Perspectives of individuals with sickle cell disease on barriers to care.

INTRODUCTION: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited hemoglobinopathy that predominantly affects African Americans in the United States. The disease is associated with complications leading to high healthcare utilization rates, including emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Optimal SCD care requires a multidisciplinary approach involving SCD specialists to ensure preventive care, minimize complications and prevent unnecessary ED visits and hospitalizations. However, most individuals with SCD receive sub-optimal care or are unaffiliated with care (have not seen an SCD specialist). We aimed to identify barriers to care from the perspective of individuals with SCD in a multi-state sample. METHODS: We performed a multiple methods study consisting of surveys and interviews in three comprehensive SCD centers from March to June 2018. Interviews were transcribed and coded, exploring themes around barriers to care. Survey questions on the specific themes identified in the interviews were analyzed using summary statistics. RESULTS: We administered surveys to 208 individuals and conducted 44 in-depth interviews. Barriers to care were identified and classified according to ecological level (i.e., individual, family/interpersonal, provider, and socio-environmental/organizational level). Individual-level barriers included lack of knowledge in self-management and disease severity. Family/interpersonal level barriers were inadequate caregiver support and competing life demands. Provider level barriers were limited provider knowledge, provider inexperience, poor provider-patient relationship, being treated differently, and the provider's lack of appreciation of the patient's SCD knowledge. Socio-environmental/organizational level barriers included limited transportation, lack of insurance, administrative barriers, poor care coordination, and reduced access to care due to limited clinic availability, services provided or clinic refusal to provide SCD care. CONCLUSION: Participants reported several multilevel barriers to SCD care. Strategies tailored towards reducing these barriers are warranted. Our findings may also inform interventions aiming to locate and link unaffiliated individuals to care.

Using a RE-AIM framework to identify promising practices in National Diabetes Prevention Program implementation.

BACKGROUND: The National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) is rapidly expanding in an effort to help those at high risk of type 2 diabetes prevent or delay the disease. In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded six national organizations to scale and sustain multistate delivery of the National DPP lifestyle change intervention (LCI). This study aims to describe reach, adoption, and maintenance during the 4-year funding period and to assess associations between site-level factors and program effectiveness regarding participant attendance and participation duration. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to guide the evaluation from October 2012 to September 2016. Multilevel linear regressions were used to examine associations between participant-level demographics and site-level strategies and number of sessions attended, attendance in months 7-12, and duration of participation. RESULTS: The six funded national organizations increased the number of participating sites from 68 in 2012 to 164 by 2016 across 38 states and enrolled 14,876 eligible participants. By September 2016, coverage for the National DPP LCI was secured for 42 private insurers and 7 public payers. Nearly 200 employers were recruited to offer the LCI on site to their employees. Site-level strategies significantly associated with higher overall attendance, attendance in months 7-12, and longer participation duration included using self-referral or word of mouth as a recruitment strategy, providing non-monetary incentives for participation, and using cultural adaptations to address participants' needs. Sites receiving referrals from healthcare providers or health systems also had higher attendance in months 7-12 and longer participation duration. At the participant level, better outcomes were achieved among those aged 65+ (vs. 18-44 or 45-64), those who were overweight (vs. obesity), those who were non-Hispanic white (vs. non-Hispanic black or multiracial/other races), and those eligible based on a blood test or history of gestational diabetes mellitus (vs. screening positive on a risk test). CONCLUSIONS: In a time of rapid dissemination of the National DPP LCI the findings of this evaluation can be used to enhance program implementation and translate lessons learned to similar organizations and settings.

Implementing an opioid risk assessment telephone clinic: Outcomes from a pharmacist-led initiative in a large Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic, December 15, 2014-March 31, 2015.

BACKGROUND: In response to the national epidemic of prescription opioid misuse and related adverse outcomes, two clinical pharmacists developed a telephone risk assessment clinic to promote safe opioid prescribing through a monthly assessment of patient medication use, aberrant behaviors, and side effects. METHODS: A pilot group of five primary care providers and their patients with chronic nonmalignant pain on chronic opioid therapy, defined as having received prescription opioid medications for ≥90 days in the last 120 days, were identified. A risk assessment evaluation based on Veterans Health Administration/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain was created. Factors assessed were receipt of non-San Francisco Veterans Administration Health Care System controlled substance prescriptions through California's prescription drug monitoring program, urine drug test (UDT) results, and aberrant behaviors. Pharmacist-recommended changes to regimen and provider response to recommendation were compiled. The pilot was conducted from December 15, 2014, to March 31, 2015. RESULTS: Among 608 patients on chronic opioid therapy, 148 were assigned to pilot providers and 447 assessments were completed. Twenty-five (16.8%) patients had non-VA controlled substance prescriptions, of which 14 (56.0%) patients filled a non-VA controlled substance within 3 months of the start of pilot. Seventeen UDT results inconsistent with their prescribed regimens were identified from 12 patients (8.1%). Pharmacists recommended 66 changes to chronic opioid prescriptions in 48 patients (32.4%), including decreasing quantity of opioid(s) (33.3%), discontinuing chronic opioid therapy (22.7%), and delaying a fill (19.7%). Sixty-one of 66 (92.5%) pharmacist recommendations for regimen change were implemented by providers. Chronic opioid therapy was discontinued in 14 (9.5%) patients over the course of the pilot study. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacist-led telephone risk assessment clinic improved adherence to clinical guidelines and changed opioid prescribing practices in more than one third of assessed patients.

Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure.

BACKGROUND: Organizational readiness for change in healthcare settings is an important factor in successful implementation of new policies, programs, and practices. However, research on the topic is hindered by the absence of a brief, reliable, and valid measure. Until such a measure is developed, we cannot advance scientific knowledge about readiness or provide evidence-based guidance to organizational leaders about how to increase readiness. This article presents results of a psychometric assessment of a new measure called Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), which we developed based on Weiner's theory of organizational readiness for change. METHODS: We conducted four studies to assess the psychometric properties of ORIC. In study one, we assessed the content adequacy of the new measure using quantitative methods. In study two, we examined the measure's factor structure and reliability in a laboratory simulation. In study three, we assessed the reliability and validity of an organization-level measure of readiness based on aggregated individual-level data from study two. In study four, we conducted a small field study utilizing the same analytic methods as in study three. RESULTS: Content adequacy assessment indicated that the items developed to measure change commitment and change efficacy reflected the theoretical content of these two facets of organizational readiness and distinguished the facets from hypothesized determinants of readiness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in the lab and field studies revealed two correlated factors, as expected, with good model fit and high item loadings. Reliability analysis in the lab and field studies showed high inter-item consistency for the resulting individual-level scales for change commitment and change efficacy. Inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement statistics supported the aggregation of individual level readiness perceptions to the organizational level of analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides evidence in support of the ORIC measure. We believe this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits. Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.