Community Hospital Interventions Addressing the Medical and Social Needs of Patients : Patient Perspectives From the CHART Investment Program.

High utilizers of acute care in nonurban settings are at risk for poor health outcomes. Much of Massachusetts is nonurban, with many residents experiencing limited access to health care providers, fragmented health care services, inadequate housing, and low health literacy. This study examines patient perspectives on the Community Hospital Acceleration, Revitalization, and Transformation (CHART) investment program, a state-based grant program focused on advancing community hospitals toward value-based care. We found that CHART staff engaged patients in care coordination and patient advocacy, promoted patient agency and health literacy, and provided socioemotional support. These findings may help inform future program development around meeting the medical and social needs of high utilizers of health care services.

Why is it so hard to implement change? A qualitative examination of barriers and facilitators to distribution of naloxone for overdose prevention in a safety net environment.

BACKGROUND: The increase in opioid overdose deaths has become a national public health crisis. Naloxone is an important tool in opioid overdose prevention. Distribution of nasal naloxone has been found to be a feasible, and effective intervention in community settings and may have potential high applicability in the emergency department, which is often the initial point of care for persons at high risk of overdose. One safety net hospital introduced an innovative policy to offer take-home nasal naloxone via a standing order to ensure distribution to patients at risk for overdose. The aims of this study were to examine acceptance and uptake of the policy and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation. METHODS: After obtaining pre-post data on naloxone distribution, we conducted a qualitative study. The PARiHS framework steered development of the qualitative guide. We used theoretical sampling in order to include the range of types of emergency department staff (50 total). The constant comparative method was initially used to code the transcripts and identify themes; the themes that emerged from the coding were then mapped back to the evidence, context and facilitation constructs of the PARiHS framework. RESULTS: Acceptance of the policy was good but uptake was low. Primary themes related to facilitators included: real-world driven intervention with philosophical, clinician and leadership support; basic education and training efforts; availability of resources; and ability to leave the ED with the naloxone kit in hand. Barriers fell into five general categories: protocol and policy; workflow and logistical; patient-related; staff roles and responsibilities; and education and training. CONCLUSIONS: The actual implementation of a new innovation in healthcare delivery is largely driven by factors beyond acceptance. Despite support and resources, implementation was challenging, with low uptake. While the potential of this innovation is unknown, understanding the experience is important to improve uptake in this setting and offer possible solutions for other facilities to address the opioid overdose crisis. Use of the PARiHS framework allowed us to recognize and understand key evidence, contextual and facilitation barriers to the successful implementation of the policy and to identify areas for improvement.

Identifying Patients for Overdose Prevention With ICD-9 Classification in the Emergency Department, Massachusetts, 2013-2014.

The national rise in opioid overdose deaths signifies a need to integrate overdose prevention within healthcare delivery settings. The emergency department (ED) is an opportune location for such interventions. To effectively integrate prevention services, the target population must be clearly defined. We used ICD-9 discharge codes to establish and apply overdose risk categories to ED patients seen from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014 at an urban safety-net hospital in Massachusetts with the goal of informing ED-based naloxone rescue kit distribution programs. Of 96,419 patients, 4,468 (4.6%) were at increased risk of opioid overdose, defined by prior opioid overdose, misuse, or polysubstance misuse. A small proportion of those at risk were prescribed opioids on a separate occasion. Use of risk categories defined by ICD-9 codes identified a notable proportion of ED patients at risk for overdose, and provides a systematic means to prioritize and direct clinical overdose prevention efforts.

Effectiveness of a risk screener in identifying hepatitis C virus in a primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated an intervention designed to identify patients at risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) through a risk screener used by primary care providers. METHODS: A clinical reminder sticker prompted physicians at 3 urban clinics to screen patients for 12 risk factors and order HCV testing if any risks were present. Risk factor data were collected from the sticker; demographic and testing data were extracted from electronic medical records. We used the t test, χ(2) test, and rank-sum test to compare patients who had and had not been screened and developed an analytic model to identify the incremental value of each element of the screener. RESULTS: Among screened patients, 27.8% (n = 902) were identified as having at least 1 risk factor. Of screened patients with risk factors, 55.4% (n = 500) were tested for HCV. Our analysis showed that 7 elements (injection drug use, intranasal drug use, elevated alanine aminotransferase, transfusions before 1992, ≥ 20 lifetime sex partners, maternal HCV, existing liver disease) accounted for all HCV infections identified. CONCLUSIONS: A brief risk screener with a paper-based clinical reminder was effective in increasing HCV testing in a primary care setting.