Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Many men with prostate cancer will be exposed to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). While evidence-based ADT use is common, ADT is also used in cases with no or limited evidence resulting in more harm than benefit, i.e., overuse. Since there are risks of ADT (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis), it is important to understand the behaviors facilitating overuse to inform de-implementation strategies. For these reasons, we conducted a theory-informed survey study, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), to better understand ADT overuse and provider preferences for mitigating overuse. METHODS: Our survey used the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model, and a DCE to elicit provider de-implementation strategy preferences. We surveyed the Society of Government Service Urologists listserv in December 2020. We stratified respondents based on the likelihood of stopping overuse as ADT monotherapy for localized prostate cancer ("yes"/"probably yes," "probably no"/"no"), and characterized corresponding Likert scale responses to seven COM-B statements. We used multivariable regression to identify associations between stopping ADT overuse and COM-B responses. RESULTS: Our survey was completed by 84 respondents (13% response rate), with 27% indicating "probably no"/"no" to stopping ADT overuse. We found differences across respondents who said they would and would not stop ADT overuse in demographics and COM-B statements. Our model identified 2 COM-B domains (Opportunity-Social, Motivation-Reflective) significantly associated with a lower likelihood of stopping ADT overuse. Our DCE demonstrated in-person communication, multidisciplinary review, and medical record documentation may be effective in reducing ADT overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used a behavioral theory-informed survey, including a DCE, to identify behaviors and context underpinning ADT overuse. Specifying behaviors supporting and gathering provider preferences in addressing ADT overuse requires a stepwise, stakeholder-engaged approach to support evidence-based cancer care. From this work, we are pursuing targeted improvement strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03579680.

Exploring implementation outcomes in the clinical trial context: a qualitative study of physician trial stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes. METHODS: We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed. RESULTS: The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based. CONCLUSION: Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials.

Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials advance science, benefit society, and provide optimal care to individuals with some conditions, such as cancer. However, clinical trials often fail to reach their endpoints, and low participant enrollment remains a critical problem with trial conduct. In these ways, clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based practices suffering from poor implementation. Prior approaches to improving trials have had difficulties with reproducibility and limited impact, perhaps due to the lack of an underlying trial improvement framework. For these reasons, we propose adapting implementation science frameworks to the clinical trial context to improve the implementation of clinical trials. MAIN TEXT: We adapted an outcomes framework (Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework) and a determinants framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) to the trial context. We linked these frameworks to ERIC-based improvement strategies and present an inferential process model for identifying and selecting trial improvement strategies based on the Implementation Research Logic Model. We describe example applications of the framework components to the trial context and present a worked example of our model applied to a trial with poor enrollment. We then consider the implications of this approach on improving existing trials, the design of future trials, and assessing trial improvement interventions. Additionally, we consider the use of implementation science in the clinical trial context, and how clinical trials can be "test cases" for implementation research. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials can be considered beneficial evidence-based interventions suffering from poor implementation. Adapting implementation science approaches to the clinical trial context can provide frameworks for contextual assessment, outcome measurement, targeted interventions, and a shared vocabulary for clinical trial improvement. Additionally, exploring implementation frameworks in the trial context can advance the science of implementation through both "test cases" and providing fertile ground for implementation intervention design and testing.

Envisioning clinical trials as complex interventions.

Clinical trials are critical components of modern health care and infrastructure. Trials benefit society through scientific advancement and individual patients through trial participation. In fact, billions of dollars are spent annually in support of these benefits. Despite the massive investments, clinical trials often fail to accomplish their primary aims and trial enrollment rates remain low. Prior efforts to improve trial conduct and enrollment have had limited success, perhaps due to oversimplification of the complex, multilevel nature of trials. For these reasons, the authors propose applying implementation science to the clinical trials context. In this commentary, the authors posit clinical trials as complex, multilevel evidence-based interventions with significant societal and individual benefits yet with persistent gaps in implementation. An application of implementation science concepts to the clinical trials context as means to build common vocabulary and establish a platform for applying implementation science and practice to improve clinical trial conduct is introduced. Applying implementation science to the clinical trials context can augment improvement efforts and build capacity for better and more efficient evidence-based care for all patients and trial stakeholders throughout the clinical trials enterprise.

Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development. METHODS: We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices. RESULTS: Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03579680.

Improving the delivery of team-based survivorship care after primary breast cancer treatment through a multi-level intervention: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We developed and tested a multi-level intervention, ConnectedCancerCare (CCC), which includes a tailored website and appointment reminder system for women with early-stage breast cancer and a provider summary letter sent to their medical oncologist and primary care provider to improve the delivery of team-based survivorship care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to establish the feasibility and acceptability of CCC. Women diagnosed with stages 0-II breast cancer within one year of completing primary treatment were randomized to CCC (intervention) or a static online survivorship care plan (control). Participants completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys online. Post-trial interviews with 5 PCPs, 6 oncology providers, and 8 intervention patients were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 160 eligible women invited to participate, 66 completed the baseline survey and were randomized (41%) and 54 completed a follow-up survey (83%). Participants in the intervention arm found the CCC content to be acceptable, with 82% reporting it was easy to use and 86% reporting they would recommend it to other patients. Women randomized to CCC (vs. control) more often reported scheduling a PCP follow-up visit (64% vs. 42%), communicating with their PCP about provider roles (67% vs. 18%), and higher mean team-based cancer care knowledge scores (3.7 vs. 3.4). CONCLUSION: Deploying CCC in medical oncology practices was feasible, and the intervention content was acceptable. CCC shows promise for improving patient knowledge and patient-provider communication about provider roles in team-based cancer care and encouraging patients to engage with their PCP early in the survivorship period.

Implementation of prostate cancer treatment decision aid in Michigan: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC. METHODS: We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice. CONCLUSION: Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.

Implementation Strategies for Web-Based Apps for Screening: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Screening is an effective primary prevention strategy in health care, as it enables the early detection of diseases. However, the uptake of such screening remains low. Different delivery methods for screening have been developed and found to be effective in increasing the uptake of screening, including the use of web-based apps. Studies have shown that web-based apps for screening are effective in increasing the uptake of health screening among the general population. However, not much is known about the effective implementation of such web-based apps in the real-world setting. Implementation strategies are theory-based methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Implementation strategies are important, as they allow us to understand how to implement an evidence-based intervention. Therefore, a scoping review to identify the various implementation strategies for web-based apps for screening is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify (1) strategies used to implement web-based apps for health screening, (2) frameworks used for implementing web-based apps for health screening, (3) outcome measures of implementation strategies, and (4) effective implementation strategies. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework. After identifying the review question, two researchers independently screened and selected relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Web of Science. This was followed by charting the data using a standardized form. Finally, we collated, summarized, and reported the results quantitatively and qualitatively based on the review objectives. RESULTS: A total of 16,476 studies were retrieved, of which 5669 were duplicates. From a total of 10,807 studies, 10,784 studies were excluded based on their titles and abstracts. There were 23 full-text articles reviewed, and 4 articles were included in the final analysis. Many studies were excluded because they focused on the effectiveness and not on the implementation of web-based apps. Facilitation was the most cited implementation strategy used, followed by reminders, clinical champions, and educational meetings and materials. Only 2 studies used implementation frameworks to guide the evaluation of their studies. Common outcome measures for implementation strategies were feasibility, fidelity, and penetration. Implementation strategies reported to be effective were quality improvement meetings, facilitation, educational meetings, and clinical champions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dearth of literature on the implementation of web-based apps for health screening. Implementation strategies were developed without any reported use of implementation theories or frameworks in most studies. More research on the development and evaluation of web-based screening app implementations is needed.

Assessment of a Best Practice Alert and Referral Process for Preprocedure Antithrombotic Medication Management for Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures.

Importance: Management of antithrombotic medications presents a challenge for many clinicians and patients before procedures. Anticoagulation clinic involvement may improve preprocedure coordination, satisfaction on the part of patients and clinicians, last-minute procedure cancellations, and patient safety. Objective: To assess the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) best practice alert (BPA) and anticoagulation clinic referral process to assist with management of antithrombotic medication before gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal evaluation of a quality improvement intervention using EMRs and survey data included patients using oral antithrombotic medications who were scheduled for elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures at an academic medical center along with the clinicians who ordered these procedures. Data were collected from November 1, 2017, through December 19, 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2019. Exposures: Following a multidisciplinary intervention, a BPA and referral process for periprocedural antithrombotic medication management was implemented in November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following implementation outcomes were assessed through EMR review and surveys through December 2018: use of BPAs, patient and clinician satisfaction with preprocedure anticoagulation management, procedure cancelation rates, reach, and spread by patient and clinician characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate variance in BPA use at the clinician level. Results: A total of 2082 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [11.9] years) and 144 clinicians were included in the analysis. The BPA was used broadly across the health system, resulting in anticoagulation clinic referral for 1389 patients (66.7%). Referral was more common for patients using anticoagulant vs antiplatelet medications (1041 of 1524 [68.3%] vs 346 of 556 [62.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15-1.98) and for procedures ordered by gastroenterologists vs primary care clinicians (933 of 1241 [75.2%] vs 365 of 618 [59.1%]; aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.46-3.17). Individual clinician behavior patterns explained 26.5% (95% CI, 18.7%-36.1%) of variation in anticoagulation clinic referrals. Implementation of the intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction and improvements in multidimensional measures of clinician satisfaction (clinician response rate, 44.2% [144 of 326]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of altered or canceled procedures because of medication mismanagement declined after implementation (8 of 50 [16.0%] vs 1 of 52 [1.9%]; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: A newly implemented BPA and anticoagulation clinic referral process was broadly adopted and used, had high satisfaction by patients and clinicians, and was associated with fewer disruptions to planned procedures caused by medication mismanagement.

Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is used for prostate cancer detection and posttreatment surveillance, thresholds in these settings differ. The screening cutoff of 4.0 ng/mL may be inappropriately used during postsurgery surveillance, where 0.2 ng/mL is typically used, creating missed opportunities for effective salvage radiation treatment. We performed a study to determine whether guideline concordance with annual postoperative PSA surveillance increases when PSA values exceed 4 ng/mL, which represents a screening threshold that is not relevant after surgery. METHODS: We used US Veterans Health Administration data to perform a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of men diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer from 2005 to 2008 who underwent radical prostatectomy. We used logistic regression to examine the association between postoperative PSA levels and receipt of an annual PSA test. RESULTS: Among 10 400 men and 38 901 person-years of follow-up, annual guideline concordance decreased from 95% in year 1 to 79% in year 7. After adjustment, guideline concordance was lower for the youngest and oldest men, Black, and unmarried men. Guideline concordance significantly increased as PSA exceeded 4 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio 2.20 PSA > 4-6 ng/mL vs PSA > 1-4 ng/mL, 95% confidence interval 1.20-4.03; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline concordance with prostate cancer surveillance increased when PSA values exceeded 4 ng/mL, suggesting a screening threshold not relevant after prostate cancer surgery, where 0.2 ng/mL is considered treatment failure, is impacting cancer surveillance quality. Clarification of PSA thresholds for early detection vs cancer surveillance, as well as emphasizing adherence for younger and Black men, appears warranted.

Determinants of quality prostate cancer survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface: Lessons from the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: With over 3 million US prostate cancer survivors, ensuring high-quality, coordinated cancer survivorship care is important. However, implementation of recommended team-based cancer care has lagged, and determinants of quality care across primary and specialty care remain unclear. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), we explored multidisciplinary determinants of quality survivorship care in an integrated delivery system. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with primary (4) and specialty (7) care providers across 6 Veterans Health Administration clinic sites. Using template analysis, we coded interview transcripts into the TDF, mapping statements to specific constructs within each domain. We assessed whether each construct was perceived a barrier or facilitator, examining results for both primary care providers (PCPs) and prostate cancer specialists. RESULTS: Cancer specialists and PCPs identified 2 primary TDF domains impacting their prostate cancer survivorship care: Knowledge and Environmental context and resources. Both groups noted knowledge (about survivorship care) and procedural knowledge (about how to deliver survivorship care) as positive determinants or facilitators, whereas resources/material resources (to deliver survivorship care) was noted as a negative determinant or barrier to care. Additional domains more commonly referenced by cancer specialists included Social/professional role and identity and Goals, while PCPs reported the domain Beliefs about capabilities as relevant. CONCLUSIONS: We used the TDF to identify several behavioral domains acting as determinants of high-quality, team-based prostate cancer survivorship care. These results can inform prostate cancer survivorship care plan content, and may guide tailored, multidisciplinary implementation strategies to improve survivorship care across the primary and specialty care interface.

De-implementation of low value castration for men with prostate cancer: protocol for a theory-based, mixed methods approach to minimizing low value androgen deprivation therapy (DeADT).

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer are often castrated with long-acting injectable drugs termed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Although many benefit, ADT is also used in patients with little or nothing to gain. The best ways to stop this practice are unknown, and range from blunt pharmacy restrictions to informed decision-making. This study will refine and pilot two different de-implementation strategies for reducing ADT use among those unlikely to benefit in preparation for a comparative effectiveness trial. METHODS/DESIGN: This innovative mixed methods research program has three aims. Aim 1: To assess preferences and barriers for de-implementation of chemical castration in prostate cancer. Guided by the theoretical domains framework (TDF), urologists and patients from facilities with the highest and lowest castration rates across the VA will be interviewed to identify key preferences and de-implementation barriers for reducing castration as prostate cancer treatment. This qualitative work will inform Aim 2 while gathering rich information for two proposed pilot intervention strategies. Aim 2: To use a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a novel barrier prioritization approach, for de-implementation strategy tailoring. The investigators will conduct national surveys of urologists to prioritize key barriers identified in Aim 1 for stopping incident castration as localized prostate cancer treatment using a DCE experiment design. These quantitative results will identify the most important barriers to be addressed through tailoring of two pilot de-implementation strategies in preparation for Aim 3 piloting. Aim 3: To pilot two tailored de-implementation strategies to reduce castration as localized prostate cancer treatment. Building on findings from Aims 1 and 2, two de-implementation strategies will be piloted. One strategy will focus on formulary restriction at the organizational level and the other on physician/patient informed decision-making at different facilities. Outcomes will include acceptability, feasibility, and scalability in preparation for an effectiveness trial comparing these two widely varying de-implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: Our innovative approach to de-implementation strategy development is directly aligned with state-of-the-art complex implementation intervention development and implementation science. This work will broadly advance de-implementation science for low value cancer care, and foster participation in our de-implementation evaluation trial by addressing barriers, facilitators, and concerns through pilot tailoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03579680 , First Posted July 6, 2018.

Using implementation science to improve urologic oncology care.

There are many gaps between recommended urologic cancer care and real-world practice. Although we increasingly define these quality gaps because of our growing health services research capacity in urologic oncology, we often fall short in translating these findings into effective interventions and strategies to reduce gaps in care. In this article, we highlight implementation research as a logical next step for translating our health services research findings into effective individual and organizational behavior change strategies to improve quality of care. We explain how implementation research focuses on different, upstream outcomes from our clinical outcomes to get the right care to the right patient at the right time. Lastly, we share information about resources and training for those interested in learning more about this emerging, transdisciplinary field.

Quality of prostate cancer care among rural men in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Patient travel distances, coupled with variation in facility-level resources, create barriers for prostate cancer care in the Veterans Health Administration integrated delivery system. For these reasons, the authors investigated the degree to which these barriers impact the quality of prostate cancer care. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify all men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008. Patient residence was characterized using Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. The authors then examined whether rural residence, compared with urban residence, was associated with less access to cancer-related resources and worse quality of care for 5 prostate cancer quality measures. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of the 11,368 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008 lived in either a rural area or a large town. Rural patients tended to be white (62% urban vs 86% rural) and married (47% urban vs 63% rural), and they tended to have slightly higher incomes (all P<.01) but similar tumor grade (P=.23) and stage (P=.12) compared with urban patients. Rural patients were significantly less likely to be treated at facilities with comprehensive cancer resources, although they received a similar or better quality of care for 4 of the 5 prostate cancer quality measures. The time to prostate cancer treatment was similar (rural patients vs urban patients, 96.6 days vs 105.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients with prostate cancer had less access to comprehensive oncology resources, although they received a similar quality of care, compared with their urban counterparts in the Veterans Health Administration integrated delivery system. A better understanding of the degree to which facility factors contribute to the quality of cancer care may assist other organizations involved in rural health care delivery.

Despite variation in volume, Veterans Affairs hospitals show consistent outcomes among patients with non-postoperative mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between volume of nonoperative mechanically ventilated patients receiving care in a specific Veterans Health Administration hospital and their mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One-hundred nineteen Veterans Health Administration medical centers. PATIENTS: We identified 5,131 hospitalizations involving mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit during 2009, who did not receive surgery. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We extracted demographic and clinical data from the VA Inpatient Evaluation Center. For each hospital, we defined volume as the total number of nonsurgical admissions receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit during 2009. We examined the hospital contribution to 30-day mortality using multilevel logistic regression models with a random intercept for each hospital. We quantified the extent of interhospital variation in 30-day mortality using the intraclass correlation coefficient and median odds ratio. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the relationship between volume and 30-day mortality and risk-adjusted all models using a patient-level prognostic score derived from clinical data representing the risk of death conditional on treatment at a high-volume hospital. Mean age for the sample was 65 (SD 11) yrs, 97% were men, and 60% were white. The median VA hospital cared for 40 (interquartile range 19-62) mechanically ventilated patients in 2009. Crude 30-day mortality for these patients was 36.9%. After reliability and risk adjustment to the median patient, adjusted hospital-level mortality varied from 33.5% to 40.6%. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the hospital-level variation was 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.1, 3.4%), with a median odds ratio of 1.15 (95% confidence interval 1.06, 1.38). The relationship between hospital volume of mechanically ventilated and 30-day mortality was not statistically significant: each 50-patient increase in volume was associated with a nonsignificant 2% decrease in the odds of death within 30 days (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.87-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans Health Administration hospitals caring for lower volumes of mechanically ventilated patients do not have worse mortality. Mechanisms underlying this finding are unclear, but, if elucidated, may offer other integrated health systems ways to overcome the disadvantages of small-volume centers in achieving good outcomes.

Organizational factors associated with decreased mortality among Veterans Affairs patients with an ICU stay.

In-hospital mortality rates associated with an ICU stay are high and vary widely among units. This variation may be related to organizational factors such as staffing patterns, ICU structure, and care processes. We aimed to identify organizational factors associated with variation in in-hospital mortality for patients with an ICU stay. This was a retrospective observational cross-sectional study using administrative data from 34 093 patients from 171 ICUs in 119 Veterans Health Administration hospitals. Staffing and patient data came from Veterans Health Administration national databases. ICU characteristics came from a survey in 2004 of ICUs within the Veterans Health Administration. We conducted multilevel multivariable estimation with patient-, unit-, and hospital-level data. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Of 34 093 patients, 2141 (6.3%)died in the hospital. At the patient level, risk of complications and having a medical diagnosis were significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality. At the unit level, having an interface with the electronic medical record was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality. The finding that electronic medical records integrated with ICU information systems are associated with lower in-hospital mortality adds support to existing evidence on organizational characteristics associated with in-hospital mortality among ICU patients.

United States registered nurses' self-report of access to the Web.

The aim of this study was to identify the proportion and characteristics of Registered Nurses who reported having had an access to the Web in the year 2000 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. We conducted a secondary data analysis using more than 25 000 respondents to the year 2000 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. Using bivariate and logistic regression, we examined the association of reporting access to the Web with demographic, educational, and other characteristics of Registered Nurse respondents to the survey. We found that several factors were associated with the increased likelihood of Registered Nurses' reporting having had an access to the Web in the year 2000. These included race/ethnicity, marital and family status, highest level of nursing education, current enrollment in a nursing education program, annual household income, and continuing education in informatics. The likelihood of reporting having had access decreased with sex, age, experience since first nursing degree, and primary job responsibility. The results of this study indicate that having access to the Web enhances Registered Nurses' participation in professional development and continuing education opportunities.

Psychotropic use in community residential care facilities: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic medication use in community residential care (CRC) facilities has been reported to be similar to that found in nursing homes before the implementation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe patterns of psychotropic medication use at baseline and after 1 year of follow-up in adult residents aged > or =65 years supported by Medicaid in CRC facilities, (2) describe the quality of psychotropic use, and (3) examine the relationship between psychotropic use and resident and facility characteristics. METHODS: This was a planned analysis of a larger prospective cohort study conducted in CRC facilities (assisted living, adult family home, adult residential care) in a 3-county area in the state of Washington. Interviews and state Medicaid databases were used to collect resident characteristics (demographic data, medication use, activities of daily living, self-reported health, and frequency of memory and behavior problems) and facility characteristics (type, staffing, and occupancy rates). Residents were classified as users or nonusers of psychotropic medications. Suboptimal psychotropic use was defined as use of agents with a higher side-effect profile (tertiary amine tricyclic antidepressants, long-acting benzodiazepines, and low-potency conventional antipsychotics). Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with any psychotropic use at baseline. RESULTS: The typical resident was a white woman, aged 83 years, receiving 7 medications. Nearly half (46.8%) of all residents used > or =1 psychotropic medication at baseline, whereas 16.7% used multiple agents. Antidepressants accounted for the greatest amount of psychotropic use (31.2%). Suboptimal antidepressants, sedative/anxiolytics, and antipsychotics were used by 19.3%, 16.7%, and 7.3% of medication users in each class, respectively. Only age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35-1.00), number of medications (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist score (OR = 2.03; 95% CI, 1.28-3.23) were associated with psychotropic use at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic medication use was high in CRC facilities (46.8%), with antidepressants being the most frequently used drugs. Use of suboptimal (19.3% of antidepressant users, 16.7% of sedative/anxiolytic users, 7.3% of antipsychotic users) and multiple psychotropics (16.7%) was low.