Mifepristone and Misoprostol for Early Pregnancy Loss and Medication Abortion.

Medication regimens using mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective for outpatient treatment of early pregnancy loss for up to 84 days' gestation and for medication abortion up to 77 days' gestation. Gestational age is determined using ultrasonography or menstrual history. Ultrasonography is needed when gestational dating cannot be confirmed using clinical data alone or when there are risk factors for ectopic pregnancy. The most effective regimens for medication management of early pregnancy loss and medication abortion include 200 mg of oral mifepristone (a progesterone receptor antagonist) followed by 800 mcg of misoprostol (a prostaglandin E1 analogue) administered buccally or vaginally. Cramping and bleeding are expected effects of the medications, with bleeding lasting an average of nine to 16 days. The adverse effects of misoprostol (e.g., low-grade fever, gastrointestinal symptoms) can be managed with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antiemetics. Ongoing pregnancy, infection, hemorrhage, undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, and the need for unplanned uterine aspiration are rare complications. Clinical history, combined with serial quantitative beta human chorionic gonadotropin levels, urine pregnancy testing, or ultrasonography, is used to establish complete passage of the pregnancy tissue.

Building a Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) blueprint: a qualitative study delineating GBOT implementation.

BACKGROUND: Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment? METHODS: To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components. RESULTS: We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions. CONCLUSION: While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary, team-based model to treat chronic hepatitis C in the primary care setting: Lessons learned.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common blood-borne virus in the U.S., and its incidence continues to rise. With approval of direct-acting antiviral medications, treatment for Chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) has become highly efficacious with a minimal side effect profile. Primary care physicians are well-positioned to address this increased demand, yet most do not feel comfortable treating CHC. In this case report, we describe implementation of a multidisciplinary team-based approach for treating CHC at multiple primary care sites across a large safety net health system. We focus on the evolving nature of implementation of our model through iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, highlighting the importance of developing an interdependent, multidisciplinary team, providing training, and ongoing support of Primary Care Hepatitis C Specialists, responding to the evolving nature of CHC treatment and policies, and ensuring high quality treatment. This process allowed us to continually grow and adapt our approach to make it feasible and successful. We share our "lessons" learned for others looking to bring CHC treatment, and potentially other specialty-based treatment, into the primary care setting.

Why use group visits for opioid use disorder treatment in primary care? A patient-centered qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers are well positioned to respond to the opioid crisis by providing buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N) through shared medical appointments (SMAs). Although quantitative research has been previously conducted on SMAs with B/N, the authors conducted a qualitative assessment from the patients' point of view, considering whether and how group visits provide value for patients. METHODS: Twenty-five participants with opioid use disorder (OUD) who were enrolled in a weekly B/N group visit at a family medicine clinic participated in either of two 1-hour-long focus groups, which were conducted as actual group visits. Participants were prompted with the question "How has this group changed you as a person?" Data were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach, identifying common communication behaviors and resulting attitudes about the value of the group visit model. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated several communication behaviors that support group members in their recovery, including offering direct emotional support to others struggling with difficult experiences, making an intentional effort to probe about others' lives, venting about heavy situations, joking to lighten the mood, and expressing feelings of gratitude to the entire group. These communication behaviors appear to act as mechanisms to foster a sense of accountability, a shared identity, and a supportive community. Other demonstrated group behaviors may detract from the value of the group experience, including side conversations, tangential comments, and individual participants disproportionately dominating group time. CONCLUSION: The group visit format for delivering B/N promotes group-specific communication behaviors that may add unique value in supporting patients in their recovery. Future research should elucidate whether these benefits can be isolated from those achieved solely through medication treatment with B/N and if similar benefits could be achieved in non-primary care sites.

How good is the evidence to support primary care practice?

Our goal was to determine the extent to which recommendations for primary care practice are informed by high-quality research-based evidence, and the extent to which they are based on evidence of improved health outcomes (patient-oriented evidence). As a substrate for study, we used Essential Evidence, an online, evidence-based, medical reference for generalists. Each of the 721 chapters makes overall recommendations for practice that are graded A, B or C using the Strength of Recommendations Taxonomy (SORT). SORT A represents consistent and good quality patient-oriented evidence; SORT B is inconsistent or limited quality patient-oriented evidence and SORT C is expert opinion, usual practice or recommendations relying on surrogate or intermediate outcomes. Pairs of researchers abstracted the evidence ratings for each chapter in tandem, with discrepancies resolved by the lead author. Of 3251 overall recommendations, 18% were graded 'A', 34% were 'B' and 49% were 'C'. Clinical categories with the most 'A' recommendations were pregnancy and childbirth, cardiovascular, and psychiatric; those with the least were haematological, musculoskeletal and rheumatological, and poisoning and toxicity. 'A' level recommendations were most common for therapy and least common for diagnosis. Only 51% of recommendations are based on studies reporting patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, quality of life or symptom reduction. In conclusion, approximately half of the recommendations for primary care practice are based on patient-oriented evidence, but only 18% are based on patient-oriented evidence from consistent, high-quality studies.