"How can I hug someone now [over the phone]?": Impacts of COVID-19 on peer recovery specialists and clients in substance use treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected underserved, low-income, ethnoracial minority communities, as well as those with substance use disorders (SUDs). The workforce of peer recovery specialists (PRSs), individuals with lived substance use and recovery experience, has rapidly expanded in response to a shortage of access to substance use treatment, particularly for those from underserved communities. As PRSs are likely serving individuals disproportionately affected by the pandemic, it is important to understand how COVID-19 has affected the PRS role and the individuals with SUD who they are supporting. METHOD: This study aimed to examine: (1) the impact of COVID-19 on the PRS role and experience, (2) the impact of COVID-19 on clients in or seeking SUD treatment, (3) facilitators for clients engaging in treatment and adapting to new changes, and (4) sustainability of new treatment methods post-pandemic. RESULTS: Findings suggest that PRSs have had to adapt their role and responsibilities to meet changing client needs; however, PRS strengths, such as their shared experience and expertise navigating treatment barriers, make them uniquely suited to assist clients during the pandemic. The study identified various barriers and facilitators to clients seeking treatment or living with SUD, such as the loss of interpersonal connection. PRSs also identified some drawbacks to utilizing telehealth, but identified this as a potentially sustainable approach to delivering care after the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Future research could explore how challenges to fulfilling the PRS role, as well as adaptations to overcome these challenges, have changed over time.

A mapping and synthesis of tools for stakeholder and community engagement in quality improvement initiatives for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder and community engagement promotes collaboration and gives service users an opportunity to actively participate in the care they receive. Recognizing this potential, The Network for Improving Quality of Care for maternal, newborn and child health aimed to identify tools and operational guidance to integrate stakeholder and community engagement into quality improvement (QI) implementation. METHODS: A mapping, consisting of a literature review and an open call through email and listservers, for implementation tools was conducted. Materials were included if they provided guidance on stakeholder and community engagement aligned to the Network's QI framework comprising seven phases. Screening of tools was done by two reviewers. RESULTS: The literature search and the call for tools returned 197 documents with 70 tools included after screening. Most included tools (70%) were published after 2010. International organizations were the most frequently cited authors of tools. Only 15 tools covered all seven phases of the QI framework; few tools covered the more 'technical' phase of the QI framework: adapting standards and refining strategies. CONCLUSION: The quantity of tools and their varied characteristics including types of stakeholder and community engagement processes across the QI framework confirms that engagement cannot be captured in a 'one-size-fits-all' formula. Many tools were designed with a generic focus to allow for adaption and use in different settings and sectors. Country programmes looking to strengthen engagement approaches can take advantage of available tools through an online portal on the WHO website and adapt them to meet their specific needs and context. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Programme implementers provided tools and resources during data collection.

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

BACKGROUND: Widespread implementation of palliative care treatment plans could reduce suffering in the last days of life by adopting best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care in inpatient settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention strategy to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings. DESIGN: Implementation trial with an intervention staggered across hospitals using a multiple-baseline, stepped wedge design. PARTICIPANTS: Six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). INTERVENTION: Staff training was targeted to all hospital providers and focused on identifying actively dying patients and implementing best practices from home-based hospice care, supported with an electronic order set and paper-based educational tools. MAIN MEASURES: Several processes of care were identified as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from electronic medical records of veterans who died before or after intervention (n = 6,066). Primary endpoints were proportion with an order for opioid pain medication at time of death, do-not-resuscitate order, location of death, nasogastric tube, intravenous line infusing, and physical restraints. Secondary endpoints were administration of opioids, order/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine (for death rattle); sublingual administration; advance directives; palliative care consultations; and pastoral care services. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for longitudinal trends. KEY RESULTS: Significant intervention effects were observed for orders for opioid pain medication (OR: 1.39), antipsychotic medications (OR: 1.98), benzodiazepines (OR: 1.39), death rattle medications (OR: 2.77), sublingual administration (OR: 4.12), nasogastric tubes (OR: 0.71), and advance directives (OR: 1.47). Intervention effects were not significant for location of death, do-not-resuscitate orders, intravenous lines, or restraints. CONCLUSIONS: This broadly targeted intervention strategy led to modest but statistically significant changes in several processes of care, indicating its potential for widespread dissemination to improve end-of-life care for thousands of patients who die each year in inpatient settings.

Office management of chronic systolic heart failure.

Evidence-based management of chronic systolic heart failure includes risk factor management, therapeutic lifestyle changes, and a polypharmaceutical regimen that prolongs survival, reduces or reverses progression of myocardial dysfunction, alleviates symptoms, and limits complications. Subspecialty consultation is warranted when symptoms progress despite standard therapy; interventions are needed for refractory coronary disease, an arrhythmia device is indicated, or surgical intervention or transplantation is considered.