Leveraging the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to Curb Opioid Prescribing in Arkansas.

Effective means of accurately identifying problematic opioid prescribing are needed. Using an iterative approach with the Arkansas State Medical Board Pain Subcommittee, we modified existing opioid prescriber criteria to create seven metrics to be deployed in Arkansas. These included metrics of dose and days' supply, concomitant use of opioid and benzodiazepines, solid dosage units, and numbers of opioid patients and certain opioid prescriptions. Two of these metrics (average MME daily dose per prescription and total oxycodone 30 mg or hydromorphone prescriptions) were weighted by 2, creating a maximum score of 9 of which each prescriber could receive. Twenty prescribers with a score of 7 or greater were identified and referred to the Arkansas State Medical Board Pain Subcommittee for review and subsequent investigation if deemed necessary. Of those 20 prescribers, four were previously investigated and under disciplinary action, and three were under current investigation for misconduct related to prescribing practices. Five prescribers had new investigations opened due to the findings from the metrics, and disciplinary action was taken. Therefore, 12 of the 20 prescribers referred to the Arkansas State Medical Board were deemed worthy of investigation and disciplinary action. The Arkansas opioid prescriber metrics are able to accurately identify prescribers with potentially problematic opioid prescribing.

A program evaluation of Arkansas Improving Multidisciplinary Pain Care and Treatment (AR-IMPACT).

OBJECTIVE: Arkansas Improving Multidisciplinary Pain Care and Treatment (AR-IMPACT) is an interprofessional team that delivers televideo case conferences to help providers optimize treatment of pain using nonopioid, evidence-based therapies. This article assesses AR-IMPACT using the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Large, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers. INTERVENTIONS: Televideo case conferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reach was evaluated by the number of participants, professions represented, and counties/states in which providers resided. Efficacy was assessed via a participant evaluation survey. Adoption was evaluated by calculating the number of repeat participants and soliciting information on barriers to adoption of conference recommendations in clinical practice using the participant evaluation survey. Implementation was evaluated by calculating the time and cost burden of the program. RESULTS: Reach was widespread; continuing education (CE) credits have been claimed by 395 providers in 54 of the 75 counties in Arkansas and 18 states outside Arkansas. For efficacy, the majority of providers noted increases in their knowledge due to AR-IMPACT (89.6 percent). Like reach, adoption was also extensive; approximately 42 percent of AR-IMPACT participants attended more than one conference, and close to 56 percent of participants noted no barriers to adopting the changes discussed in the conferences. With implementation, the time requirements for developing a case conference ranged from 2 to 4 hours, and the cost per CE credit was $137, which is on par with other programs. CONCLUSIONS: AR-IMPACT was successful, particularly in reach and efficacy. Entities that implement programs similar to AR-IMPACT will likely experience extensive uptake by providers.

A Tipping Point for Measurement-Based Care.

(Reprinted with permission from Psychiatric Services, 2017; 68:179-188).

A Tipping Point for Measurement-Based Care.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement-based care involves the systematic administration of symptom rating scales and use of the results to drive clinical decision making at the level of the individual patient. This literature review examined the theoretical and empirical support for measurement-based care. METHODS: Articles were identified through search strategies in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additional citations in the references of retrieved articles were identified, and experts assembled for a focus group conducted by the Kennedy Forum were consulted. RESULTS: Fifty-one relevant articles were reviewed. There are numerous brief structured symptom rating scales that have strong psychometric properties. Virtually all randomized controlled trials with frequent and timely feedback of patient-reported symptoms to the provider during the medication management and psychotherapy encounters significantly improved outcomes. Ineffective approaches included one-time screening, assessing symptoms infrequently, and feeding back outcomes to providers outside the context of the clinical encounter. In addition to the empirical evidence about efficacy, there is mounting evidence from large-scale pragmatic trials and clinical demonstration projects that measurement-based care is feasible to implement on a large scale and is highly acceptable to patients and providers. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the primary gains of measurement-based care for individual patients, there are also potential secondary and tertiary gains to be made when individual patient data are aggregated. Specifically, aggregated symptom rating scale data can be used for professional development at the provider level and for quality improvement at the clinic level and to inform payers about the value of mental health services delivered at the health care system level.

Reliability and validity of the substance abuse outcomes module.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine the validity and reliability of the Substance Abuse Outcomes Module (SAOM), a self-report tool designed to assess patient characteristics, process of care, and outcomes of care, using a minimum amount of information, in order to improve treatment. METHODS: A longitudinal field test (baseline and three-month follow-up) compared the SAOM to seven other research instruments in the assessment of 100 substance-abusing patients who were entering a new treatment episode. Quota samples of patients were drawn from two private inpatient substance abuse treatment facilities and an outpatient methadone clinic. The study's primary outcome measures were diagnostic accuracy, internal and test-retest reliability of key constructs, concurrent and predictive validity, and sensitivity to change. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated to examine internal consistency and reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficients and kappa coefficients were used to examine test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity of outcomes measures was examined with Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients and chi square and kappa statistics. Changes between baseline and follow-up were examined as a function of case-mix measures with ordinary least-squares multiple regression. Sensitivity to change was examined by calculating effect size scores. RESULTS: The SAOM had high internal consistency and a high level of agreement with research diagnoses at baseline and follow-up. The SAOM was found to be highly reliable, to have very strong validity, and to be sensitive to clinical change. CONCLUSIONS: The SAOM appears to be a reasonably reliable and valid self-report instrument when used to monitor substance abuse treatment among patients with a primary substance use diagnosis.

Preference-weighted health status associated with substance use-disorders treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses using preference-weighted health status as the measure of effectiveness allow for the direct comparison of cost-effectiveness ratios for physical and mental health interventions. However, these analyses are not commonly used for substance use-disorders interventions. We conducted a methodological evaluation of the relationship between preference-weighted health status and 6-month substance use-disorders treatment outcomes. METHOD: The design was an observational study of clients receiving substance use-disorders treatment. Fifteen high-volume treatment centers within a regional managed behavioral health care organization participated. There were 165 subjects (117 men, 48 women) diagnosed with current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, substance dependence in the analysis. Baseline and 6-month data included substance-use quantity, frequency, and diagnostic criteria and preference-weighted Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 scores based on visual analog scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) conversion formulas. RESULTS: Controlling for sociodemographic variables, VAS change for early remission at 6 months was 0.107 (p = .0002) (reference category continued dependence). SG change for early remission at 6 months was 0.041 (p < .0004). Using heavy drinkers as the reference category, VAS preference-weighted change was 0.062 (p = .10) for abstinent and 0.112 (p = .01) for moderate drinkers. SG preference-weighted change was 0.027 (p = .08) for abstinent and 0.046 (p = .01) for moderate drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the construct validity of preference-weighted health status in substance use-disorders treatment. Direct comparisons of the cost-effectiveness of substance use-disorders treatment with other mental or physical health interventions are critical during times of limited health care resources.

Diagnosing hypovitaminosis D: serum measurements of calcium, phosphate, and alkaline phosphatase are unreliable, even in the presence of secondary hyperparathyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the ability of routine biochemical markers of bone turnover to predict vitamin D insufficiency. METHODS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to assess the value of serum alkaline phosphatase, calcium, and phosphate concentrations in the detection of hypovitaminosis D (< 20 nmol/l) in 467 patients between 1998 and 2000 (Cohort 1). The same analysis was repeated in a subsequent group of 719 patients between 2001 and 2003 (Cohort 2), in whom values of parathyroid hormone (PTH) were also available. Samples with elevated parathyroid levels from Cohort 2 were also analyzed to determine whether, in this subset, serum levels of calcium, phosphate, and alkaline phosphatase could reliably predict hypovitaminosis D. A subset of 50 patients from Cohort 1, with serum Vitamin D < 12 nmol/l, were reviewed by case note and telephone interview to determine demographic characteristics and the prevalence of risk factors for severe hypovitaminosis D. RESULTS: The areas under the ROC curves for alkaline phosphatase, calcium, and phosphate were all less than 0.7 (the criterion for a useful test) in both Cohorts 1 and 2. In the subset of Cohort 2 with elevated serum PTH levels (n = 337), the area under the ROC curve for calcium was 0.701 (95% confidence interval 0.643-0.758), and less than 0.7 for alkaline phosphatase and phosphate. In the 50 patients from Cohort 1 with severe hypovitaminosis D, risk factors were prevalent: 66% were vegetarian or vegan, clothing was partially or completely occlusive of sunlight (veiling) in 72%, and 60% of this cohort went outdoors less than 5 times per week. Symptoms were non-specific in the majority. CONCLUSION: Routine measurements of calcium, phosphate, and alkaline phosphatase are not reliable predictors of hypovitaminosis D, even when vitamin D insufficiency has been sufficient to produce a PTH response. Clinical suspicion based upon history and an awareness of risk factors should remain the gold standard for requesting serum vitamin D measurements. Inadequate sunlight exposure (through veiling and poor outdoor exposure) and poor dietary intake are highly prevalent features of hypovitaminosis D in severely affected patients.

Improving health with tobacco dollars from the MSA: the Arkansas experience.

Analyses of expenditures from the historic tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) demonstrate the difficulties in achieving support for long-term disease prevention and health promotion initiatives. We report as a policy case study the successful development, political execution, and program deployment of new state health programs funded by Arkansas' MSA funds. Arkansas' success demonstrates the need for political leadership, the development and insertion of empirical health information into the policy deliberations, in-depth knowledge of the political process, and a broad-based coalition committed to improving health.

Validity of the Depression-Arkansas (D-ARK) Scale: a tool for measuring major depressive disorder.

The results of 2 validation studies for an assessment tool designed specifically for quality improvement and outcomes assessment efforts in mental healthcare are presented in this paper. The studies evaluated a new tool to assess the patient outcomes for major depressive disorder following treatment in routine clinical settings called the Depression-Arkansas Scale (D-ARK). Study 1 included 54 patients recruited from 3 hospital-based clinics (2 mental health clinics and 1 primary care clinic). Study 2 includes 827 patients from 5 clinical settings including a university based outpatient clinic, a VA based mental health clinic, and a managed-care program. These 2 very different studies provide preliminary evidence that the D-ARK may be a useful tool for quality improvement efforts in the mental healthcare setting. Specifically, they indicate that the D-ARK has strong validity when compared to 2 different research assessments, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R, Patient Edition (SCID-P) and the Inventory to Diagnose Depression (IDD), and compared to clinical assessments using both the clinical diagnosis and a clinician checklist.