Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Real-time evaluation and adaptation to facilitate rapid recruitment in a large, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting large cohorts efficiently can speed the translation of findings into care across a range of scientific disciplines and medical specialties. Recruitment can be hampered by factors such as financial barriers, logistical concerns, and lack of resources for patients and clinicians. These and other challenges can lead to underrepresentation in groups such as rural residents and racial and ethnic minorities. Here we discuss the implementation of various recruitment strategies for enrolling participants into a large, prospective cohort study, assessing the need for adaptations and making them in real-time, while maintaining high adherence to the protocol and high participant satisfaction. METHODS: While conducting a large, prospective trial of a multi-cancer early detection blood test at Geisinger, an integrated health system in central Pennsylvania, we monitored recruitment progress, adherence to the protocol, and participants' satisfaction. Tracking mechanisms such as paper records, electronic health records, research databases, dashboards, and electronic files were utilized to measure each outcome. We then reviewed study procedures and timelines to list the implementation strategies that were used to address barriers to recruitment, protocol adherence and participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Adaptations to methods that contributed to achieving the enrollment goal included offering multiple recruitment options, adopting group consenting, improving visit convenience, increasing the use of electronic capture and the tracking of data and source documents, staffing optimization via leveraging resources external to the study team when appropriate, and integrating the disclosure of study results into routine clinical care without adding unfunded work for clinicians. We maintained high protocol adherence and positive participant experience as exhibited by a very low rate of protocol deviations and participant complaints. CONCLUSION: Recruiting rapidly for large studies - and thereby facilitating clinical translation - requires a nimble, creative approach that marshals available resources and changes course according to data. Planning a rigorous assessment of a study's implementation outcomes prior to study recruitment can further ground study adaptations and facilitate translation into practice. This can be accomplished by proactively and continuously assessing and revising implementation strategies.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

Quantifying cancer risk from exposures to medical imaging in the Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study: research methods and cohort profile.

PURPOSE: The Risk of Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Associated with Medical Imaging (RIC) Study is quantifying the association between cumulative radiation exposure from fetal and/or childhood medical imaging and subsequent cancer risk. This manuscript describes the study cohorts and research methods. METHODS: The RIC Study is a longitudinal study of children in two retrospective cohorts from 6 U.S. healthcare systems and from Ontario, Canada over the period 1995-2017. The fetal-exposure cohort includes children whose mothers were enrolled in the healthcare system during their entire pregnancy and followed to age 20. The childhood-exposure cohort includes children born into the system and followed while continuously enrolled. Imaging utilization was determined using administrative data. Computed tomography (CT) parameters were collected to estimate individualized patient organ dosimetry. Organ dose libraries for average exposures were constructed for radiography, fluoroscopy, and angiography, while diagnostic radiopharmaceutical biokinetic models were applied to estimate organ doses received in nuclear medicine procedures. Cancers were ascertained from local and state/provincial cancer registry linkages. RESULTS: The fetal-exposure cohort includes 3,474,000 children among whom 6,606 cancers (2394 leukemias) were diagnosed over 37,659,582 person-years; 0.5% had in utero exposure to CT, 4.0% radiography, 0.5% fluoroscopy, 0.04% angiography, 0.2% nuclear medicine. The childhood-exposure cohort includes 3,724,632 children in whom 6,358 cancers (2,372 leukemias) were diagnosed over 36,190,027 person-years; 5.9% were exposed to CT, 61.1% radiography, 6.0% fluoroscopy, 0.4% angiography, 1.5% nuclear medicine. CONCLUSION: The RIC Study is poised to be the largest study addressing risk of childhood and adolescent cancer associated with ionizing radiation from medical imaging, estimated with individualized patient organ dosimetry.

Positive predictive value and sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying pediatric leukemia.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate community-based epidemiologic studies of pediatric leukemia, we validated use of ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes to identify pediatric leukemia cases in electronic medical records of six U.S. integrated health plans from 1996-2015 and evaluated the additional contributions of procedure codes for diagnosis/treatment. PROCEDURES: Subjects (N = 408) were children and adolescents born in the health systems and enrolled for at least 120 days after the date of the first leukemia ICD-9-CM code or tumor registry diagnosis. The gold standard was the health system tumor registry and/or medical record review. We calculated positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity by number of ICD-9-CM codes received in the 120-day period following and including the first code. We evaluated whether adding chemotherapy and/or bone marrow biopsy/aspiration procedure codes improved PPV and/or sensitivity. RESULTS: Requiring receipt of one or more codes resulted in 99% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 98-100%) but poor PPV (70%; 95% CI: 66-75%). Receipt of two or more codes improved PPV to 90% (95% CI: 86-93%) with 96% sensitivity (95% CI: 93-98%). Requiring at least four codes maximized PPV (95%; 95% CI: 92-98%) without sacrificing sensitivity (93%; 95% CI: 89-95%). Across health plans, PPV for four codes ranged from 84-100% and sensitivity ranged from 83-95%. Including at least one code for a bone marrow procedure or chemotherapy treatment had minimal impact on PPV or sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of diagnosis codes from the electronic health record has high PPV and sensitivity for identifying leukemia in children and adolescents if more than one code is required.

A Model for Genome-First Care: Returning Secondary Genomic Findings to Participants and Their Healthcare Providers in a Large Research Cohort.

There is growing interest in communicating clinically relevant DNA sequence findings to research participants who join projects with a primary research goal other than the clinical return of such results. Since Geisinger's MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) was launched in 2007, more than 200,000 participants have been broadly consented for discovery research. In 2013 the MyCode consent was amended to include a secondary analysis of research genomic sequences that allows for delivery of clinical results. Since May 2015, pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants from a set list of genes associated with monogenic conditions have prompted "genome-first" clinical encounters. The encounters are described as genome-first because they are identified independent of any clinical parameters. This article (1) details our process for generating clinical results from research data, delivering results to participants and providers, facilitating condition-specific clinical evaluations, and promoting cascade testing of relatives, and (2) summarizes early results and participant uptake. We report on 542 participants who had results uploaded to the electronic health record as of February 1, 2018 and 291 unique clinical providers notified with one or more participant results. Of these 542 participants, 515 (95.0%) were reached to disclose their results and 27 (5.0%) were lost to follow-up. We describe an exportable model for delivery of clinical care through secondary use of research data. In addition, subject and provider participation data from the initial phase of these efforts can inform other institutions planning similar programs.

Leukemia Risk in a Cohort of 3.9 Million Children with and without Down Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess leukemia risks among children with Down syndrome in a large, contemporary cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study including 3 905 399 children born 1996-2016 in 7 US healthcare systems or Ontario, Canada, and followed from birth to cancer diagnosis, death, age 15 years, disenrollment, or December 30, 2016. Down syndrome was identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, diagnosis codes. Cancer diagnoses were identified through linkages to tumor registries. Incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) of leukemia were estimated for children with Down syndrome and other children adjusting for health system, child's age at diagnosis, birth year, and sex. RESULTS: Leukemia was diagnosed in 124 of 4401 children with Down syndrome and 1941 of 3 900 998 other children. In children with Down syndrome, the cumulative incidence of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was 1405/100 000 (95% CI 1076-1806) at age 4 years and unchanged at age 14 years. The cumulative incidence of acute lymphoid leukemia in children with Down syndrome was 1059/100 000 (95% CI 755-1451) at age 4 and 1714/100 000 (95% CI 1264-2276) at age 14 years. Children with Down syndrome had a greater risk of AML before age 5 years than other children (HR 399, 95% CI 281-566). Largest HRs were for megakaryoblastic leukemia before age 5 years (HR 1500, 95% CI 555-4070). Children with Down syndrome had a greater risk of acute lymphoid leukemia than other children regardless of age (<5 years: HR 28, 95% CI 20-40, ≥5 years HR 21, 95% CI 12-38). CONCLUSIONS: Down syndrome remains a strong risk factor for childhood leukemia, and associations with AML are stronger than previously reported.

Positive impact of genetic counseling assistants on genetic counseling efficiency, patient volume, and cost in a cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: Cancer genetics clinics have seen increasing demand, challenging genetic counselors (GCs) to increase efficiency and prompting some clinics to implement genetic counseling assistants (GCAs). To evaluate the impact of GCAs on Geisinger's cancer genetics clinic, we tracked GC time utilization, new patient volume, and clinic cost per patient before and after implementing a GCA program. METHODS: GCs used time-tracking software while completing preappointment activities. Electronic health records were reviewed for appointment length and number of patients per week. Internal salary data for GCs and GCAs were used to calculate clinic costs per patient. RESULTS: Time spent by GCs completing each preappointment activity (21.8 vs. 15.1 minutes) and appointment length (51.6 vs. 44.5 minutes) significantly decreased after GCA program implementation (p values < 0.001). New patients per week per GC significantly increased (7.9 vs. 11.4, p < 0.001). Weekly clinic cost per patient significantly decreased ($233 vs. $176, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Implementing a GCA program increased GC efficiency in preappointment activities and clinic appointments, increased patient volume, and decreased clinic cost per patient. Such a program can improve access to GC services and assist GCs in focusing on the direct patient care for which they are specially trained.

Clinical outcomes of a genomic screening program for actionable genetic conditions.

PURPOSE: Three genetic conditions-hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, and familial hypercholesterolemia-have tier 1 evidence for interventions that reduce morbidity and mortality, prompting proposals to screen unselected populations for these conditions. We examined the impact of genomic screening on risk management and early detection in an unselected population. METHODS: Observational study of electronic health records (EHR) among individuals in whom a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a tier 1 gene was discovered through Geisinger's MyCode project. EHR of all eligible participants was evaluated for a prior genetic diagnosis and, among participants without such a diagnosis, relevant personal/family history, postdisclosure clinical diagnoses, and postdisclosure risk management. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of participants (305/351) did not have a prior genetic diagnosis of their tier 1 result. Of these, 65% had EHR evidence of relevant personal and/or family history of disease. Of 255 individuals eligible to have risk management, 70% (n = 179) had a recommended risk management procedure after results disclosure. Thirteen percent of participants (41/305) received a relevant clinical diagnosis after results disclosure. CONCLUSION: Genomic screening programs can identify previously unrecognized individuals at increased risk of cancer and heart disease and facilitate risk management and early cancer detection.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate. METHODS: Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group. DISCUSSION: These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Alternate delivery models for genetic counseling: clinical and implementation considerations.

The demand for genetic counseling services and the need for alternate service delivery models to meet this demand in cancer care is continually growing. Models exist, however, there is little evidence on which models work best for which individuals or healthcare systems. Implementation science offers the tools to address this gap and evaluate such models in context for broader impact to integrate these models into cancer care delivery.

Early cancer diagnoses through BRCA1/2 screening of unselected adult biobank participants.

PurposeThe clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility.MethodsWhole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient-participants and their clinicians. We queried patient-participants' electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient-participants of eligible age who had begun risk management.ResultsThirty-seven MyCode patient-participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer-including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer-via these procedures.ConclusionScreening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

Implementing universal Lynch syndrome screening (IMPULSS): protocol for a multi-site study to identify strategies to implement, adapt, and sustain genomic medicine programs in different organizational contexts.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems. METHODS: This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation. DISCUSSION: The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Impact of a Patient-Facing Enhanced Genomic Results Report to Improve Understanding, Engagement, and Communication.

"The objective of this study was to" test the effectiveness of an enhanced genomic report on patient-centered outcome domains including communication, engagement and satisfaction. "Study design utilized" a prospective, randomized, mixed-methods desctiptive study of a whole genome sequencing results report, GenomeCOMPASS™, that was accessed by providers through the electronic health record and by patients through the associated patient portal. "The study was set in" an integrated healthcare delivery system in central Pennsylvania. "Eighty-four" parents of 46 children with undiagnosed Intellectual Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder and/or multiple congenital anomalies who had participated in a previous study offering whole genome sequencing for their affected child were invited to enroll. Fifty-two parents enrolled. Following a traditional genetics results informing visit, the study coordinator stratified families by diagnostic result and uninformative result and then randomized families within each group to an intervention arm to receive the GenomeCOMPASS™ report or to the usual care arm to receive a summary letter from the medical geneticist. A letter inviting enrollment included a baseline survey, which once returned, constituted enrollment. Surveys were administered at 3 months post-genetics visit. At 6 months, the usual care arm crossed over to receive the intervention and were administered an additional survey at 3 months. Qualitative interviews were conducted following survey completion to augment the survey data regarding the patient centered outcomes of interest. Patient reported outcomes including communication, engagement, empowerment and satisfaction. In the intervention arm, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 14 families (N = 28 parents) and of those 21 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. In the usual care arm, 12 families (N = 24 parents) received usual care summary letters and of those 20 (83%) returned 3 month surveys. At crossover, GenomeCOMPASS™ reports were released to 20 individuals and 15 (75%) returned 3 month surveys. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 5 individuals. Use of the GenomeCOMPASS™ report was reported by this small group of parents to improve communication with providers and non-health professionals such as educators and therapists and led to increased engagement and high satisfaction. Providers and others involved in the children's care also endorsed the report's effectiveness. Reports that addressed negative findings, i.e. uninformative results, were not found to be useful. Although the number of users was small, this study supports that customizable template reports may provide a useful and durable source of information that can support and enhance the information provided by genetics professionals in traditional face-to-face encounters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (Record 2013-0594).

Precision engagement: the PMI's success will depend on more than genomes and big data.

Genet Med advance online publication 27 October 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.165.

Enhancing genomic laboratory reports: A qualitative analysis of provider review.

This study reports on the responses of physicians who reviewed provider and patient versions of a genomic laboratory report designed to communicate results of whole genome sequencing. Semi-structured interviews addressed concept communication, elements, and format of example genome reports. Analysis of the coded transcripts resulted in recognition of three constructs around communication of genome sequencing results: (1) Providers agreed that whole genomic sequencing results are complex and they welcomed a report that provided supportive interpretation information to accompany sequencing results; (2) Providers strongly endorsed a report that included active clinical guidance, such as reference to practice guidelines, if available; and (3) Providers valued the genomic report as a resource that would serve as the basis to facilitate communication of genome sequencing results with their patients and families. Providers valued both versions of the report, though they affirmed the need for a provider-oriented report. Critical elements of the report included clear language to explain the result, as well as consolidated yet comprehensive prognostic information with clear guidance over time for the clinical care of the patient. Most importantly, it appears a report with this design has the potential not only to return results but also serves as a communication tool to help providers and patients discuss and coordinate care over time.

Enhancing genomic laboratory reports from the patients' view: A qualitative analysis.

The purpose of this study was to develop a family genomic laboratory report designed to communicate genome sequencing results to parents of children who were participating in a whole genome sequencing clinical research study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children who participated in a whole genome sequencing clinical research study to address the elements, language and format of a sample family-directed genome laboratory report. The qualitative interviews were followed by two focus groups aimed at evaluating example presentations of information about prognosis and next steps related to the whole genome sequencing result. Three themes emerged from the qualitative data: (i) Parents described a continual search for valid information and resources regarding their child's condition, a need that prior reports did not meet for parents; (ii) Parents believed that the Family Report would help facilitate communication with physicians and family members; and (iii) Parents identified specific items they appreciated in a genomics Family Report: simplicity of language, logical flow, visual appeal, information on what to expect in the future and recommended next steps. Parents affirmed their desire for a family genomic results report designed for their use and reference. They articulated the need for clear, easy to understand language that provided information with temporal detail and specific recommendations regarding relevant findings consistent with that available to clinicians.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in Primary Care in Integrated Health Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Substance abuse in the United States is a serious public health concern impacting morbidity and mortality. However, systematic screening and intervention has not been widely adopted into routine practice by health care organizations and routine screening and intervention is not currently in place for primary care at Kaiser Permanente Colorado. Therefore, a formative evaluation was conducted to explore and enhance implementation of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) approach in the organization. METHODS: Key clinical stakeholders, including internal and family medicine physicians, primary care nurses, mental health therapists, chemical dependency clinicians, and clinic-based psychologists provided feedback. Two focus groups were also conducted with patient stakeholders: one in English and one in Spanish. RESULTS: All clinical stakeholders promoted clinic-based psychologists to conduct brief intervention and determine referral to treatment as the optimal implementation program. Inclusion of the patient perspective also highlighted the importance of considering this perspective in implementation. Both patient groups were generally supportive of SBIRT, especially the educational value of screening questions defining healthy drinking limits; however, English-speaking patients noted privacy concerns and Spanish-speaking patients noted frequently being asked about drug or alcohol use. Organizationally, systems exist to facilitate drug and alcohol use screening, intervention, and referral to treatment. However, physician time, alignment with other priorities, and lack of consistent communication were noted potential barriers to SBIRT implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians expressed concerns about competing priorities and the need for organizational leadership involvement for successful SBIRT implementation. A unique suggestion for successful implementation is to utilize existing primary care clinic-based psychologists to conduct brief intervention and facilitate referral to treatment. Patient stakeholders supported universal screening, but cultural differences in opinions and current experience were noted, indicating the importance of including this perspective when evaluating implementation potential.

Clinical stakeholders' perceptions of patient engagement in outpatient medication treatment for opioid use disorder: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce risk of opioid overdose and promote recovery from opioid use disorder, but poor retention in MOUD limits these positive effects. This study explored patient engagement in MOUD from the perspective of clinical stakeholders within an outpatient addiction medicine program to identify program factors influencing patient engagement with treatment. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative case study of a multi-clinic outpatient addiction medicine program embedded within an integrated health system that serves a geographically diverse area of Pennsylvania. Collectively, the program's clinics provide MOUD (primarily buprenorphine) to ~2000 patients annually. From January to March 2021, we conducted semi-structured telephone/video interviews with three stakeholder groups involved in delivering MOUD: administrators (n = 4), providers (n = 7), and addiction care coordinators (n = 5). Data analysis utilized the framework method. RESULTS: We identified five themes related to patient engagement. First, participants described health system integration as enhancing quality and offering opportunities for addressing patients' comprehensive health care needs. However, lack of knowledge about addiction and stigma among health system providers was felt to limit patient benefits from this integration, including access to MOUD. Second, participants viewed patient engagement as central to the program's policies, practices, and clinical environment. Adoption of a harm reduction approach and maintenance of a non-stigmatizing clinic environment were described as essential facilitators of engagement. Third, while clinics followed uniform operations, physician leads expressed differing philosophical approaches to treatment, which participants associated with variations in clinical practice and patient engagement. Fourth, participants identified key services that bolstered engagement in MOUD, including psychosocial services, psychiatric care, and telemedicine. Finally, staff well-being emerged as a key consideration for patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding perceptions of those who administer and deliver care is critical for identifying barriers and facilitators to patient engagement in MOUD. Findings suggest potential opportunities for addiction treatment programs to improve patient engagement and ultimately MOUD retention, including integration with other healthcare services to meet comprehensive healthcare needs; adoption of a harm reduction approach; creation of non-stigmatizing clinical environments; investment in psychosocial services, psychiatric care, and telemedicine; and prioritization of staff wellness.