Quality improvement in public-private partnerships in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Public-private partnerships (PPP) are often how health improvement programs are implemented in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). We therefore aimed to systematically review the literature about the aim and impacts of quality improvement (QI) approaches in PPP in LMICs. METHODS: We searched SCOPUS and grey literature for studies published before March 2022. One reviewer screened abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. The study characteristics, setting, design, outcomes, and lessons learned were abstracted using a standard tool and reviewed in detail by a second author. RESULTS: We identified 9,457 citations, of which 144 met the inclusion criteria and underwent full-text abstraction. We identified five key themes for successful QI projects in LMICs: 1) leadership support and alignment with overarching priorities, 2) local ownership and engagement of frontline teams, 3) shared authentic learning across teams, 4) resilience in managing external challenges, and 5) robust data and data visualization to track progress. We found great heterogeneity in QI tools, study designs, participants, and outcome measures. Most studies had diffuse aims and poor descriptions of the intervention components and their follow-up. Few papers formally reported on actual deployment of private-sector capital, and either provided insufficient information or did not follow the formal PPP model, which involves capital investment for a explicit return on investment. Few studies discussed the response to their findings and the organizational willingness to change. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the same factors that impact the success of QI in healthcare in high-income countries are relevant for PPP in LMICs. Vague descriptions of the structure and financial arrangements of the PPPs, and the roles of public and private entities made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about the impacts of the organizational governance on the outcomes of QI programs in LMICs. While we found many articles in the published literature on PPP-funded QI partnerships in LMICs, there is a dire need for research that more clearly describes the intervention details, implementation challenges, contextual factors, leadership and organizational structures. These details are needed to better align incentives to support the kinds of collaboration needed for guiding accountability in advancing global health. More ownership and power needs to be shifted to local leaders and researchers to improve research equity and sustainability.

Learning from the implementation of a surgical opioid reduction initiative in an integrated health system: a qualitative study among providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical opioid overprescribing can result in long-term use or misuse. Between July 2018 and March 2019, the multicomponent intervention, Minimizing Opioid Prescribing in Surgery (MOPiS) was implemented in the general surgery clinics of five hospitals and successfully reduced opioid prescribing. To date, various studies have shown a positive outcome of similar reduction initiatives. However, in addition to evaluating the impact on clinical outcomes, it is important to understand the implementation process of an intervention to extend sustainability of interventions and allow for dissemination of the intervention into other contexts. This study aims to evaluate the contextual factors impacting intervention implementation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews held with providers and patients of the general surgery clinics of five hospitals of a single health system between March and November of 2019. Interview questions focused on how contextual factors affected implementation of the intervention. We coded interview transcripts deductively, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify the relevant contextual factors. Content analyses were conducted using a constant comparative approach to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 clinicians (e.g., surgeons, nurses), 1 quality representative, 1 scheduler, and 28 adult patients and identified 3 key themes. First, we found high variability in the responses of clinicians and patients to the intervention. There was a strong need for intervention components to be locally adaptable, particularly for the format and content of the patient and clinician education materials. Second, surgical pain management should be recognized as a team effort. We identified specific gaps in the engagement of team members, including nurses. We also found that the hierarchical relationships between surgical residents and attendings impacted implementation. Finally, we found that established patient and clinician views on opioid prescribing were an important facilitator to effective implementation. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of a complex set of opioid reduction interventions in surgery requires locally adaptable elements of the intervention, a team-centric approach, and an understanding of patient and clinician views regarding changes being proposed.

The development of a safe opioid use agreement for surgical care using a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Opioids prescribed to treat postsurgical pain have contributed to the ongoing opioid epidemic. While opioid prescribing practices have improved, most patients do not use all their pills and do not safely dispose of leftovers, which creates a risk for unsafe use and diversion. We aimed to generate consensus on the content of a "safe opioid use agreement" for the perioperative settings to improve patients' safe use, storage, and disposal of opioids. METHODS: We conducted a modified three-round Delphi study with clinicians across surgical specialties, quality improvement (QI) experts, and patients. In Round 1, participants completed a survey rating the importance and comprehensibility of 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments. In Round 2, a sub-sample of participants attended a focus group to discuss items with the lowest agreement. In Round 3, the survey was repeated with the updated items. Quantitative values from the Likert scale and qualitative responses were summarized. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts (26 clinicians, seven patients/patient advocates, and three QI experts) participated in the study. In Round 1, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five on the importance of nine items and on the comprehensibility of six items. In Round 2, participants provided feedback on the comprehensibility, formatting, importance, and purpose of the agreement, including a desire for more specificity and patient education. In Round 3, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five for comprehensibility and importance of all 10 updated item. The final agreement included seven items on safe use, two items on safe storage, and one item on safe disposal. CONCLUSION: The expert panel reached consensus on the importance and comprehensibility of the content for an opioid use agreement and identified additional patient education needs. The agreement should be used as a tool to supplement rather than replace existing, tailored education.

Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data. CONCLUSIONS: While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.

A Missing Piece of the Puzzle: Patient and Provider Perspectives on Pain Management Needs and Opioid Prescribing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care.

Background: Recent data have shown high rates of opioid misuse among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We conducted a qualitative study to explore IBD patient and provider perceptions and experiences with pain management and opioid prescribing. Methods: We conducted a focus group with IBD patients and semistructured interviews with IBD-focused physicians and nurses. We used an inductive approach for analysis and the constant comparison method to develop and refine codes and identify prominent themes. We analyzed interview and focus group data concurrently to triangulate themes. Results: Nine patients and 10 providers participated. We grouped themes into 3 categories: (1) current practices to manage pain; (2) perceived pain management challenges; and (3) suggestions to optimize pain management. In the first category (current practices), both patients and providers reported building long-term patient-provider relationships and the importance of exploring nonpharmacologic pain management strategies. Patients reported proactively trying remedies infrequently recommended by IBD providers. In the second category (pain management challenges), patients and providers reported concerns about opioid use and having limited options to treat pain safely. Patients discussed chronic pain and having few solutions to manage it. In the third category, providers shared suggestions for improvement such as increasing use of nonpharmacologic pain management strategies and enhancing care coordination. Conclusions: Despite some common themes between the 2 groups, we identified some pain management needs (eg, addressing chronic pain) that matter to patients but were seldom discussed by IBD providers. Addressing these areas of potential disconnect is essential to optimize pain management safety in IBD care.

Barriers to Post-Discharge Monitoring and Patient-Clinician Communication: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: As postoperative length of stay has decreased for many operations, the proportion of complications occurring post-discharge is increasing. Early identification and management of these complications requires overcoming barriers to effective post-discharge monitoring and communication. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to post-discharge monitoring and patient-clinician communication through a qualitative study of surgical patients and clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were held with gastrointestinal surgery patients and clinicians. Participants were asked about barriers to post-discharge monitoring and communication. Each transcript was coded by 2 of 4 researchers, and recurring themes related to communication and care barriers were identified. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients and 17 clinicians participated in interviews and focus groups. Four themes which encompassed barriers to post-discharge monitoring and communication were identified from patient interviews, and 4 barriers were identified from clinician interviews and focus groups. Patient-identified barriers included education and expectation setting, technology access and literacy, availability of resources and support, and misalignment of communication preferences, while clinician-identified barriers included health education, access to clinical team, healthcare practitioner time constraints, and care team experience and consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple barriers exist to effective post-discharge monitoring and patient-clinician communication among surgical patients. These barriers must be addressed to develop an effective system for post-discharge care after surgery.

Prophylactic anticoagulation for preterm premature rupture of membranes: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care in the setting of preterm premature rupture of membranes involves antenatal hospitalization until delivery. The reduced physical activity during this time compounds the heightened risk for venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Prophylactic anticoagulation can decrease this risk of venous thromboembolism; however, this benefit must be balanced against the risks of precluding neuraxial analgesia or increasing the risk of postpartum hemorrhage. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the optimal modality for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis during hospitalization for preterm premature rupture of membranes using a decision analysis model. STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytical Markov model was constructed using the TreeAge software comparing the use of unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin or no anticoagulation in women with a singleton pregnancy who were hospitalized for preterm premature rupture of membranes after 24 weeks and remained hospitalized until delivery. Maternal outcomes examined included attainment of neuraxial analgesia (vs no analgesia for vaginal delivery or general anesthesia for cesarean delivery), venous thromboembolism, postpartum hemorrhage, and maternal death. Probabilities and utilities were derived from existing literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to interrogate model assumptions, and a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In this decision-analytical model, no prophylactic anticoagulation maximized maternal utilities. Clinical outcomes among a theoretical cohort of 100,000 women are shown in the Table. The 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses supported this conclusion. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that no prophylaxis was the preferred choice in 56% of simulations, unfractionated heparin in 34% of simulations, and low-molecular-weight heparin in 10% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support the routine use of prophylactic anticoagulation in women admitted to the hospital for preterm premature rupture of membranes. These findings can be used to inform clinical decisions when admitting low-risk singleton pregnancies to the hospital in the setting of preterm premature rupture of membranes.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of employer-led interventions for drug misuse.

AIMS: Employers in the United States incur substantial costs associated with substance use disorders. Our goal was to examine the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to reduce the adverse effects of drug misuse in the workplace. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of recommended workplace interventions for opioids and related drugs: employee education, drug testing, employee assistance programs, supervisor training, written workplace drug-free policy, and restructuring employee health benefit plans. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), PsycINFO (Ebsco), ABI Inform Global, Business Source Premier, EconLit, CENTRAL, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), Scopus (Elsevier), Proquest Dissertations, and Epistemonikos from inception through May 8, 2019, with no date or language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cross-sectional studies with no language or date restrictions. The Downs and Black questionnaire was used to assess the quality of included studies. The results were reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: In all, 27 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Results were mixed, with each intervention shown to be effective in at least one study, but none showing effectiveness in over 50% of studies. Studies examining the impact of interventions on workplace injuries or accidents were more commonly reported to be effective. Although four studies were randomized controlled trials, the quality of all included studies was "fair" or "poor." CONCLUSIONS: Despite the opioid epidemic, high-quality studies evaluating the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of substance use are lacking. Higher quality and mixed methods studies are needed to determine whether any of the interventions are generalizable and whether contextual adaptations are needed. In the meantime, there is a reason to believe that commonly recommended, employer-led interventions may be effective in some environments.