices in states of heightened emotion, such as stress. These observations may help explain why high-risk medications continue to be prescribed to acutely ill hospitalized older adults despite widely accepted recommendations against these practices. Role playing and other efforts, such as simulation training, have demonstrated benefits to help people avoid decisional gaps but have not been tested to reduce overprescribing of high-risk medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the impact of a simulation-based training program designed to address decisional gaps on prescribing of high-risk medications compared with control. METHODS: In this 2-arm pragmatic trial, we are randomizing at least 36 first-year medical resident physicians (ie, interns) who provide care on inpatient general medicine services at a large academic medical center to either intervention (simulation-based training) or control (online educational training). The intervention comprises a 40-minute immersive individual simulation training consisting of a reality-based patient care scenario in a simulated environment at the beginning of their inpatient service rotation. The simulation focuses on 3 types of high-risk medications, including benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and sedative hypnotics (Z-drugs), in older adults, and is specifically designed to help the physicians identify their reactions and prescribing decisions in stressful situations that are common in the inpatient setting. The simulation scenario is followed by a semistructured debriefing with an expert facilitator. The trial's primary outcome is the number of medication doses for any of the high-risk medications prescribed by the interns to patients aged 65 years or older who were not taking one of the medications upon admission. Secondary outcomes include prescribing by all providers on the care team, being discharged on 1 of the medications, and prescribing of related medications (eg, melatonin, trazodone), or the medications of interest for the control intervention. These outcomes will be measured using electronic health record data. RESULTS: Recruitment of interns began on March 29, 2021. Recruitment for the trial ended in Q42021, with follow-up completed by Q12022. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will evaluate the impact of a simulation-based training program designed using behavioral science principles on prescribing of high-risk medications by junior physicians. If the intervention is shown to be effective, this approach could potentially be reproducible by others and for a broader set of behaviors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04668248; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04668248. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31464.

Randomised controlled trial targeting habit formation to improve medication adherence to daily oral medications in patients with gout.

INTRODUCTION: Medication adherence for patients with chronic conditions such as gout, a debilitating form of arthritis that requires daily medication to prevent flares, is a costly problem. Existing interventions to improve medication adherence have only been moderately effective. Habit formation theory is a promising strategy to improve adherence. The cue-reward-repetition principle posits that habits are formed by repeatedly completing an activity after the same cue and having the action rewarded every time. Over time, cues become increasingly important whereas rewards become less salient because the action becomes automatic. Leveraging the cue-reward-repetition principle could improve adherence to daily gout medications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This three-arm parallel randomised controlled trial tests an adaptive intervention that leverages the repetition cue-reward principle. The trial will began recruitment in August 2021 in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Eligible patients are adults with gout who have been prescribed a daily oral medication for gout and whose most recent uric acid is above 6 mg/dL. Participants will be randomised to one of three arms and given electronic pill bottles. In the two intervention arms, participants will select a daily activity to link to their medication-taking (cue) and a charity to which money will be donated every time they take their medication (reward). Participants in Arm 1 will receive reminder texts about their cue and their charity reward amount will be US$0.50 per day of medication taken. Arm 2 will be adaptive; participants will receive a US$0.25 per adherent-day and no reminder texts. If their adherence is <75% 6 weeks postrandomisation, their reward will increase to US$0.50 per adherent-day and they will receive reminder texts. The primary outcome is adherence to gout medications over 18 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has ethical approval in the USA. Results will be published in a publicly accessible peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04776161.

Improving Chronic Disease Self-Management by Older Home Health Patients through Community Health Coaching.

The purpose of the study was to pilot test a model to reduce hospital readmissions and emergency department use of rural, older adults with chronic diseases discharged from home health services (HHS) through the use of volunteers. The study's priority population consistently experiences poorer health outcomes than their urban counterparts due in part to lower socioeconomic status, reduced access to health services, and incidence of chronic diseases. When they are hospitalized for complications due to poorly managed chronic diseases, they are frequently readmitted for the same conditions. This pilot study examines the use of volunteer community members who were trained as Health Coaches to mentor discharged HHS patients in following the self-care plan developed by their HHS RN; improving chronic disease self-management behaviors; reducing risk of falls, pneumonia, and flu; and accessing community resources. Program participants increased their ability to monitor and track their chronic health conditions, make positive lifestyle changes, and reduce incidents of falls, pneumonia and flu. Although differences in the ED and hospital admission rates after discharge from HHS between the treatment and comparison group (matched for gender, age, and chronic condition) were not statistically significant, the treatment group's rate was less than the comparison group thus suggesting a promising impact of the HC program (90 day: 263 comparison vs. 129 treatment; p = 0.65; 180 day 666.67 vs. 290.32; p = 0.19). The community health coach model offers a potential approach for improving the ability of discharged older home health patients to manage chronic conditions and ultimately reduce emergent care.

The ACA's Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers.

Issue: Without the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) made available by the Affordable Care Act, health plans sold in the marketplaces may be unaffordable for many low-income people. CSRs are available to households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level that choose a silver-level marketplace plan. In 2016, about 7 million people received cost-sharing reductions that substantially lowered their deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits. Goal: To examine variations in consumer cost-sharing reductions between silver-level plans with CSRs to traditional marketplace plans and to employer-based insurance. Methods: Data analysis of 1,209 CSR-eligible plans sold in individual marketplaces in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Key findings and conclusions: Cost-sharing amounts in silver plans with CSRs are much less than those in non-CSR base silver plans; silver plans with CSRs generally offer far better financial protection than those without. General annual deductibles range from $246 for CSR silver plans with a platinum-level actuarial value (94%) to as much as $3,063 for non-CSR silver plans. Out-of-pocket limits vary from $6,223 in base silver plans to $1,102 in silver plans with CSRs and a platinum-level actuarial level.

Changes in Consumer Cost-Sharing for Health Plans Sold in the ACA's Insurance Marketplaces, 2015 to 2016.

This brief examines changes in consumer health plan cost-sharing--deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits--for coverage offered in the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces between 2015 and 2016. Three of seven measures studied rose moderately in 2016, an increase attributable in part to a shift in the mix of plans offered in the marketplaces, from plans with higher actuarial value (platinum and gold plans) to those that have less generous coverage (bronze and silver plans). Nearly 60 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans receive cost-sharing reductions as part of income-based assistance. For enrollees without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits remain considerably higher under bronze and silver plans than under employer-based plans; cost-sharing is similar in gold plans and employer plans. Marketplace plans are more likely than employer-based plans to impose a deductible for prescription drugs but no less likely to do so for primary care visits.

In Second Year Of Marketplaces, New Entrants, ACA 'Co-Ops,' And Medicaid Plans Restrain Average Premium Growth Rates.

Premiums for health insurance plans offered through the federally facilitated and state-based Marketplaces remained steady or increased only modestly from 2014 to 2015. We used data from the Marketplaces, state insurance departments, and insurer websites to examine patterns of premium pricing and the factors behind these patterns. Our data came from 2,964 unique plans offered in 2014 and 4,153 unique plans offered in 2015 in forty-nine states and the District of Columbia. Using descriptive and multivariate analysis, we found that the addition of a carrier in a rating area lowered average premiums for the two lowest-cost silver plans and the lowest-cost bronze plan by 2.2 percent. When all plans in a rating area were included, an additional carrier was associated with an average decline in premiums of 1.4 percent. Plans in the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program and Medicaid managed care plans had lower premiums and average premium increases than national commercial and Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. On average, premiums fell by an appreciably larger amount for catastrophic and bronze plans than for gold plans, and premiums for platinum plans increased. This trend of low premium increases overall is unlikely to continue, however, as insurers are faced with mounting medical claims.

Consumer Cost-Sharing in Marketplace vs. Employer Health Insurance Plans, 2015.

Using data from 49 states and Washington, D.C., we analyzed changes in cost-sharing under health plans offered to individuals and families through state and federal exchanges from 2014 to 2015. We examined eight vehicles for cost-sharing, including deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits, and compared findings with cost-sharing under employer-based insurance. We found cost-sharing under marketplace plans remained essentially unchanged from 2014 to 2015. Stable premiums during that period do not reflect greater costs borne by enrollees. Further, 56 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans attained cost-sharing reductions in 2015. However, for people without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits under catastrophic, bronze, and silver plans are considerably higher than under employer-based plans on average, while cost-sharing under gold plans is similar employer-based plans on average. Marketplace plans are far more likely than employer-based plans to require enrollees to meet deductibles before they receive coverage for prescription drugs.