Strategies to Identify and Reduce Opioid Misuse Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Disorders: A Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are preliminary assessments intended to characterize the extent and nature of emerging research evidence, identify literature gaps, and offer directions for future research. We conducted a systematic scoping review to describe published scientific literature on strategies to identify and reduce opioid misuse among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and disorders. METHODS: We performed structured keyword searches to identify manuscripts published through June 2016 in the PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to extract original research articles that described healthcare practices, tools, or interventions to identify and reduce opioid misuse among GI patients. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) was used to classify the strategies presented. RESULTS: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies used quasi-experimental or retrospective cohort study designs. Most studies addressed the CCM's clinical information systems element. Seven studies involved identification of opioid misuse through prescription drug monitoring and opioid misuse screening tools. Four studies discussed reductions in opioid use by harnessing drug monitoring data and individual care plans, and implementing self-management and opioid detoxification interventions. One study described drug monitoring and an audit-and-feedback intervention to both identify and reduce opioid misuse. Greatest reductions in opioid misuse were observed when drug monitoring, self-management, or audit-and-feedback interventions were used. CONCLUSION: Prescription drug monitoring and self-management interventions may be promising strategies to identify and reduce opioid misuse in GI care. Rigorous, empirical research is needed to evaluate the longer-term impact of these strategies.

Hospital Characteristics Associated With Penalties in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program.

IMPORTANCE: In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, which reduces payments to the lowest-performing hospitals. However, it is uncertain whether this program accurately measures quality and fairly penalizes hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of hospitals penalized by the HAC Reduction Program and to evaluate the association of a summary score of hospital characteristics related to quality with penalization in the HAC program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for hospitals participating in the FY2015 HAC Reduction Program were obtained from CMS' Hospital Compare and merged with the 2014 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and FY2015 Medicare Impact File. Logistic regression models were developed to examine the association between hospital characteristics and HAC program penalization. An 8-point hospital quality summary score was created using hospital characteristics related to volume, accreditations, and offering of advanced care services. The relationship between the hospital quality summary score and HAC program penalization was examined. Publicly reported process-of-care and outcome measures were examined from 4 clinical areas (surgery, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia), and their association with the hospital quality summary score was evaluated. EXPOSURES: Penalization in the HAC Reduction Program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital characteristics associated with penalization. RESULTS: Of the 3284 hospitals participating in the HAC program, 721 (22.0%) were penalized. Hospitals were more likely to be penalized if they were accredited by the Joint Commission (24.0% accredited, 14.4% not accredited; odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70); they were major teaching hospitals (42.3%; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29) or very major teaching hospitals (62.2%; OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.55-4.39; vs nonteaching hospitals, 17.0%); they cared for more complex patient populations based on case mix index (quartile 4 vs quartile 1: 32.8% vs 12.1%; OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.44-2.71); or they were safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals (28.3% vs 19.9%; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68). Hospitals with higher hospital quality summary scores had significantly better performance on 9 of 10 publicly reported process and outcomes measures compared with hospitals that had lower quality scores (all P ≤ .01 for trend). However, hospitals with the highest quality score of 8 were penalized significantly more frequently than hospitals with the lowest quality score of 0 (67.3% [37/55] vs 12.6% [53/422]; P < .001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program, hospitals that were penalized more frequently had more quality accreditations, offered advanced services, were major teaching institutions, and had better performance on other process and outcome measures. These paradoxical findings suggest that the approach for assessing hospital penalties in the HAC Reduction Program merits reconsideration to ensure it is achieving the intended goals.

Perspectives from persons living with dementia and their caregivers on emergency department visits, care transitions, and outpatient follow-up: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Persons living with dementia (PLWD) experience frequent and costly emergency department (ED) visits, with poor outcomes attributed to suboptimal care and postdischarge care transitions. Yet, patient-centered data on ED care experiences and postdischarge needs are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the facilitators and barriers to successful ED care and care transitions after discharge, according to PLWD and their caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving ED patients ages 65 and older with confirmed or suspected dementia and their caregivers. The semistructured interview protocol followed the National Quality Forum's ED Transitions of Care Framework and addressed ED care, care transitions, and outpatient follow-up care. Interviews were conducted during an ED visit at an urban, academic ED. Traditional thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 11 patients and 19 caregivers. Caregivers were more forthcoming than patients about facilitators and challenges experienced. Characteristics of the patients' condition (e.g., resistance to care, forgetfulness), the availability of family resources (e.g., caregiver availability, primary care access), and system-level factors (e.g., availability of timely appointments, hospital policies tailored to persons with dementia) served as facilitators and barriers to successful care. Some resources that would ameliorate care transition barriers could be easily provided in the ED, for example, offering clear discharge instructions and care coordination services and improving patient communication regarding disposition timeline. Other interventions would require investment from other parts of the health care system (e.g., respite for caregivers, broader insurance coverage). CONCLUSIONS: ED care and care transitions for PLWD are suboptimal, and patient-level factors may exacerbate existing system-level deficiencies. Insight from patients and their caregivers may inform the development of ED interventions to design specialized care for this patient population. This qualitative study also demonstrated the feasibility of conducting ED-based studies on PLWD during their ED visit.

Qualitative Evaluation Informs the Implementation of a Telehealth Program to Manage Chronic Pain.

In response to the opioid epidemic and high rates of chronic pain among the veteran population, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs implemented the TelePain-Empower Veterans Program (EVP), a nonpharmacological pain management program for veterans. Delivered virtually, TelePain-EVP incorporates integrated health components (Whole Health, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and Mindful Movement) through interdisciplinary personalized coaching. The objective of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the implementation of TelePain-EVP to identify determinants to implementation, benefits and challenges to participation, and recommendations for future direction. We used a qualitative descriptive design to conduct semistructured telephone interviews with TelePain-EVP leaders (n = 3), staff (n = 10), and veterans (n = 22). The interview guides aligned with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Thematic content analysis organized and characterized findings. Several CFIR domains emerged as determinants relevant to program implementation, including innovation (eg, design); individuals (eg, deliverers, recipients); inner (eg, communications) and outer settings (eg, local conditions); and implementation process (eg, reflecting and evaluating). Identified determinants included facilitators (eg, virtual delivery) and barriers (eg, staff shortages). Participants reported improvements in pain management coping skills, interpersonal relationships, and sense of community, but no self-reported reductions in pain or medication use. Program improvement recommendations included using centralized staff to address vacancies, collecting electronic data, offering structured training, and providing course materials to veteran participants. Qualitative data can inform the sustained implementation of TelePain-EVP and other similar telehealth pain management programs. These descriptive data should be triangulated with quantitative data to objectively assess participant TelePain-EVP outcomes and associated participant characteristics. PERSPECTIVE: A qualitative evaluation of a telehealth program to manage chronic pain, guided by the CFIR framework, identified determinants of program implementation. Additionally, participants reported improvements in pain management coping skills, interpersonal relationships, and sense of community, but no self-reported reductions in pain or medication use.

Implementation outcomes of HIV self-testing in low- and middle- income countries: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: HIV self-testing (HIV-ST) is an effective means of improving HIV testing rates. Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are taking steps to include HIV-ST into their national HIV/AIDS programs but very few reviews have focused on implementation in LMIC. We performed a scoping review to describe and synthesize existing literature on implementation outcomes of HIV-ST in LMIC. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, and Scopus, supplemented by searches in HIVST.org and other grey literature databases (done 23 September 2020) and included articles if they reported at least one of the following eight implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, cost, penetration, or sustainability. Both quantitative and qualitative results were extracted and synthesized in a narrative manner. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Most (75%) of the 206 included articles focused on implementation in Africa. HIV-ST was found to be acceptable and appropriate, perceived to be convenient and better at maintaining confidentiality than standard testing. The lack of counselling and linkage to care, however, was concerning to stakeholders. Peer and online distribution were found to be effective in improving adoption. The high occurrence of user errors was a common feasibility issue reported by studies, although, diagnostic accuracy remained high. HIV-ST was associated with higher program costs but can still be cost-effective if kit prices remain low and HIV detection improves. Implementation fidelity was not always reported and there were very few studies on, penetration, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of HIV-ST in the LMIC context. Costs and user error rates are threats to successful implementation. Future research should address equity through measuring penetration and potential barriers to sustainability including distribution, cost, scale-up, and safety.

Reducing Hospital Readmissions via Optimization of Emergency Department Care.

Over the past 5 years, early hospital readmissions have become a national focus. With several recent publications highlighting the high rates of early hospital readmissions among transplant recipients, more work is needed to identify risk factors and strategies for reducing unnecessary readmissions among this patient population. Although the American Society of Transplant Surgeons is advocating the exclusion of transplant recipients from the calculation of hospital readmission rates, the outcome of their advocacy efforts remains uncertain. One potential strategy for reducing early hospital readmissions is to critically examine care received by transplant recipients in the emergency department (ED), a critical pathway to readmission. As a starting point, research is needed to assess rates of ED presentation among transplant recipients, diagnostic algorithms, and communication among clinical teams. Mixed-methods studies that enhance understanding of system-level barriers to optimized evaluation and treatment of transplant recipients in the ED may lead to quality improvement interventions that reduce unnecessary readmissions, even if the rates of transplant recipients presenting to the ED remains high.

Midterm observations and recommendations from the evaluation of the AF4Q initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To offer midterm observations and recommendations based on how Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances are faring in their journey toward improving healthcare quality at the community level. STUDY DESIGN: This study used a mixed method design. METHODS: Longitudinal evaluation data to date were analyzed, including results from multiple surveys, qualitative analysis of key informant interviews, review of secondary documents and analysis of secondary data, and ongoing tracking of the activities of the 16 participating alliances. The observations and recommendations are based on consensus achieved by the AF4Q evaluation team investigators after in-depth iterative discussions. RESULTS: Six formative observations are identified and discussed: (1) stakeholder support and participation has been maintained despite changes in economic and political environments; (2) progress on program goals has been slow; (3) the "alignment" in the AF4Q initiative has been slow to materialize; (4) the AF4Q initiative has established a productive network of peer communities; (5) the impact of the AF4Q initiative, and the time to observe impact, vary by community, based on history and context; and (6) sustainability is the major future challenge for the AF4Q initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-stakeholder alliances' efforts to improve quality should be viewed as "pieces of the health reform puzzle" rather than stand-alone solutions. As healthcare reform is challenged politically, alliances can practice the bipartisanship that focuses conversation on what is good for the community and how best to achieve community goals amid a potential sea of change in both federal and state policy and funding.

The Aligning Forces for Quality initiative: background and evolution from 2005 to 2012.

OBJECTIVES: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative is the largest privately funded community-based quality improvement initiative to date, providing funds and technical assistance (TA) to 16 multi-stakeholder alliances located throughout the United States. The objectives of this article are to describe the AF4Q initiative's underlying theory of change, its evolution over time, and the key activities undertaken by alliances. STUDY DESIGN: This is a descriptive overview of a major multi-site, community-based quality improvement initiative. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used with information obtained from program documents, program meetings, observation of alliance activities, and interviews with RWJF staff, TA providers, and AF4Q alliance stakeholders. RESULTS: AF4Q is a dynamic initiative, expanding and evolving over time. Participating alliances are addressing 5 main programmatic areas: (1) measurement and public reporting of healthcare quality and efficiency for ambulatory physician practices and hospitals; (2) efforts to engage consumers as partners in their own care (consumer engagement); (3) adoption and spread of effective quality improvement strategies to improve care; (4) ensuring the equitable receipt of healthcare; and (5) integration of alliance activities with payment reform initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: The AF4Q initiative is an ambitious program affecting multiple leverage points in the healthcare system. AF4Q alliances were provided a similar set of expectations and given access to substantial TA. While participating alliances have made progress in addressing the AF4Q programmatic areas, given differences in the alliances' composition, market structure, and history, there is considerable variation in program implementation.

Approaches to improving healthcare delivery by multi-stakeholder alliances.

OBJECTIVE: Our purposes were: (1) to describe how 14 multi-stakeholder alliances participating in the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative approached the charge of improving healthcare delivery at the community level between 2006 and 2010; and (2) to offer insights to policy makers and program planners seeking to promote or establish community-wide quality improvement (QI). STUDY DESIGN: This was a qualitative study. METHODS: A total of 84 semi-structured interviews were conducted with AF4Q alliance leaders between 2006 and 2010, and an iterative coding process was used to identify salient themes. Program documents supplemented the interview data and were used to develop an inventory of the alliances' QI activities using the Leatherman and Sutherland taxonomy of quality-enhancing interventions. RESULTS: Alliances spent years planning their QI approaches and activities. Initial selection of QI activities was driven by the availability of local expertise and resources, rather than alignment with a community-wide vision for quality. Alliances were just as likely to rely on local partners to lead QI activities as they were to establish their own activities. The most commonly adopted QI activities were collaboratives aimed at producing organizational-level changes. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and program planners seeking to promote community-wide QI should consider developing clear expectations, offering technical assistance at the start of the program, providing information on the evidence base for QI activities, and highlighting additional funding opportunities that could support QI activities. Alliances may need a stronger push to move beyond coordinated, organizational-level activities to more community-focused, cross-organizational QI activities.

Evaluating a community-based program to improve healthcare quality: research design for the Aligning Forces for Quality initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to increase the overall quality of healthcare in targeted communities throughout the country. In addition to sponsoring this 16-site, complex program, the RWJF funds an independent scientific evaluation to support objective research on the initiative's effectiveness and contributions to basic knowledge in 5 core programmatic areas. The research design, data, and challenges faced in the evaluation of this 10-year initiative are discussed. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive overview of the evaluation research design for a multi-site, community based, healthcare quality improvement initiative is provided. METHODS: The multiphase research design employed by the evaluation team is discussed. RESULTS: Evaluation provides formative feedback to the RWJF, participants, and other interested audiences in real time; develops approaches to assess innovative and under-studied interventions; furthers the analysis and understanding of effective community-based collaborative work in healthcare; and helps to differentiate the various facilitators, barriers, and contextual dimensions that affect the implementation and outcomes of community-based health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The AF4Q initiative is arguably the largest community-level healthcare improvement demonstration in the United States to date; it is being implemented at a time of rapid change in national healthcare policy. The implementation of large-scale, multi-site initiatives is becoming an increasingly common approach for addressing problems in healthcare. The evaluation research design for the AF4Q initiative, and the lessons learned from its approach, may be valuable to others tasked with evaluating similar community-based initiatives.

Institutional and economic determinants of public health system performance.

OBJECTIVES: Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that availability and quality of essential public health services vary widely across communities, relatively little is known about the factors that give rise to these variations. We examined the association of institutional, financial, and community characteristics of local public health delivery systems and the performance of essential services. METHODS: Performance measures were collected from local public health systems in 7 states and combined with secondary data sources. Multivariate, linear, and nonlinear regression models were used to estimate associations between system characteristics and the performance of essential services. RESULTS: Performance varied significantly with the size, financial resources, and organizational structure of local public health systems, with some public health services appearing more sensitive to these characteristics than others. Staffing levels and community characteristics also appeared to be related to the performance of selected services. CONCLUSIONS: Reconfiguring the organization and financing of public health systems in some communities-such as through consolidation and enhanced intergovernmental coordination-may hold promise for improving the performance of essential services.

Getting what you pay for: public health spending and the performance of essential public health services.

Governmental spending in public health varies widely across communities, raising questions about how these differences may affect the availability of essential services and infrastructure. This study used data from local public health systems that participated in the National Public Health Performance Standards Program pilot tests between 1999 and 2001 to examine the association between public health spending and the performance of essential public health services. Results indicated that performance varies significantly with both local and federal spending levels, even after controlling for other system and community characteristics. Some public health services appear more sensitive to these expenditures than others, and all services appear more sensitive to local spending than to state or federal spending. These findings can assist public health decision makers in identifying public health financing priorities during periods of change in the resources available to support local public health infrastructure.

Identifying dimensions of performance in local public health systems: results from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program.

This article uses data from the National Public Health Performance Standards Program to explore how the performance of essential public health services varies across communities and to identify underlying domains of activity that appear to drive variation in performance. Cross-sectional data were used from 315 local public health jurisdictions located within seven states that participated in the Performance Standards Program pilot tests between 1999 and 2001. Results demonstrate that local public health systems vary considerably in the extent to which they perform essential services and meet established performance standards. Factor analysis results indicate that four underlying domains of activity explain much of the variation observed in the individual performance measures, and that achieving performance standards for a single essential public health service often involves more than one underlying domain of activity. The findings suggest that composite measures constructed from the Performance Standards Program can assist public health decision makers in monitoring the performance of public health systems and identifying promising pathways for improving performance.