Pain Care at Home to Amplify Function: Protocol Article.

Guidelines recommend strategies to optimize opioid medication safety, including frequent reassessment of the benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy. Prescribers, who are predominantly primary care providers (PCPs), may lack the training or resources to implement these guideline-concordant practices. Two interventions have been designed to assist PCPs and tested within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Telemedicine Collaborative Management (TCM) provides primarily medication management support via care manager-prescriber teams. Cooperative Pain Education and Self-Management (COPES) promotes self-management strategies for chronic pain via cognitive behavior therapy techniques. Each intervention has been shown to improve prescribing and/or patient outcomes. The added value of combining these interventions is untested. With funding and central coordination by the Integrative Management of Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) Network of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative, we will conduct a multisite patient-level randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial within VHA to compare TCM to TCM + COPES on the primary composite outcome of pain interference and opioid safety, secondary outcomes of alcohol use, anxiety, depression, and sleep, and other consensus IMPOWR Network measures. Implementation facilitation strategies informed by interviews with healthcare providers will target site-specific needs. The impact of these strategies on TCM implementation will be assessed via established formative and summative evaluation techniques. Economic analyses will evaluate intervention cost-effectiveness.

Video-telecare collaborative pain management during COVID-19: a single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is among the most common conditions presenting to primary care and guideline-based care faces several challenges. A novel pain management program, Video-Telecare Collaborative Pain Management (VCPM), was established to support primary care providers and meet new challenges to care presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The present single-arm feasibility study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of VCPM and its components among U.S. veterans on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain at ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). VCPM consists of evidence-based interventions, including opioid reassessment and tapering, rotation to buprenorphine and monitoring, and encouraging behavioral pain and opioid-use disorder self-management. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients outreached for VPCM, 44 completed an initial intake (33%) and 19 attended multiple VCPM appointments (14%). Patients were generally satisfied with VCPM, virtual modalities, and provider interactions. Nearly all patients who attended multiple appointments maintained a buprenorphine switch or tapered opioids (16/19; 84%), and buprenorphine switches were generally reported as acceptable by patients. Patients completing an initial intake with VCPM had reduced morphine equivalent daily dose after three months (means = 109 mg MEDD vs 78 mg), with greater reductions among those who attended multiple appointments compared to intake only (ΔMEDD = -58.1 vs. -8.40). Finally, 29 referrals were placed for evidence-based non-pharmacologic interventions. CONCLUSION: Pre-defined feasibility and acceptability targets for VCPM and its components were broadly met, and preliminary data are encouraging. Novel strategies to improve enrollment and engagement and future directions are discussed.

Are x-waiver trainings enough? Facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing after x-waiver trainings.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, an x-waiver credential is necessary to prescribe buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Historically, this process has required certified training, which could be a barrier to obtaining an x-waiver and subsequently prescribing. To address this barrier, the US recently removed the training requirement for some clinicians. We sought to determine if clinicians who attended x-waiver training went on to obtain an x-waiver and prescribe B-MOUD, and to examine what facilitated or impeded B-MOUD prescribing. METHODS: In September 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of attendees of 15 in-person x-waiver pieces of training from June 2018 to January 2020 within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Of the attendees (n = 321), we surveyed current VHA clinicians who recalled taking the training. The survey assessed whether clinicians obtained the x-waiver, had prescribed B-MOUD, and barriers or facilitators that influenced B-MOUD prescribing. RESULTS: Of 251 eligible participants, 62 (24.7%) responded to the survey, including 27 (43.5%) physicians, 16 (25.8%) advanced practice clinicians, and 12 (19.4%) pharmacists. Of the 43 clinicians who could prescribe, 29 (67.4%) had obtained their x-waiver and 16 (37.2%) had reported prescribing B-MOUD. Prominent barriers to prescribing B-MOUD included a lack of supporting clinical staff and competing demands on time. The primary facilitator to prescribing was leadership support. CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Nine months after x-waiver training, two-thirds of clinicians with prescribing credentials had obtained their x-waiver and one-third were prescribing B-MOUD. Removing the x-waiver training may not have the intended policy effect as other barriers to B-MOUD prescribing persist.

Health costs of women with chronic overlapping pain conditions by opioid and complementary and integrative health use.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate differences in average annual health care expenditures of adult women with chronic overlapping pain conditions (COPCs) by pain treatment modality as follows: (1) no long-term opioid or complementary and integrative health (CIH) use; (2) CIH only use; (3) long-term opioid only use; and (4) long-term opioid and CIH use. DATA SOURCE: Cross-sectional Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2012-2016). STUDY DESIGN: We estimated differences between average annual expenditures of adult women with COPCs by their use of long-term opioids and CIH modalities. Generalized linear regression with a log link function was used to estimate adjusted marginal effects in annual expenditures. The distribution family was chosen based on Modified Park Tests. We controlled for pain severity, patient demographic characteristics, physical limitations, comorbidities, mental health, insurance status, physical therapy use, and census region. We also employed propensity-score based marginal mean weighting through stratification to balance our treatment groups on observed covariates. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified adult women (>17 years) with one or more self-reported COPC using 3-digit International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10-Clinical Modification (CM) codes (N = 9169) and categorized their use of CIH and long-term opioids. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to women without long-term opioid or CIH use, CIH only use was significantly associated with lower inpatient expenditures (-$947 [-$1699, -$196]; p-value < 0.01), higher office-based expenditures ($1345 [$944, $1746]; p-value < 0.001), and higher patient out-of-pocket expenditures ($628 [$409, $848]; p-value < 0.001). Long-term opioid use, alone or in combination with CIH, was significantly associated with higher expenditures (p-value < 0.05) in total and across all utilization categories compared to women without any long-term opioid or CIH use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that CIH treatment approaches for chronic pain have the potential to be utilized without increasing overall costs. Future research should further examine the role of CIH modalities in achieving cost-effective pain management that reduces avoidable opioid use.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Multimodal Chronic Pain Care for Veterans: A National Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is more common among veterans than among the general population. Expert guidelines recommend multimodal chronic pain care. However, there is substantial variation in the availability and utilization of treatment modalities in the Veterans Health Administration. We explored health care providers' and administrators' perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of multimodal chronic pain care in the Veterans Health Administration to understand variation in the use of multimodal pain treatment modalities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with health care providers and administrators at a national sample of Veterans Health Administration facilities that were classified as either early or late adopters of multimodal chronic pain care according to their utilization of nine pain-related treatments. Interviews were conducted by telephone, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analyzed through the use of team-based inductive and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 49 participants from 25 facilities from April through September of 2017. We identified three themes. First, the Veterans Health Administration's integrated health care system is both an asset and a challenge for multimodal chronic pain care. Second, participants discussed a temporal shift from managing chronic pain with opioids to multimodal treatment. Third, primary care teams face competing pressures from expert guidelines, facility leadership, and patients. Early- and late-adopting sites differed in perceived resource availability. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers often perceive inadequate support and resources to provide multimodal chronic pain management. Efforts to improve chronic pain management should address both organizational and patient-level challenges, including primary care provider panel sizes, accessibility of training for primary care teams, leadership support for multimodal pain care, and availability of multidisciplinary pain management resources.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): A Pragmatic Trial Comparing Whole Health Team vs Primary Care Group Education to Promote Nonpharmacological Strategies to Improve Pain, Functioning, and Quality of Life in Veterans-Rationale, Methods, and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Whole Health model of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emphasizes holistic self-care and multimodal approaches to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life. wHOPE (Whole Health Options and Pain Education) seeks to be the first multisite pragmatic trial to establish evidence for the VA Whole Health model for chronic pain care. DESIGN: wHOPE is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a Whole Health Team (WHT) approach to Primary Care Group Education (PC-GE); both will be compared to Usual VA Primary Care (UPC). The WHT consists of a medical provider, a complementary and integrative health (CIH) provider, and a Whole Health coach, who collaborate with VA patients to create a Personalized Health Plan emphasizing CIH approaches to chronic pain management. The active comparator, PC-GE, is adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The first aim is to test whether the WHT approach is superior to PC-GE and whether both are superior to UPC in decreasing pain interference in functioning in 750 veterans with moderate to severe chronic pain (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include changes in pain severity, quality of life, mental health symptoms, and use of nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies for pain. Outcomes will be collected from the VA electronic health record and patient-reported data over 12 months of follow-up. Aim 2 consists of an implementation-focused process evaluation and budget impact analysis. SUMMARY: This trial is part of the Pain Management Collaboratory, which seeks to create national-level infrastructure to support evidence-based nonpharmacological pain management approaches for veterans and military service personnel.

Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Against Patients' Wishes and Change in Pain Severity.

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit from opioid medications for chronic pain and substantial evidence of potential harms. For patients, dose reduction may be beneficial when implemented voluntarily and supported by a multidisciplinary team but experts have advised against involuntary opioid reduction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of self-reported involuntary opioid reduction and to examine whether involuntary opioid reduction is associated with changes in pain severity. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care patients treated with long-term opioid therapy in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 290). MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction. The primary outcome was the three-item PEG scale, which measures past-week average pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life and general activity. KEY RESULTS: Past year opioid reduction or discontinuation was reported by 63% (184/290). Similar numbers reported involuntary (88/290) and voluntary (96/290) opioid reduction. At baseline, there were no significant differences in pain severity between the groups (mean PEG, 7.08 vs. 6.73 vs. 7.07 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.32). For the primary outcome of change in pain severity from baseline to 18 months, there were no significant differences between groups (mean PEG change, - 0.05 vs. - 0.44 vs. - 0.23 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction was common among a national sample of veterans treated with long-term opioid therapy. Opioid dose reduction, whether involuntary or voluntary, was not associated with change in pain severity. Future studies should examine involuntary opioid reduction in different populations and trends over time and explore further patient- and provider-level factors that may impact patient experience and outcomes during opioid reduction.

Implementation and Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety.

Evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, the prevention of opioid overdose and other opioid-related harms, and safe and effective pain management are priorities for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development hosted a State-of-the-Art Conference on "Effective Management of Pain and Addiction: Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety" on September 10-11, 2019. This conference convened a multidisciplinary group to discuss and achieve consensus on a research agenda and on implementation and policy recommendations to improve opioid safety for Veterans. Participants were organized into three workgroups: (1) managing opioid use disorder; (2) Long-term opioid therapy and opioid tapering; (3) managing co-occurring pain and substance use disorder. Here we summarize the implementation and policy recommendations of each workgroup and highlight important cross-cutting issues related to telehealth, care coordination, and stepped care model implementation.

The evaluating prescription opioid changes in veterans (EPOCH) study: Design, survey response, and baseline characteristics.

In the United States (US), long-term opioid therapy has been commonly prescribed for chronic pain. Since recognition of the opioid overdose epidemic, clinical practice guidelines have recommended tapering long-term opioids to reduced doses or discontinuation. The Effects of Prescription Opioid Changes for veterans (EPOCH) study is a national population-based prospective observational study of US Veterans Health Administration primary care patients designed to assess effects of evolving opioid prescribing practice on patients treated with long-term opioids for chronic pain. A stratified random sampling design was used to identify a survey sample from the target population of patients treated with opioid analgesics for ≥ 6 months. Demographic, diagnostic, visit, and pharmacy dispensing data were extracted from existing datasets. A 2016 mixed-mode mail and telephone survey collected patient-reported data, including the main patient-reported outcomes of pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory interference; BPI-I scores 0-10, higher scores = worse) and health-related quality of life. Data on survey participants and non-participants were analyzed to assess potential nonresponse bias. Weights were used to account for design. Linear regression models were used to assess cross-sectional associations of opioid treatment with patient-reported measures. Of 14,160 patients contacted, 9253 (65.4%) completed the survey. Participants were older than non-participants (63.9 ± 10.6 vs. 59.6 ± 13.0 years). The mean number of bothersome pain locations was 6.8 (SE 0.04). Effectiveness of pain treatment and quality of pain care were rated fair or poor by 56.1% and 45.3%, respectively. The opioid daily dosage range was 1.6 to 1038.2 mg, with mean = 50.6 mg (SE 1.1) and median = 30.9 mg (IQR 40.7). Among the 73.2% of patients who did not receive long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 30.4 mg (SE 0.6) and mean BPI-I was 6.4 (SE 00.4). Among patients who received long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 106.2 mg (SE 2.8) and mean BPI-I was 6.8 (SE 0.07). Higher daily dosage was associated with worse pain-related function and quality of life among patients without long-acting opioids, but not among patients with long-acting opioids. Future analyses will use follow-up data to examine effects of opioid dose reduction and discontinuation on patient outcomes.

Using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to qualitatively assess multilevel contextual factors to help plan, implement, evaluate, and disseminate health services programs.

There is consensus in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science that addressing contextual factors is critically important for understanding translation of health care delivery interventions but little agreement on which contextual factors are key determinants of implementation outcomes. We describe the application of the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), which expands the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify contextual factors across four diverse programs. Multiple qualitative methods were used to collect multilevel, multistakeholder perspectives from the adopting organizations and staff. We identified measures for evaluating context through the various domains of PRISM to guide health services research across the phases of program implementation. The PRISM domains of Recipients, Implementation and Sustainability Infrastructure, and External Environment identified important multilevel contextual factors, including variability in operational processes and available resources. These domains helped to facilitate planning and implementation phases of the four interventions and guide purposeful adaptations. We found assessments of PRISM domains useful to systematically assess multilevel contextual factors across various content areas as well as phases of program implementation. Additionally, these contextual factors were found to be relevant to RE-AIM outcomes. Lessons learned can be applied to future research as there is a need to investigate the measurement properties of PRISM and continue to test which contextual factors are most important to successful implementation and for which outcomes.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Testing implementation facilitation of a primary care-based collaborative care clinical program using a hybrid type III interrupted time series design: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes-transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation. METHODS: This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program-PIPS-in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS. DISCUSSION: This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

Systematic, Multimethod Assessment of Adaptations Across Four Diverse Health Systems Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Many health outcomes and implementation science studies have demonstrated the importance of tailoring evidence-based care interventions to local context to improve fit. By adapting to local culture, history, resources, characteristics, and priorities, interventions are more likely to lead to improved outcomes. However, it is unclear how best to adapt evidence-based programs and promising innovations. There are few guides or examples of how to best categorize or assess health-care adaptations, and even fewer that are brief and practical for use by non-researchers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study describes the importance and potential of assessing adaptations before, during, and after the implementation of health systems interventions. We present a promising multilevel and multimethod approach developed and being applied across four different health systems interventions. Finally, we discuss implications and opportunities for future research. RESULTS: The four case studies are diverse in the conditions addressed, interventions, and implementation strategies. They include two nurse coordinator-based transition of care interventions, a data and training-driven multimodal pain management project, and a cardiovascular patient-reported outcomes project, all of which are using audit and feedback. We used the same modified adaptation framework to document changes made to the interventions and implementation strategies. To create the modified framework, we started with the adaptation and modification model developed by Stirman and colleagues and expanded it by adding concepts from the RE-AIM framework. Our assessments address the intuitive domains of Who, How, When, What, and Why to classify and organize adaptations. For each case study, we discuss how the modified framework was operationalized, the multiple methods used to collect data, results to date and approaches utilized for data analysis. These methods include a real-time tracking system and structured interviews at key times during the intervention. We provide descriptive data on the types and categories of adaptations made and discuss lessons learned. CONCLUSION: The multimethod approaches demonstrate utility across diverse health systems interventions. The modified adaptations model adequately captures adaptations across the various projects and content areas. We recommend systematic documentation of adaptations in future clinical and public health research and have made our assessment materials publicly available.

Association Between Facility-Level Utilization of Non-pharmacologic Chronic Pain Treatment and Subsequent Initiation of Long-Term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Expert guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications for chronic pain and recommend against initiating long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). OBJECTIVE: We examined whether veterans with incident chronic pain receiving care at facilities with greater utilization of non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are less likely to initiate LTOT. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Veterans receiving primary care from a Veterans Health Administration facility with incident chronic pain between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2015 based on either of 2 criteria: (1) persistent moderate-to-severe patient-reported pain and (2) diagnoses "likely to represent" chronic pain. MAIN MEASURES: The independent variable was facility-level utilization of pain-related treatment modalities (non-pharmacologic, non-opioid medications, LTOT) in the prior calendar year. The dependent variable was patient-level initiation of LTOT (≥ 90 days within 365 days) in the subsequent year, adjusting for patient characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Among 1,094,569 veterans with incident chronic pain from 2010 to 2015, there was wide facility-level variation in utilization of 10 pain-related treatment modalities, including initiation of LTOT (median, 16%; range, 5-32%). Veterans receiving care at facilities with greater utilization of non-pharmacologic treatments were less likely to initiate LTOT in the year following incident chronic pain. Conversely, veterans receiving care at facilities with greater non-opioid and opioid medication utilization were more likely to initiate LTOT; this association was strongest for past year facility-level LTOT initiation (adjusted rate ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.15, top vs. bottom quartile of facility-level LTOT initiation in prior calendar year). CONCLUSIONS: Facility-level utilization patterns of non-pharmacologic, non-opioid, and opioid treatments for chronic pain are associated with subsequent patient-level initiation of LTOT among veterans with incident chronic pain. Further studies should seek to understand facility-level variation in chronic pain care and to identify facility-level utilization patterns that are associated with improved patient outcomes.

Mixed methods formative evaluation of a collaborative care program to decrease risky opioid prescribing and increase non-pharmacologic approaches to pain management.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing and subsequent rates of serious harms have dramatically increased in the past two decades, yet there are still significant barriers to reduction of risky opioid regimens. This formative evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers and factors that may facilitate the successful implementation of Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS), a clinical program designed to support the reduction of risky opioid regimens while increasing the uptake of non-pharmacologic treatment modalities. METHODS: Eighteen Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees across three sites completed a survey consisting of the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale; a subset of these individuals (n = 9) then completed a semi-structured qualitative phone interview regarding implementing PIPS within the VA. ORIC results were analyzed using descriptive statistics while interview transcripts were coded and sorted according to qualitative themes. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis based on ORIC indicated high levels of organizational readiness to implement PIPS. Interview analysis revealed several salient themes: system-level barriers such as tension among various pain management providers; patient-level barriers such as perception of support and tension between patient and provider; and facilitating factors of PIPS, such as the importance of the clinical pharmacist role. CONCLUSIONS: While organizational readiness for implementing PIPS appears high, modifications to our implementation facilitation strategy (e.g., establishing clinical pharmacists as champions; marketing PIPS to leadership as a way to improve VA opioid safety metrics) may improve capacity of the sites to implement PIPS successfully.