The addiction consultation service for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder: An integrative review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: The Addiction Consultation Service has emerged as a model of care for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder. The aim of this integrative review is to characterize the Addiction Consultation Service in general hospital settings, assess its impact on clinical outcomes, identify knowledge gaps, and offer guidance for implementation. METHODS: We conducted an integrative review of studies from January 2002 to August 2023, applying specific inclusion criteria to collect study design, service characteristics, staffing models, utilization, and health outcomes. Additionally, a comprehensive quality appraisal was conducted for all studies considered for inclusion. RESULTS: Findings from 41 studies meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized and tabulated. Study designs included six reports from three randomized controlled trials, five descriptive studies, and 30 observational studies. The most common study setting was the urban academic medical center. Studies evaluated the structure, process, and outcomes of the Addiction Consultation Service. A majority of studies, particularly those utilizing more rigorous designs, reported positive outcomes involving medication initiation, linkage to post-discharge care, and utilization outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The Addiction Consultation Service care model improves quality of care for hospitalized patients with substance use disorder. Additional research is needed to assess its effectiveness across diverse medical settings, determine the effectiveness of varying staffing models, demonstrate impactful outcomes, and establish funding mechanisms to support sustainability.

Contextual barriers and enablers to establishing an addiction-focused consultation team for hospitalized adults with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context.

Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy vs Antidepressants for Depression in Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure (HF) affects more than 6 million adults in the US and more than 64 million adults worldwide, with 50% prevalence of depression. Patients and clinicians lack information on which interventions are more effective for depression in HF. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of behavioral activation psychotherapy (BA) vs antidepressant medication management (MEDS) on patient-centered outcomes inpatients with HF and depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial was conducted from 2018 to 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 million people from diverse demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic backgrounds. Participant included inpatients and outpatients diagnosed with HF and depression, and data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023. Interventions: BA is an evidence-based manualized treatment for depression, promoting engagement in personalized pleasurable activities selected by patients. MEDS involves the use of an evidence-based collaborative care model with care managers providing coordination with patients, psychiatrists, and primary care physicians to only administer medications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes included physical and mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), measured using the Short-Form 12-Item version 2 (SF-12); heart failure-specific HRQOL, measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; caregiver burden, measured with the Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure; emergency department visits; readmissions; days hospitalized; and mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 416 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.71 [15.61] years; 243 [58.41%] male) were enrolled, with 208 patients randomized to BA and 208 patients randomized to MEDS. At baseline, mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores were 14.54 (3.45) in the BA group and 14.31 (3.60) in the MEDS group; both BA and MEDS recipients experienced nearly 50% reduction in depressive symptoms at 3, 6, and 12 months (eg, mean [SD] score at 12 months: BA, 7.62 (5.73); P < .001; MEDS, 7.98 (6.06); P < .001; between-group P = .55). There was no statistically significant difference between BA and MEDS in the primary outcome of PHQ-9 at 6 months (mean [SD] score, 7.53 [5.74] vs 8.09 [6.06]; P = .88). BA recipients, compared with MEDS recipients, experienced small improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (mean [SD] SF-12 physical score: 38.82 [11.09] vs 37.12 [10.99]; P = .04), had fewer ED visits (3 months: 38% [95% CI, 14%-55%] reduction; P = .005; 6 months: 30% [95% CI, 14%-40%] reduction; P = .008; 12 months: 27% [95% CI, 15%-38%] reduction; P = .001), and spent fewer days hospitalized (3 months: 17% [95% CI, 8%-25%] reduction; P = .002; 6 months: 19% [95% CI, 13%-25%] reduction; P = .005; 12 months: 36% [95% CI, 32%-40%] reduction; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness trial of BA and MEDS in patients with HF experiencing depression, both treatments significantly reduced depressive symptoms by nearly 50% with no statistically significant differences between treatments. BA recipients experienced better physical HRQOL, fewer ED visits, and fewer days hospitalized. The study findings suggested that patients with HF could be given the choice between BA or MEDS to ameliorate depression. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

Cluster-Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Physician-Directed Clinical Decision Support Versus Patient-Directed Education to Promote Appropriate Use of Opioids for Chronic Pain.

We compared the effectiveness of physician-directed clinical decision support (CDS) administered via electronic health record versus patient-directed education to promote the appropriate use of opioids by conducting a cluster-randomized trial involving 82 primary care physicians and 951 of their patients with chronic pain. Primary outcomes were satisfaction with patient-physician communication consumer assessment of health care providers and system clinician and group survey (CG-CAHPS) and pain interference patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. Secondary outcomes included physical function (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system), depression (PHQ-9), high-risk opioid prescribing (>90 morphine milligram equivalents per day [≥90 mg morphine equivalent/day]), and co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. We used multi-level regression to compare longitudinal difference-in-difference scores between arms. The odds of achieving the maximum CG-CAHPS score were 2.65 times higher in the patient education versus the CDS arm (P = .044; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-6.80). However, baseline CG-CAHPS scores were dissimilar between arms, making these results challenging to interpret definitively. No difference in pain interference was found between groups (Coef = -0.64, 95% CI -2.66 to 1.38). The patient education arm experienced higher odds of Rx ≥ 90 milligrams morphine equivalent/day (odds ratio = 1.63; P = .010; 95% CI 1.13, 2.36). There were no differences between groups in physical function, depression, or co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. These results suggest that patient-directed education may have the potential to improve satisfaction with patient-physician communication, whereas physician-directed CDS via electronic health records may have greater potential to reduce high-risk opioid dosing. More evidence is needed to ascertain the relative cost-effectiveness between strategies. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the results of a comparative-effectiveness study of 2 broadly used communication strategies to catalyze dialog between patients and primary care physicians around chronic pain. The results add to the decision-making literature and offer insights about the relative benefits of physician-directed versus patient-directed interventions to promote the appropriate use of opioids.

The Impact of Psilocybin on Patients Experiencing Psychiatric Symptoms: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of psilocybin on patients experiencing psychiatric symptoms, with a focus on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety. Method of Research: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the PubMed database and identified studies published from January 2011 to December 2021 pertaining to the impact of psilocybin on psychiatric symptoms. Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on five studies meeting the specific selection criteria. Study bias was addressed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results: The impact of psilocybin on psychiatric symptoms was examined in five randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four studies administered 1 to 2 doses of psilocybin, with doses ranging from 14mg/70kg to 30mg/70kg, and one study administered a fixed dose of 25mg to all participants. Administration of psilocybin resulted in significant and sustained reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression, enhanced sense of wellbeing, life satisfaction, and positive mood immediately after psilocybin administration and up to six months after conclusion of treatment. All studies included some form of psychotherapy, and none reported serious adverse effects. Conclusion: RCTs show the efficacy of psilocybin in the treatment of anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as improvement in HRQoL, and no serious side effects. However, additional research is necessary to characterize predictors of treatment response, patient screening requirements, effectiveness in broader clinical populations, and guidelines for psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a hospital-based substance use treatment and recovery team (START) to improve initiation of medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder and linkage to follow-up care.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether a hospital inpatient addiction consult team (Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team [START]) based on collaborative care was feasible, acceptable to patients, and whether it could improve uptake of medication in the hospital and linkage to care after discharge, as well as reduce substance use and hospital readmission. The START consisted of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager who implemented a motivational and discharge planning intervention. METHODS: We randomized inpatients age ≥ 18 with a probable alcohol or opioid use disorder to receive START or usual care. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of START and the RCT, and we conducted an intent-to-treat analysis on data from the electronic medical record and patient interviews at baseline and 1-month postdischarge. The study compared RCT outcomes (medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder, linkage to follow-up care after discharge, substance use, hospital readmission) between arms by fitting logistic and linear regression models. FINDINGS: Of 38 START patients, 97 % met with the addiction medicine specialist and care manager; 89 % received ≥8 of 10 intervention components. All patients receiving START found it to be somewhat or very acceptable. START patients had higher odds of initiating medication during the inpatient stay (OR 6.26, 95 % CI = 2.38-16.48, p < .001) and being linked to follow-up care (OR 5.76, 95 % CI = 1.86-17.86, p < .01) compared to usual care patients (N = 50). The study found no significant differences between groups in drinking or opioid use; patients in both groups reported using fewer substances at the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot data suggest START and RCT implementation are feasible and acceptable and that START may facilitate medication initiation and linkage to follow-up for inpatients with an alcohol or opioid use disorder. A larger trial should assess effectiveness, covariates, and moderators of intervention effects.

Systemic interleukin-6 inhibition ameliorates acute neuropsychiatric phenotypes in a murine model of acute lung injury.

Acute neuropsychiatric impairments occur in over 70% of patients with acute lung injury. Mechanical ventilation is a well-known precipitant of acute lung injury and is strongly associated with the development of acute delirium and anxiety phenotypes. In prior studies, we demonstrated that IL-6 mediates neuropathological changes in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of animals with mechanical ventilation-induced brain injury; however, the effect of systemic IL-6 inhibition on structural and functional acute neuropsychiatric phenotypes is not known. We hypothesized that a murine model of mechanical ventilation-induced acute lung injury (VILI) would induce neural injury to the amygdala and hippocampus, brain regions that are implicated in diverse neuropsychiatric conditions, and corresponding delirium- and anxiety-like functional impairments. Furthermore, we hypothesized that these structural and functional changes would reverse with systemic IL-6 inhibition. VILI was induced using high tidal volume (35 cc/kg) mechanical ventilation. Cleaved caspase-3 (CC3) expression was quantified as a neural injury marker and found to be significantly increased in the VILI group compared to spontaneously breathing or anesthetized and mechanically ventilated mice with 10 cc/kg tidal volume. VILI mice treated with systemic IL-6 inhibition had significantly reduced amygdalar and hippocampal CC3 expression compared to saline-treated animals and demonstrated amelioration in acute neuropsychiatric behaviors in open field, elevated plus maze, and Y-maze tests. Overall, these data provide evidence of a pathogenic role of systemic IL-6 in mediating structural and functional acute neuropsychiatric symptoms in VILI and provide preclinical justification to assess IL-6 inhibition as a potential intervention to ameliorate acute neuropsychiatric phenotypes following VILI.

The Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START) study: protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to improve initiation of medication and linkage to post-discharge care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder experience high burden of disease from medical comorbidities and are increasingly hospitalized with medical complications. Medications for opioid use disorder are an effective, life-saving treatment, but patients with an opioid use disorder admitted to the hospital seldom initiate medication for their disorder while in the hospital, nor are they linked with outpatient treatment after discharge. The inpatient stay, when patients may be more receptive to improving their health and reducing substance use, offers an opportunity to discuss opioid use disorder and facilitate medication initiation and linkage to treatment after discharge. An addiction-focus consultative team that uses evidence-based tools and resources could address barriers, such as the need for the primary medical team to focus on the primary health problem and lack of time and expertise, that prevent primary medical teams from addressing substance use. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will evaluate whether a consultative team, called the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START), increases initiation of any US Food and Drug Administration approved medication for opioid use disorder (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) during the hospital stay and increases linkage to treatment after discharge compared to patients receiving usual care. The study is being conducted at three geographically distinct academic hospitals. Patients are randomly assigned within each hospital to receive the START intervention or usual care. Primary study outcomes are initiation of medication for opioid use disorder in the hospital and linkage to medication or other opioid use disorder treatment after discharge. Outcomes are assessed through participant interviews at baseline and 1 month after discharge and data from hospital and outpatient medical records. DISCUSSION: The START intervention offers a compelling model to improve care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder. The study could also advance translational science by identifying an effective and generalizable approach to treating not only opioid use disorder, but also other substance use disorders and behavioral health conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05086796, Registered on 10/21/2021. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?recrs=ab&cond=&term=NCT05086796&cntry=&state=&city=&dist = .

Psychosocial Interventions for Patients With Heart Failure and Their Impact on Depression, Anxiety, Quality of Life, Morbidity, and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the ability of psychosocial interventions to reduce depression and anxiety, improve quality of life, and reduce hospitalization and mortality rates in patients with heart failure. METHODS: Studies of psychosocial interventions published from 1970 to 2021 were identified through four databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane). Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on the studies to include, followed by a quality check by a third author. A risk of bias assessment was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were identified, but only 15 studies of mostly randomized controlled trials with a total of 1370 patients with heart failure were included in the meta-analysis. Interventions were either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or stress management. The pooled intervention effect was in favor of the intervention for depression (combined difference in standardized mean change [DSMC]: -0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.66 to -0.17; p = .001) and anxiety (combined DSMC: -0.33; 95% CI = -0.51 to -0.15; p < .001) but was only a trend for quality of life (combined DSMC: 0.14; 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.29; p = .053). Evidence was limited that interventions produced lower rates of hospitalization (5 of 5 studies showing a beneficial effect) or death (1 of 5 with a beneficial effect). CONCLUSIONS: CBT and stress management interventions significantly reduced depression and anxiety compared with control conditions. CBT significantly improved quality of life compared with controls, but stress management did not. Longer treatment duration seemed to be an important factor related to treatment success.

Involuntary Psychiatric Hospitalization: How Patient Characteristics Affect Decision-Making.

Emergency department (ED) psychiatrists face the consequential decision to pursue involuntary inpatient psychiatric admission. Research on the relationship between patient characteristics and the decision to pursue involuntary psychiatric admission is limited. Using data from 2017 to 2018 at an urban Los Angeles hospital, we used generalized linear mixed effects models to compare patients who were involuntarily admitted to inpatient psychiatry to patients who were discharged from the ED. Of 2,448 patients included in the study, 1,217 (49.7%) were involuntarily admitted to inpatient psychiatry and 1,231 (50.3%) were discharged. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, admitted patients were more likely to have been brought in by police, have had an organized suicide plan or recent attempt, physical signs of harm, psychosis, depression or hopelessness, lack social support, have diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and be administered injectable psychotropic medications. Stimulant use, a diagnosis of anxiety or developmental disorders, and recent medical ED utilization were associated with discharge. Psychiatrists pursued involuntarily psychiatric hospitalization based on factors potentially indicative of dangerousness, leaving patients, particularly those with recent substance use, without immediate access to treatment. Policies should focus on increasing follow up to high quality, voluntary outpatient mental health care.

Home-based virtual reality for chronic pain: protocol for an NIH-supported randomised-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is highly prevalent and associated with a large burden of illness; there is a pressing need for safe, home-based, non-pharmacological, interventions. Virtual reality (VR) is a digital therapeutic known to be effective for acute pain, but its role in chronic pain is not yet fully elucidated. Here we present a protocol for the National Institute of Health (NIH) Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) VR trial that evaluates the effectiveness of three forms of VR for patients with chronic lower back pain (cLBP), a highly prevalent form of chronic pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The NIH BACPAC VR trial will randomise 360 patients with cLBP into one of three arms, each administered through a head-mounted display: 1) skills-based VR, a program incorporating principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, mindful meditation and physiological biofeedback therapy using embedded biometric sensors; 2) distraction-based VR, a program using 360-degree immersive videos designed to distract users from pain; and 3) sham VR, a non-immersive program using two-dimensional videos within a VR headset. Research participants will be monitored for 12 weeks using a combination of patient-reported outcomes administered via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), wearable sensor data collected via Fitbit Charge 4 and electronic health record data. The primary outcome will be the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference scale. Secondary outcomes will include PROMIS Anxiety, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance, opioid prescription data and Pain Catastrophizing Scale Short Form. A subgroup analysis will explore patient level predictors for VR efficacy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Cedars-Sinai Health System in April 2020. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04409353.

Personalized treatments for depressive symptoms in patients with advanced heart failure: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Heart Failure is a chronic syndrome affecting over 5.7 million in the US and 26 million adults worldwide with nearly 50% experiencing depressive symptoms. The objective of the study is to compare the effects of two evidence-based treatment options for adult patients with depression and advanced heart failure, on depressive symptom severity, physical and mental health related quality of life (HRQoL), heart-failure specific quality of life, caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality at 3, 6 and 12-months. METHODS: Trial design. Pragmatic, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial. Interventions. The treatment interventions are: (1) Behavioral Activation (BA), a patient-centered psychotherapy which emphasizes engagement in enjoyable and valued personalized activities as selected by the patient; or (2) Antidepressant Medication Management administered using the collaborative care model (MEDS). Participants. Adults aged 18 and over with advanced heart failure (defined as New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II, III, and IV) and depression (defined as a score of 10 or above on the PHQ-9 and confirmed by the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview for the DSM-5) selected from all patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center who are admitted with heart failure and all patients presenting to the outpatient programs of the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. We plan to randomize 416 patients to BA or MEDS, with an estimated 28% loss to follow-up/inability to collect follow-up data. Thus, we plan to include 150 in each group for a total of 300 participants from which data after randomization will be collected and analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The current trial is the first to compare the impact of BA and MEDS on depressive symptoms, quality of life, caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality in patients with depression and advanced heart failure. The trial will provide novel results that will be disseminated and implemented into a wide range of current practice settings. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT03688100.

The impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life, morbidity, and mortality in heart failure: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies published from December 1969 to December 2019 that pertain to depression and HF were identified through the use of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the keywords: 'antidepressant*' and 'heart failure.' Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on 17 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks. RESULTS: Studies varied in types of antidepressants used as well as in study designs. Ten studies were analyzed for the impact of antidepressant medications on depressive symptom severity. Five of these were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), out of which sertraline and paroxetine showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms despite the small samples utilized. Four of the 17 studies addressed QoL as part of their outcomes showing no difference for escitalopram (RCT), significantly greater improvements for paroxetine controlled release (RCT), statistical significance for sertraline compared to control (pilot study), and showing significant improvement before and after treatment (open-label trial) for nefazodone. Thirteen of the 17 studies included measures of morbidity and mortality. Although early analyses have pointed to an association of antidepressant use and mortality particularly with fluoxetine, the reviewed studies showed no increase in mortality for antidepressants, and secondary analyses showed improved mortality in patients who achieved remission of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Out of the various antidepressants studied, which included sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, bupropion, nefazodone, and nortriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to be a safe treatment option for patients with depression and HF. However, due to the variety of study designs as well as the mixed results for each antidepressant, more information for reducing depression severity, morbidity, and mortality and improving quality of life in patients with HF should be examined using robust large sample RCTs.

Depression in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.

Objective: This paper sought to identify the instruments used to measure depression in heart failure (HF) and elucidate the impact of treatment interventions on depression in HF. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Studies published from 1988 to 2018 covering depression and HF were identified through the review of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases using the keywords: "depres*" AND "heart failure." Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis, identifying 27 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks. Results: Patient-reported questionnaires were more commonly adopted than clinician-rated questionnaires, including the Beck Depression Inventory, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Six common interventions were observed: antidepressant medications, collaborative care, psychotherapy, exercise, education, and other nonpharmacological interventions. Except for paroxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors failed to show a significant difference from placebo. However, the collaborative care model including the use of antidepressants showed a significant decrease in PHQ-9 score after one year. All of the psychotherapy studies included a variation of cognitive behavioral therapy and patients showed significant improvements. The evidence was mixed for exercise, education, and other nonpharmacological interventions. Conclusion: This study suggests which types of interventions are more effective in addressing depression in heart failure patients.

Performance measurement tools for consultation-liaison psychiatry services must consider feasibility.

This editorial describes an effort by 9 consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry service leaders in the United States to incorporate routine performance measurement into their service workflows. Although C-L psychiatry is an essential clinical service in general hospitals, performance metrics for this service have not been broadly accepted or implemented. Meanwhile, the performance metrics that have been developed rely on an investment in resources and/or new workflows that C-L psychiatry services may not be prepared to make on a widespread level. Our group sought to determine the feasibility of incorporating routine performance measurement into the workflows of a diverse sample of C-L psychiatry services using only existing resources via three collection methods: timestamp review, chart auditing, and survey administration. No methods were broadly successful across the 9 services. We argue that for routine performance measurement to gain wider traction in the field of C-L psychiatry, the ready availability-or automatability-of performance data must be taken into account.

Opioid Overdose in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the percentage of opioid overdose events among medical and surgical inpatient admissions, and to identify risk factors associated with these events. METHODS: We searched PubMed and CINAHL databases from inception through July 30, 2017 and identified additional studies from reference lists and other reviews. Articles were included if they reported original research on the rate of opioid overdoses or opioid-related adverse events, and the adverse events occurred in a general medical hospital during an inpatient stay. We extracted information on study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We performed this review in accordance with recently suggested standards and report our findings as per the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guidelines. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria. The percentage of opioid overdoses ranged from 0.06% to 2.50% of hospitalizations. The majority of studies used only 1 method of event detection. Risk factors for overdose included older age, infancy, medical comorbidity, substance use disorder diagnosis, combining opioids with other sedatives, and admission to hospitals with higher opioid-prescribing rates. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid overdose in the inpatient setting is a serious preventable harm and is likely underestimated in much of the current literature. Improved detection methods are needed to more accurately measure the rate of inpatient opioid overdose. Refined estimates of opioid overdose should be used to drive safety and quality improvement initiatives in hospitals.

Virtual reality for management of pain in hospitalized patients: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an effective, drug-free tool for pain management, but there is a lack of randomized, controlled data evaluating its effectiveness in hospitalized patients. We sought to measure the impact of on-demand VR versus "health and wellness" television programming for pain in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial in hospitalized patients with an average pain score of ≥3 out of 10 points. Patients in the experimental group received a library of 21 VR experiences administered using the Samsung Gear Oculus headset; control patients viewed specialized television programming to promote health and wellness. Clinical staff followed usual care; study interventions were not protocolized. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain using a numeric rating scale, as recorded by nursing staff during usual care. Pre- and post-intervention pain scores were compared immediately after initial treatment and after 48- and 72-hours. RESULTS: There were 120 subjects (61 VR; 59 control). The mean within-subject difference in immediate pre- and post-intervention pain scores was larger in the VR group (-1.72 points; SD 3.56) than in the control group (-0.46 points; SD 3.01); this difference was significant in favor of VR (P < .04). When limited to the subgroup of patients with severe baseline pain (≥7 points), the effect of VR was more pronounced vs. control (-3.04, SD 3.75 vs. -0.93, SD 2.16 points; P = .02). In regression analyses adjusting for pre-intervention pain, time, age, gender, and type of pain, VR yielded a .59 (P = .03) and .56 (P = .04) point incremental reduction in pain versus control during the 48- and 72-hour post-intervention periods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VR significantly reduces pain versus an active control condition in hospitalized patients. VR is most effective for severe pain. Future trials should evaluate standardized order sets that interpose VR as an early non-drug option for analgesia.

Recommendations for Methodology of Virtual Reality Clinical Trials in Health Care by an International Working Group: Iterative Study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic virtual reality (VR) has emerged as an efficacious treatment modality for a wide range of health conditions. However, despite encouraging outcomes from early stage research, a consensus for the best way to develop and evaluate VR treatments within a scientific framework is needed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a methodological framework with input from an international working group in order to guide the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and communication of trials that develop and test VR treatments. METHODS: A group of 21 international experts was recruited based on their contributions to the VR literature. The resulting Virtual Reality Clinical Outcomes Research Experts held iterative meetings to seek consensus on best practices for the development and testing of VR treatments. RESULTS: The interactions were transcribed, and key themes were identified to develop a scientific framework in order to support best practices in methodology of clinical VR trials. Using the Food and Drug Administration Phase I-III pharmacotherapy model as guidance, a framework emerged to support three phases of VR clinical study designs-VR1, VR2, and VR3. VR1 studies focus on content development by working with patients and providers through the principles of human-centered design. VR2 trials conduct early testing with a focus on feasibility, acceptability, tolerability, and initial clinical efficacy. VR3 trials are randomized, controlled studies that evaluate efficacy against a control condition. Best practice recommendations for each trial were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Patients, providers, payers, and regulators should consider this best practice framework when assessing the validity of VR treatments.

Improving Depression Management in Patients with Medical Illness Using Collaborative Care: Linking Treatment from the Inpatient to the Outpatient Setting.

Objective: This paper sought to review the impact of depression in patients with comorbid medical problems, the importance of bridging the gap between inpatient and outpatient care for medical inpatients with depression (especially for organizations that treat patients in both settings), and the elements necessary to implement a pilot for an outpatient Collaborative Care Management program for patients with depression following medical admissions. Taken into account is the presence of new billing mechanisms and potential cost offsets. Methods: The literature referenced in this paper was identified through a search of online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar. The data used to analyze cost were drawn from national, publicly available sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Results: Collaborative care is an evidence-based intervention for depression that can aid with successful transition of care as patients move from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. It can be considered cost-effective when treating a panel of patients that falls below the recommended caseload for a single case manager (i.e., 19-46 billed encounters, depending on the payer mix), particularly when considering the savings from a reduced length of stay associated with well-controlled depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Organizations should consider implementing collaborative care management for patients with depression to improve depression outcomes, reduce costs, and prepare themselves for a health financing environment that rewards value.