Using brief reflections to capture and evaluate end-user engagement: a case example using the COMPASS study.

BACKGROUND: Use of participatory research methods is increasing in research trials. Once partnerships are established with end-users, there is less guidance about processes research teams can use to successfully incorporate end-user feedback. The current study describes the use of a brief reflections process to systematically examine and evaluate the impact of end-user feedback on study conduct. METHODS: The Comparative Effectiveness of Trauma-Focused and Non-Trauma- Focused Treatment Strategies for PTSD among those with Co-Occurring SUD (COMPASS) study was a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of trauma-focused psychotherapy versus non-trauma-focused psychotherapy for Veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder who were entering substance use treatment within the Department of Veterans Affairs. We developed and paired a process of "brief reflections" with our end-user engagement methods as part of a supplemental evaluation of the COMPASS study engagement plan. Brief reflections were 30-minute semi-structured discussions with the COMPASS Team following meetings with three study engagement panels about feedback received regarding study issues. To evaluate the impact of panel feedback, 16 reflections were audio-recorded, transcribed, rapidly analyzed, and integrated with other study data sources. RESULTS: Brief reflections revealed that the engagement panels made recommended changes in eight areas: enhancing recruitment; study assessment completion; creating uniformity across Study Coordinators; building Study Coordinator connection to Veteran participants; mismatch between study procedures and clinical practice; therapist skill with patients with active substance use; therapist burnout; and dissemination of study findings. Some recommendations positively impact study conduct while others had mixed impact. Reflections were iterative and led to emergent processes that included revisiting previously discussed topics, cross-pollination of ideas across panels, and sparking solutions amongst the Team when the panels did not make any recommendations or recommendations were not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: When paired with end-user engagement methods, brief reflections can facilitate systematic examination of end-user input, particularly when the engagement strategy is robust. Reflections offer a forum of accountability for researchers to give careful thought to end-user recommendations and make timely improvements to the study conduct. Reflections can also facilitate evaluation of these recommendations and reveal end-user-driven strategies that can effectively improve study conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04581434) on October 9, 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04581434?term=NCT04581434&draw=2&rank=1 .

Exemplar Hospital initiation trial to Enhance Treatment Engagement (EXHIT ENTRE): protocol for CTN-0098B a randomized implementation study to support hospitals in caring for patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations involving opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce mortality and acute care utilization. Hospitalization is a reachable moment for initiating MOUD and arranging for ongoing MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. Despite existing quality metrics for MOUD initiation and engagement, few hospitals provide hospital based opioid treatment (HBOT). This protocol describes a cluster-randomized hybrid type-2 implementation study comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation support strategies to help community hospitals implement HBOT. METHODS: Four state implementation hubs with expertise in initiating HBOT programs will provide implementation support to 24 community hospitals (6 hospitals/hub) interested in starting HBOT. Community hospitals will be randomized to 24-months of either a low-intensity intervention (distribution of an HBOT best-practice manual, a lecture series based on the manual, referral to publicly available resources, and on-demand technical assistance) or a high-intensity intervention (the low-intensity intervention plus funding for a hospital HBOT champion and regular practice facilitation sessions with an expert hub). The primary efficacy outcome, adapted from the National Committee on Quality Assurance, is the proportion of patients engaged in MOUD 34-days following hospital discharge. Secondary and exploratory outcomes include acute care utilization, non-fatal overdose, death, MOUD engagement at various time points, hospital length of stay, and discharges against medical advice. Primary, secondary, and exploratory outcomes will be derived from state Medicaid data. Implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators are assessed via longitudinal surveys, qualitative interviews, practice facilitation contact logs, and HBOT sustainability metrics. We hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving care at hospitals randomized to the high-intensity arm will have greater MOUD engagement following hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Initiation of MOUD during hospitalization improves MOUD engagement post hospitalization. Few studies, however, have tested different implementation strategies on HBOT uptake, outcome, and sustainability and only one to date has tested implementation of a specific type of HBOT (addiction consultation services). This cluster-randomized study comparing different intensities of HBOT implementation support will inform hospitals and policymakers in identifying effective strategies for promoting HBOT dissemination and adoption in community hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04921787.

Buprenorphine Receipt and Retention for Opioid Use Disorder following an Initiative to Increase Access in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), is underutilized in general medical settings. Further, it is inequitably received by racialized groups and persons with comorbidities. The Veterans Health Administration launched an initiative to increase buprenorphine receipt in primary care. The project's objective was to identify patient-related factors associated with buprenorphine receipt and retention in primary care clinics (n = 18) participating in the initiative. METHODS: Retrospective cohort quality improvement evaluation of patients 18 years or older with 2 or more primary care visits in a 1-year period and an OUD diagnosis in the year before the first primary care visit (index date). Buprenorphine receipt was the proportion of patients with OUD who received 1 or more buprenorphine prescriptions from primary care providers during the post-index year and retention the proportion who received buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. RESULTS: Of 2880 patients with OUD seen in primary care, 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-12.9%) received buprenorphine in primary care, 58.2% (95% CI, 52.8%-63.3%) of whom were retained on buprenorphine for 180 days or longer. Patients with alcohol use disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57), nonopioid drug use disorder (AOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93), and serious mental illness (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97) had lower buprenorphine receipt. Those with an anxiety disorder had higher buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95). Buprenorphine receipt (AOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.87) and 180-day retention (AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19-0.84) were less likely among non-Hispanic Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: Further integration of addiction services in primary care may be needed to enhance buprenorphine receipt for patients with comorbid substance use disorders, and interventions are needed to address disparities in receipt and retention among non-Hispanic Black patients.

Co-occurring implementation strategies: The effects of academic detailing for opioid use disorder campaign on the advancing pharmacological treatments for opioid use disorder (ADaPT-OUD) study.

Background: Barriers at the system, clinician, and patient level limit access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The Advancing Pharmacological Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder (ADaPT-OUD) study implemented an external facilitation strategy within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) aimed at facility-level barriers to improve uptake of MOUD. During ADaPT-OUD, an independent Academic Detailing Services Opioid Agonist Treatment of OUD Campaign was co-occurring and aimed to increase evidence-based practice for OUD at the clinician level. While both these initiatives aim to increase MOUD reach, they address different barriers and did not intentionally collaborate. Thus, understanding the interaction between these two independent implementation initiatives and their effect on MOUD reach will further inform and mold future implementation efforts of MOUD. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the ADaPT-OUD study that included 35 VHA facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD reach; eight received the ADaPT-OUD external facilitation and 27 matched sites received implementation as usual. The number of academic detailing (AD) visits during ADaPT-OUD was used as a proxy for the intensity of Academic Detailing for OUD Campaign activity. The interaction between external facilitation status and AD intensity was evaluated by comparing the change in facility-level MOUD reach. Results: There was a general increase in the number of AD visits, in both external facilitation and implementation as usual sites, over the course of ADaPT-OUD's implementation period. A non-statistically significant, positively sloped, linear relationship was observed between average number of AD visits per quarter and change in MOUD reach in facilities also receiving ADaPT-OUD external facilitation that was not observed in the implementation as usual sites. Conclusion: Co-occurring initiatives focusing on different barriers to MOUD access have the potential to further increase MOUD in low-performing facilities, but further research into timing, quality, and collaboration between initiatives are warranted.

Medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a key element in addressing the opioid epidemic. The development, approval, and effectiveness of buprenorphine and naltrexone have expanded access to MOUD from specialty opioid treatment programs to office-based treatment. However, uptake of these evidence-based treatments across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is variable. To address this gap in care within the VHA, The Advancing Pharmacological Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (ADaPT-OUD) study implemented an external facilitation strategy aimed at facility-level barriers at low-adopting VHA facilities while the VHA Pharmacy Benefits Management Academic Detailing Services Opioid Agonist Treatment of OUD Campaign implemented academic detailing with the goal to address clinician-level barriers. This article evaluates the effect these two co-occurring and independent initiatives had on each other and MOUD reach. The results suggest a trend toward a positive synergistic relationship between the two initiatives, that warrants further study and evaluation to inform further implementation efforts.

Guideline-discordant inhaler regimens after COPD hospitalization: associations with rurality, drive time to care, and fragmented care - a United States cohort study.

Background: Many patients receive guideline-discordant inhaler regimens after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization. Geography and fragmented care across multiple providers likely influence prescription of guideline-discordant inhaler regimens, but these have not been comprehensively studied. We assessed patient-level differences in guideline-discordant inhaler regimens by rurality, drive time to pulmonary specialty care, and fragmented care. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis using national Veterans Health Administration (VA) data among patients who received primary care and prescriptions from the VA. Patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation between 2017 and 2020 were assessed for guideline-discordant inhaler regimens in the subsequent 3 months. Guideline-discordant inhaler regimens were defined as short-acting inhaler/s only, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy, long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) monotherapy, ICS + LABA, long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy, or LAMA + ICS. Rural residence and drive time to the closest pulmonary specialty care were obtained from geocoded addresses. Fragmented care was defined as hospitalization outside the VA. We used multivariable logistic regression models to assess associations between rurality, drive time, fragmentated care, and guideline-discordant inhaler regimens. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Area Deprivation Index, and region. Findings: Of 33,785 patients, 16,398 (48.6%) received guideline-discordant inhaler regimens 3 months after hospitalization. Rural residents had higher odds of guideline-discordant inhalers regimens compared to their urban counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.18 [95% CI: 1.12-1.23]). The odds of receiving guideline-discordant inhaler regimens increased with longer drive time to pulmonary specialty care (aOR 1.38 [95% CI: 1.30-1.46] for drive time >90 min compared to <30 min). Fragmented care was also associated with higher odds of guideline-discordant inhaler regimens (aOR 1.56 [95% CI: 1.48-1.63]). Interpretation: Rurality, long drive time to care, and fragmented care were associated with greater prescription of guideline-discordant inhaler regimens after COPD hospitalization. These findings highlight the need to understand challenges in delivering evidence-based care. Funding: NIHNCATS grants KL2TR002492 and UL1TR002494.

Stakeholder perceptions of using "opt-out" for tobacco use treatment in a cancer care setting: a qualitative evaluation of patients, providers, and desk staff.

BACKGROUND: Continued tobacco use in cancer patients increases the risk of cancer treatment failure and decreases survival. However, currently, most cancer patients do not receive evidence-based tobacco treatment. A recently proposed "opt-out" approach would automatically refer all cancer patients who use tobacco to tobacco treatment, but its acceptability to cancer patients and providers is unknown. We aimed to understand stakeholder beliefs, concerns, and receptivity to using the "opt-out" approach for tobacco treatment referrals in a cancer care setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology patients, providers, and desk staff. The sample size was determined when theoretical saturation was reached. Given the differences among participant roles, separate interview guides were developed. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Emergent codes were added to the codebook to account for themes not represented by a CFIR domain. Coded transcripts were then entered into the qualitative analysis software NVivo to generate code reports for CFIR domains and emergent codes for each stakeholder group. Data were presented by stakeholder group and subcategorized by CFIR domains and emergent codes when appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 21 providers, 19 patients, and 6 desk staff were interviewed. Overall acceptance of the "opt out" approach was high among all groups. Providers overwhelmingly approved of the approach as it requires little effort from them to operate and saves clinical time. Desk staff supported the opt-out system and believed there are clinical benefits to patients receiving information about tobacco treatment. Many patients expressed support for using an opt-out approach as many smokers need assistance but may not directly ask for it. Patients also thought that providers emphasizing the benefits of stopping tobacco use to cancer treatment and survival would be an important factor motivating them to attend treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While providers appreciated that the system required little effort on their part, patients clearly indicated that promotion of tobacco cessation treatment by their provider would be vital to enhance willingness to engage with treatment. Future implementation efforts of opt-out systems will require implementation strategies that promote provider engagement with their patients around smoking cessation while continuing to limit burden on providers.

Costs of implementing a multi-site facilitation intervention to increase access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The United States has been grappling with the opioid epidemic, which has resulted in over 75,000 opioid-related deaths between April 2020 and 2021. Evidence-based pharmaceutical interventions (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) are available to reduce opioid-related overdoses and deaths. However, adoption of these medications for opioid use disorder has been stifled due to individual- and system-level barriers. External facilitation is an evidence-based implementation intervention that has been used to increase access to medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), but the implementation costs of external facilitation have not been assessed. We sought to measure the facility-level direct costs of implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD to provide decision makers with estimates of the resources needed to implement this evidence-based program. METHODS: We performed a cost analysis of the pre-implementation and implementation phases, including an itemization of external facilitation team and local site labor costs. We used labor estimates from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and sensitivity analyses were performed using labor estimates from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Financial Management System general ledger data. RESULTS: The average total costs for implementing an external facilitation intervention for MOUD per site was $18,847 (SD 6717) and ranged between $11,320 and $31,592. This translates to approximately $48 per patient with OUD. Sites with more encounters and participants with higher salaries in attendance had higher costs. This was driven mostly by the labor involved in planning and implementation activities. The average total cost of the pre-implementation and implementation activities were $1031 and $17,816 per site, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, costs for VHA were higher than BLS estimates likely due to higher wages. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing external facilitation to increase MOUD prescribing may be affordable depending on the payer's budget constraints. Our study reported that there were variations in the time invested at each phase of implementation and the number and type of participants involved with implementing an external facilitation intervention. Participant composition played an important role in total implementation costs, and decision makers will need to identify the most efficient and optimal number of stakeholders to involve in their implementation plans.

Clinician Perspectives on Delivering Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated changes in opioid use disorder care. Little is known about COVID-19's impact on general healthcare clinicians' experiences providing medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This qualitative evaluation assessed clinicians' beliefs about and experiences delivering MOUD in general healthcare clinics during COVID-19. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted May through December 2020 with clinicians participating in a Department of Veterans Affairs initiative to implement MOUD in general healthcare clinics. Participants included 30 clinicians from 21 clinics (9 primary care, 10 pain, and 2 mental health). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The following 4 themes were identified: overall impact of the pandemic on MOUD care and patient well-being, features of MOUD care impacted, MOUD care delivery, and continuance of telehealth for MOUD care. Clinicians reported a rapid shift to telehealth care, resulting in few changes to patient assessments, MOUD initiations, and access to and quality of care. Although technological challenges were noted, clinicians highlighted positive experiences, including treatment destigmatization, more timely visits, and insight into patients' environments. Such changes resulted in more relaxed clinical interactions and improved clinic efficiency. Clinicians reported a preference for in-person and telehealth hybrid care models. CONCLUSIONS: After the quick shift to telehealth-based MOUD delivery, general healthcare clinicians reported few impacts on quality of care and highlighted several benefits that may address common barriers to MOUD care. Evaluations of in-person and telehealth hybrid care models, clinical outcomes, equity, and patient perspectives are needed to inform MOUD services moving forward.

Applying i-PARIHS to Identify Emerging Innovations in Hospital Discharge Decision Making in Response to System Stress: A Qualitative Study.

Background: The purpose of this qualitative study was to use a Learning Health System approach to identify factors influencing the emergence of innovation in rehabilitation hospital discharge decision-making during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Rehabilitation clinicians were recruited from the Veterans Affairs Health Care System and participated in individual semi-structured interviews guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Data were analyzed using a rapid qualitative, deductive team-based approach informed by directed content analysis. Results: Twenty-three rehabilitation clinicians representing physical (N = 11) and occupational therapy (N = 12) participated in the study. Three primary themes were generated: (1) Recipients: innovations emerged as approaches to communicating discharge recommendations changed (in-person to virtual) and strong patient/family preferences to discharge to the home challenged collaborative goal setting; (2) Context: the ability of rehabilitation clinicians to innovate and the form of innovations were influenced by the broader hospital system, interdisciplinary team dynamics, and policy fluctuations; (3) Innovation: emerging innovations in discharge processes included perceived increases in team collaboration, shifts in caseload prioritization, and alternative options for post-acute care. Conclusions: Our findings reinforce that rehabilitation clinicians developed innovative strategies to quickly adapt to multiple systems-level factors that were changing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research is needed to assess the impact of innovations, remediate unintended consequences, and evaluate the implementation of promising innovations to respond to emerging healthcare delivery needs more rapidly.

Identifying Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Preoperative Testing for Low-Risk Procedures: a Qualitative Study of Facilities with High or Recently Improved Levels of Testing.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare agencies and perioperative professional organizations recommend avoiding preoperative screening tests for low-risk surgical procedures. However, low-value preoperative tests are still commonly ordered even for generally healthy patients and active strategies to reduce this testing have not been adequately described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to learn from hospitals with either high levels of testing or that had recently reduced use of low-value screening tests (aka "delta sites") about reasons for testing and active deimplementation strategies they used to effectively improve practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study of semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We identified facilities in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) with high or recently improved burden of potentially low-value preoperative testing for carpal tunnel release and cataract surgery. We recruited perioperative clinicians to participate. APPROACH: Questions focused on reasons to order preoperative screening tests for patients undergoing low-risk surgery and, more importantly, what strategies had been successfully used to reduce testing. A framework method was used to identify common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-five perioperative clinicians (e.g., hand surgeons, ophthalmologists, anesthesiologists, primary care providers, directors of preoperative clinics, nurses) from 29 VHA facilities participated. Facilities that successfully reduced the burden of low-value testing shared many improvement strategies (e.g., building consensus among stakeholders; using evidence/norm-based education and persuasion; clarifying responsibility for ordering tests) to implement different care delivery innovations (e.g., pre-screening to decide if a preop clinic evaluation is necessary; establishing a dedicated preop clinic for low-risk procedures). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a menu of common improvement strategies and specific care delivery innovations that might be helpful for institutions trying to design their own quality improvement programs to reduce low-value preoperative testing given their unique structure, resources, and constraints.

What Contributes to Sustainability? Examining Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Low-Adopting VHA Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation can increase the availability of evidence-based treatments but continued patient access can be threatened if there is not deliberate focus on sustainment. Real-world examples are needed to elucidate contributors to sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examined sustainability of outcomes of a study which tested a 12-month external facilitation intervention. The study evaluated change in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD prescribing. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine providers and leaders from eight VHA facilities. APPROACH: Thirty-minute post-implementation telephone interviews explored whether barriers identified pre-implementation were successfully addressed, the presence of any new challenges, helpfulness of external facilitation, and plans for sustaining MOUD access. Interviews were analyzed using a rapid turn-around approach. VHA administrative data were used to characterize the facilities and assess their ratio of patients with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD (MOUD/OUD ratio) at the end of a 9-month sustainability period. KEY RESULTS: Commonly reported contributors to sustained MOUD access included national attention on the opioid epidemic, accountability created by study participation, culture shift in MOUD acceptability, leadership support, and plans to build on initial progress. Frequently reported barriers included staffing issues and lack of MOUD-devoted time; the need to overhaul existing policies, practices, and/or processes; and fear and anxiety about MOUD prescribing. All facilities either maintained MOUD/OUD ratio improvement (n = 2) or further improved (n = 6) at the end of sustainability. Facilities with the highest and lowest ratio at the end of sustainability used a team-based approach to MOUD delivery; however, organizational setting differences may have impacted overall MOUD access. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring stable and consistent staff, and sufficient time dedicated to MOUD are critical to sustaining access to evidence-based treatment in low-adopting facilities. This study highlights the importance of investing in local, system-level changes to improve and sustain access to effective treatments.

Healthcare quality measures in implementation research: advantages, risks and lessons learned.

Implementation studies evaluate strategies to move evidence-based practices into routine clinical practice. Often, implementation scientists use healthcare quality measures to evaluate the integration of an evidence-based clinical practice into real-world healthcare settings. Healthcare quality measures have standardized definitions and are a method to operationalize and monitor guideline-congruent care. Implementation scientists can access existing data on healthcare quality measures through various sources (e.g. operations-calculated), or they can calculate the measures directly from healthcare claims and administrative data (i.e. researcher-calculated). Implementation scientists need a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods of obtaining healthcare quality data for designing, planning and executing an implementation study. The purpose of this paper is to describe the advantages, risks and lessons learned when using operations- versus researcher-calculated healthcare quality measures in site selection, implementation monitoring and implementation outcome evaluation. A key lesson learned was that relying solely on operations-calculated healthcare quality measures during an implementation study poses risks to site selection, accurate feedback on implementation progress to stakeholders, and the integrity of study results. A possible solution is using operations-calculated quality measures for monitoring of evidence-based practice uptake and researcher-calculated measures for site section and outcomes evaluation. This approach provides researchers greater control over the data and consistency of the measurement from site selection to outcomes evaluation while still retaining measures that are familiar and understood by key stakeholders whom implementation scientists need to engage in practice change efforts.

Drive Time and Receipt of Guideline-Recommended Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Importance: Many patients do not receive recommended services. Drive time to health care services may affect receipt of guideline-recommended care, but this has not been comprehensively studied. Objective: To assess associations between drive time to care and receipt of guideline-recommended screening, diagnosis, and treatment interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used administrative data from the National Veterans Health Administration (VA) data merged with Medicare data. Eligible participants were patients using VA services between January 2016 and December 2019. Women ages 65 years or older without underlying bone disease were assessed for osteoporosis screening. Patients with new diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) indicated by at least 2 encounter codes for COPD or at least 1 COPD-related hospitalization were assessed for receipt of diagnostic spirometry. Patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease were assessed for cardiac rehabilitation treatment. Exposures: Drive time from each patient's residential address to the closest VA facility where the service was available, measured using geocoded addresses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary outcome at the patient level for receipt of osteoporosis screening, spirometry, and cardiac rehabilitation. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between drive time and receipt of services. Results: Of 110 780 eligible women analyzed, 36 431 (32.9%) had osteoporosis screening (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [5.4] years; 19 422 [17.5%] Black, 63 403 [57.2%] White). Of 281 130 patients with new COPD diagnosis, 145 249 (51.7%) had spirometry (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [11.5] years; 268 999 [95.7%] men; 37 834 [13.5%] Black, 217 608 [77.4%] White). Of 73 146 patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease, 11 171 (15.3%) had cardiac rehabilitation (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [10.8] years; 71 217 [97.4%] men; 15 213 [20.8%] Black, 52 144 [71.3%] White). The odds of receiving recommended services declined as drive times increased. Compared with patients with a drive time of 30 minutes or less, patients with a drive time of 61 to 90 minutes had lower odds of receiving osteoporosis screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and spirometry (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92) while patients with a drive time of 91 to 120 minutes had lower odds of receiving cardiac rehabilitation (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). Results were similar in analyses restricted to urban patients or patients whose primary care clinic was in a tertiary care center. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, longer drive time was associated with less frequent receipt of guideline-recommended services across multiple components of care. To improve quality of care and health outcomes, health systems and clinicians should adopt strategies to mitigate travel burden, even for urban patients.

Promoting benzodiazepine cessation through an electronically-delivered patient self-management intervention (EMPOWER-ED): Randomized controlled trial protocol.

Background: Long-term benzodiazepine dependence carries significant health risks which might be reduced with low-cost patient self-management interventions. A booklet version of one such intervention (Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results; EMPOWER) proved effective in a Canadian clinical trial with older adults. Digitizing such an intervention for electronic delivery and tailoring it to different populations could expand its reach. Accordingly, this article describes the protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of an electronically-delivered, direct-to-patient benzodiazepine cessation intervention tailored to U.S. military veterans. Methods: Design: Two-arm individually randomized controlled trial. Setting: US Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics. Participants: Primary care patients taking benzodiazepines for three or more months and having access to a smartphone, tablet or desktop computer. Intervention and comparator: Participants will be randomized to receive either the electronically-delivered EMPOWER (EMPOWER-ED) protocol or asked to continue to follow provider recommendations regarding their benzodiazepine use (treatment-as-usual). Measurements: The primary outcomes are complete benzodiazepine cessation and 25% dose reduction, assessed using administrative and self-report data, between baseline and six-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are self-reported anxiety symptoms, sleep quality, and overall health and quality of life, measured at baseline and 6-month follow-up, and benzodiazepine cessation at 12-month follow-up. Comments: This randomized controlled trial will evaluate whether the accessibility and effectiveness of a promising intervention for benzodiazepine cessation can be improved through digitization and population tailoring.

Frequency and costs of low-value preoperative tests for patients undergoing low-risk procedures in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines discourage routine preoperative screening tests for patients undergoing low-risk procedures. This study sought to determine the frequency and costs of potentially low-value preoperative screening tests in Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients undergoing low-risk procedures. METHODS: Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified Operative Stress Score class 1 procedures ("very minor") performed without general anesthesia in VA during fiscal year 2019 and calculated the overall national and facility-level rates and costs of nine common tests received in the 30 preoperative days. Patient factors associated with receiving at least one screening test, and the number of tests received, were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven of 178,775 low-risk procedures (49.3%) were preceded by 321,917 potentially low-value screening tests representing $11,505,170 using Medicare average costs. Complete blood count was the most common (33.2% of procedures), followed by basic metabolic profile (32.0%), urinalysis (26.3%), electrocardiography (18.9%), and pulmonary function test (12.4%). Older age, female sex, Black race, and having more comorbidities were associated with higher odds of low-value testing. Transthoracic echocardiogram occurred prior to only 4.5% of the procedures but accounted for 47.8% of the total costs ($5,499,860). In 129 VA facilities, the facility-level proportion of procedures preceded by at least one test ranged from 0 to 81.2% and facility-level costs ranged from $0 to $388,476. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative screening tests for very low-risk procedures are common and costly in some VA facilities. These results highlight a potential target to improve quality and value by reducing unnecessary care. Measures of low-value perioperative care could be integrated into VA's extensive quality monitoring and improvement infrastructure.

Adapting the Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results Protocol to Promote Benzodiazepine Cessation Among US Military Veterans: Focus Group Study With US Military Veterans and National Veterans Health Administration Leaders.

BACKGROUND: Long-term dependence on prescribed benzodiazepines is a public health problem. Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) is a promising self-management intervention, delivered directly to patients as a printed booklet, that is effective in promoting benzodiazepine reduction and cessation in older adults. EMPOWER has high potential to benefit large health care systems such as the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which cares for many veterans who use benzodiazepines for extended periods. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to adapt the original EMPOWER booklet materials for electronic delivery and for use among US military veterans receiving VHA care who were long-term benzodiazepine users. METHODS: We used elements of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation, a framework commonly used in the field of instructional design, to guide a qualitative approach to iteratively adapting EMPOWER Electronic Delivery (EMPOWER-ED). We conducted 3 waves of focus groups with the same 2 groups of VHA stakeholders. Stakeholders were VHA-enrolled veterans (n=16) with medical chart evidence of long-term benzodiazepine use and national VHA leaders (n=7) with expertise in setting VHA policy for prescription benzodiazepine use and developing electronically delivered educational tools for veterans. Qualitative data collected from each wave of focus groups were analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Themes that emerged from the initial focus groups included veterans' anxiety about self-tapering from benzodiazepines and prior negative experiences attempting to self-taper without support. Participants also provided feedback on the protocol's look and feel, educational content, the tapering protocol, and website functionality; for example, feedback from policy leaders included listing, on the cover page, the most commonly prescribed benzodiazepines to ensure that veterans were aware of medications that qualify for self-taper using the EMPOWER-ED protocol. Both groups of stakeholders identified the importance of having access to supportive resources to help veterans manage sleep and anxiety in the absence of taking benzodiazepines. Both groups also emphasized the importance of ensuring that the self-taper could be personalized and that the taper instructions were clear. The policy leaders emphasized the importance of encouraging veterans to notify their provider of their decision to self-taper to help facilitate provider assistance, if needed, with the taper process and to help prevent medication stockpiling. CONCLUSIONS: EMPOWER-ED is the first direct-to-patient electronically delivered protocol designed to help US military veterans self-taper from long-term benzodiazepine use. We used the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation framework to guide the successful adaption of the original EMPOWER booklet for use with this population and for electronic delivery. The next step in this line of research is to evaluate EMPOWER-ED in a randomized controlled trial.

Roles and Perceptions of Nurses During Implementation of a Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder National Initiative.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, a national priority exists to improve access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Nurses can be an essential component of that care. We examined the perceptions and evolving roles of nurses in a national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiative designed to improve MOUD access within general medical settings. METHODS: From April 15, 2021, to June 16, 2021, we recruited nurses participating in VHA's Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative-a national program intending to implement MOUD in general medical settings-to participate in an interview about their roles, perceptions, and experiences. The respondents answered our inquiries through an interview or responded to an email solicitation with written responses, which were then recorded, transcribed, and independently coded to identify themes. RESULTS: Nurses from 10 VHA facilities participated in an interview (n = 7) or completed the questionnaire (n = 4). Inadequate staffing, high patient-to-provider ratios, and time constraints were identified as barriers to MOUD care. Mentorship activities, existing VHA informational resources, and patients' willingness to accept treatment were identified as facilitators of MOUD care. The Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative processes were acknowledged to promote role confidence, which in turn increased job satisfaction and empowered nurses to become content experts. Respondents often identified nurses as local lead facilitators in MOUD care. CONCLUSIONS: In a national initiative to implement MOUD within general medical settings, nurses identified several barriers and facilitators to MOUD implementation. Nurses play vital collaborative care roles in enhancing access to MOUD.

Alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy and treatment in primary care (ADaPT-PC) trial: Impact on identified barriers to implementation.

Background: A minority of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorders (AUD) receive any type of formal treatment. Developing options for AUD treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. A multi-faceted implementation intervention including provider and patient education, clinician reminders, development of local champions and ongoing facilitation was designed to enhance access to AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings at three large Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. This qualitative study compared pre-implementation barriers to post-implementation barriers identified via provider interviews to identify those barriers addressed and not addressed by the intervention to better understand the limited impact of the intervention. Methods: Following the nine-month implementation period, primary care providers at the three participating facilities took part in qualitative interviews to collect perceptions regarding which pre-implementation barriers had and had not been successfully addressed by the intervention. Participants included 20 primary care providers from three large VHA facilities. Interviews were coded using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Summary reports were created for each CFIR construct for each facility and the impact of each CFIR construct on implementation was coded as positive, neutral, or negative. Results: Some barriers identified during pre-implementation interviews were no longer identified as barriers in the post-implementation interviews. These included Relative Advantage, Relative Priority, and Knowledge & Beliefs about the Innovation. However, Compatibility, Design Quality & Packaging, and Available Resources remained barriers at the end of the implementation period. No substantial new barriers were identified. Conclusions: The implementation intervention appears to have been successful at addressing barriers that could be mitigated with traditional educational approaches. However, the intervention did not adequately address structural and organizational barriers to implementation. Recommendations for enhancing future interventions are provided.

Advancing Pharmacological Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder (ADaPT-OUD): an Implementation Trial in Eight Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Identifying effective strategies to improve access to medication treatments for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is imperative. Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), provision of MOUD varies significantly, requiring development and testing of implementation strategies that target facilities with low provision of MOUD. OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of external facilitation in increasing the provision of MOUD among VHA facilities with low baseline provision of MOUD compared to matched controls. DESIGN: Pre-post, block randomized study designed to compare facility-level outcomes in a stratified sample of eligible facilities. Four blocks (two intervention facilities in each) were defined by median splits of both the ratio of patients with OUD receiving MOUD and number of patients with OUD not currently receiving MOUD (i.e., number of actionable patients). Intervention facilities participated in a 12-month implementation intervention. PARTICIPANTS: VHA facilities in the lowest quartile of MOUD provision (35 facilities), eight of which were randomly assigned to participate in the intervention (two per block) with twenty-seven serving as matched controls by block. INTERVENTION: External facilitation included assessment of local barriers/facilitators, formation of a local implementation team, a site visit for action planning and training/education, cross-facility quarterly calls, monthly coaching calls, and consultation. MAIN MEASURES: Pre- to post-change in the facility-level ratio of patients with an OUD diagnosis receiving MOUD compared to control facilities. KEY RESULTS: Intervention facilities significantly increased the ratio of patients with OUD receiving MOUD from an average of 18% at baseline to 30% 1 year later, with an absolute difference of 12% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.6%, 17.0%). The difference in differences between intervention and control facilities was 3.0% (95% CI: - 0.2%. 6.7%). The impact of the intervention varied by block, with smaller, less complex facilities more likely to outperform matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive external facilitation improved the adoption of MOUD in most low-performing facilities and may enhance adoption beyond other interventions less tailored to individual facility contexts.