Examining Adult Patients' Success with Discontinuing Long-term Benzodiazepine Use: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients' experiences with benzodiazepine (BZD) discontinuation, which is thought to be challenging given the physiological and psychological dependence and accompanying potential for significant withdrawal symptoms. The marked decline in BZD prescribing over the past decade in the US Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system presents an important opportunity to examine the experience of BZD discontinuation among long-term users. OBJECTIVE: Examine the experience of BZD discontinuation among individuals prescribed long-term BZD treatment to identify factors that contributed to successful discontinuation. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted between April and December of 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 Veterans who had been prescribed long-term BZD pharmacotherapy (i.e., > 120 days of exposure in a 12-month period) and had their BZD discontinued. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with Veteran participants to learn about their BZD use and the process of discontinuation, with interviews recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were deductively and inductively coded and coded text entered into a matrix to identify factors that contributed to successful BZD discontinuation. KEY RESULTS: The mean age of interview participants was 63.0 years (standard deviation 3.9); 94.2% were male and 76.2% were white. Of 21 participants, only 1 had resumed BZD treatment (prescribed by a non-VA clinician). Three main factors influenced success with discontinuation: (1) participants' attitudes toward BZDs (e.g., risks of long-term use, perceived lack of efficacy, potential for dependence); (2) limited withdrawal symptoms; and (3) effective alternatives, either from their clinician (e.g., medication, psychotherapy) or identified by participants. CONCLUSIONS: BZD discontinuation after long-term use is relatively well tolerated, and participants appreciated reducing their medication exposure, particularly to one associated with physical dependence. These findings may help reduce both patient and clinician anxiety related to BZD discontinuation.

Clinician Experiences With Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder are common in primary care. Evidence supports collaborative care in primary care settings to treat depression and anxiety, and recent studies have evaluated its effectiveness in treating complex conditions such as PTSD and bipolar disorder. This study aimed to examine how primary care clinicians experience collaborative care for patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders. METHODS: The authors conducted semistructured interviews with 22 primary care clinicians participating in a pragmatic trial that included telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC) to treat patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder in rural or underserved areas. Analysis utilized a constant comparative method to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: Clinicians reported that TCC improved their confidence in managing medications for patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder and supported their ongoing learning and skill development. Clinicians also reported improvements in patient engagement in care. Care managers were crucial to realizing these benefits by fostering communication within the clinical team while engaging patients through regular outreach. Clinicians valued TCC because it included and supported them in improving the care of patients' mental health conditions, which opened opportunities for clinicians to enhance care and address co-occurring general medical conditions. Overall, benefits of the TCC model outweighed its minimal burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found that TCC supported their care of patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder. This approach has the potential to extend the reach of specialty mental health care and to support primary care clinicians treating patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.

Strategies Associated With Reducing Benzodiazepine Prescribing to Older Adults: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Unlike in many community-based settings, benzodiazepine (BZD) prescribing to older veterans has decreased. We sought to identify health care system strategies associated with greater facility-level reductions in BZD prescribing to older adults. METHODS: We completed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of health care facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 140). Among veterans aged ≥75 years receiving long-term BZD treatment, we stratified facilities into relatively high and low performance on the basis of the reduction in average daily dose of prescribed BZD from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017. We then interviewed key facility informants (n = 21) who led local BZD reduction efforts (champions), representing 11 high-performing and 6 low-performing facilities. RESULTS: Across all facilities, the age-adjusted facility-level average daily dose in October 2015 began at 1.34 lorazepam-equivalent mg/d (SD 0.17); the average rate of decrease was -0.27 mg/d (SD 0.09) per year. All facilities interviewed, regardless of performance, used passive strategies primarily consisting of education regarding appropriate prescribing, alternatives, and identifying potential patients for discontinuation. In contrast, champions at high-performing facilities described leveraging ≥1 active strategies that included individualized recommendations, administrative barriers to prescribing, and performance measures to incentivize clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives to reduce BZD prescribing to older adults that are primarily limited to passive strategies, such as education and patient identification, might have limited success. Clinicians might benefit from additional recommendations, support, and incentives to modify prescribing practices.

Interpretability, credibility, and usability of hospital-specific template matching versus regression-based hospital performance assessments; a multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-specific template matching (HS-TM) is a newer method of hospital performance assessment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interpretability, credibility, and usability of HS-TM-based vs. regression-based performance assessments. RESEARCH DESIGN: We surveyed hospital leaders (January-May 2021) and completed follow-up semi-structured interviews. Surveys included four hypothetical performance assessment vignettes, with method (HS-TM, regression) and hospital mortality randomized. SUBJECTS: Nationwide Veterans Affairs Chiefs of Staff, Medicine, and Hospital Medicine. MEASURES: Correct interpretation; self-rated confidence in interpretation; and self-rated trust in assessment (via survey). Concerns about credibility and main uses (via thematic analysis of interview transcripts). RESULTS: In total, 84 participants completed 295 survey vignettes. Respondents correctly interpreted 81.8% HS-TM vs. 56.5% regression assessments, p < 0.001. Respondents "trusted the results" for 70.9% HS-TM vs. 58.2% regression assessments, p = 0.03. Nine concerns about credibility were identified: inadequate capture of case-mix and/or illness severity; inability to account for specialized programs (e.g., transplant center); comparison to geographically disparate hospitals; equating mortality with quality; lack of criterion standards; low power; comparison to dissimilar hospitals; generation of rankings; and lack of transparency. Five concerns were equally relevant to both methods, one more pertinent to HS-TM, and three more pertinent to regression. Assessments were mainly used to trigger further quality evaluation (a "check oil light") and motivate behavior change. CONCLUSIONS: HS-TM-based performance assessments were more interpretable and more credible to VA hospital leaders than regression-based assessments. However, leaders had a similar set of concerns related to credibility for both methods and felt both were best used as a screen for further evaluation.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Two Telemedicine Approaches for Treating Patients with Mental Health Disorders in Underserved Areas.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices in underserved and/or rural areas have limited access to mental health specialty resources for their patients. Telemedicine can help address this issue, but little is known about how patients and clinicians experience telemental health care. METHODS: This pragmatic randomized effectiveness trial compared telepsychiatry collaborative care, where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to primary care teams, to a referral approach, where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment. Twelve Federally Qualified Health Centers in rural and/or underserved areas in 3 states participated. RESULTS: Patients and clinicians reported that both interventions alleviated barriers to accessing mental health care, provided quality treatment, and offered improvements over usual care. Telepsychiatry collaborative care was identified as better for patients with difficulty developing trust with new providers. This approach also required more primary care involvement than referral care, creating more opportunities for clinician learning related to mental health diagnosis and treatment. The referral approach was identified as better suited for patients with higher complexity or desiring specific psychotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches addressed patient needs and provided access to specialty mental health care. Each approach better aligned with different patients' needs, suggesting that having both approaches available to practices is optimal for supporting patient-centered care.

Implementing an electronic health record dashboard for safe anticoagulant management: learning from qualitative interviews with existing and potential users to develop an implementation process.

BACKGROUND: Facilitating appropriate care delivery using electronic health record (digital health) tools is increasing. However, frequently used determinants frameworks seldom address key barriers for technology-associated implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in two contexts: the national Veterans Health Affairs (VA) following implementation of an electronic dashboard, a population health tool, and the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) prior to implementation of a similar electronic dashboard. The dashboard is designed for pharmacist or nurse use to monitor safe outpatient anticoagulant prescribing by physicians and other clinicians We performed rapid qualitative inquiry analysis and selected implementation strategies. Through a stakeholder focus group session, we selected implementation strategies to address determinants and facilitate implementation in the MAQI2 sites. RESULTS: Among 45 interviewees (32 in VA, 13 in MAQI2), we identified five key determinants of implementation success: (1) clinician authority and autonomy, (2) clinician self-identity and job satisfaction, (3) documentation and administrative needs, (4) staffing and work schedule, and (5) integration with existing information systems. Key differences between the two contexts included concerns about information technology support and prioritization within MAQI2 (prior to implementation) but not VA (after implementation) and concerns about authority and autonomy that differed between the VA (higher baseline levels, more concerns) and MAQI2 (lower baseline levels, less concern). CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of electronic health record tools requires unique considerations that differ from other types of implementation, must account for the status of implementation, and should address the effects of the tool deployment on clinical staff authority and autonomy. Interviewing both post-implementation and pre-implementation users can provide a robust understanding of implementation determinants.

Outreach to facilitate return to VA care for veterans with serious mental illness: A mixed-methods evaluation of best practices.

Outreach to people with serious mental illness who are disengaged from treatment can facilitate return to care. However, little is known regarding what outreach strategies are effective. This mixed-methods evaluation assessed best practices for conducting outreach to Veterans with serious mental illness via the national Veterans Health Administration Re-Engaging Veterans with Serious Mental Illness program by comparing the strategies used by high-performing sites and low-performing sites. Quantitative data included the types and number of contact attempts used to reach Veterans. Qualitative data included interviews with clinicians from high- and low-performing sites. Results indicated making at least four contact attempts using methods of phone, certified letter, and next of kin differentiated high from low-performing facilities. Clinicians from high-performing sites also differed from low-performing sites in their expressed philosophy about outreach, demonstrated a broader array of strategies in attempting to contact Veterans, and described greater connections with others at their site, with clinicians around the country, and with national program resources. Implications of evaluation findings for outreach programs and research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Understanding providers' attitudes and key concerns toward incorporating CVD risk prediction into clinical practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although risk prediction has become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, multiple studies have shown that patients' risk still plays almost no role in clinical decision-making. Because little is known about why this is so, we sought to understand providers' views on the opportunities, barriers, and facilitators of incorporating risk prediction to guide their use of cardiovascular preventive medicines. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care providers (n = 33) at VA facilities in the Midwest. Facilities were chosen using a maximum variation approach according to their geography, size, proportion of MD to non-MD providers, and percentage of full-time providers. Providers included MD/DO physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Providers were asked about their reaction to a hypothetical situation in which the VA would introduce a risk prediction-based approach to CVD treatment. We conducted matrix and content analysis to identify providers' reactions to risk prediction, reasons for their reaction, and exemplar quotes. RESULTS: Most providers were classified as Enthusiastic (n = 14) or Cautious Adopters (n = 15), with only a few Non-Adopters (n = 4). Providers described four key concerns toward adopting risk prediction. Their primary concern was that risk prediction is not always compatible with a "whole patient" approach to patient care. Other concerns included questions about the validity of the proposed risk prediction model, potential workflow burdens, and whether risk prediction adds value to existing clinical practice. Enthusiastic, Cautious, and Non-Adopters all expressed both doubts about and support for risk prediction categorizable in the above four key areas of concern. CONCLUSIONS: Providers were generally supportive of adopting risk prediction into CVD prevention, but many had misgivings, which included concerns about impact on workflow, validity of predictive models, the value of making this change, and possible negative effects on providers' ability to address the whole patient. These concerns have likely contributed to the slow introduction of risk prediction into clinical practice. These concerns will need to be addressed for risk prediction, and other approaches relying on "big data" including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to have a meaningful role in clinical practice.