Interventions to Support Adherence to Oral Anticancer Medications: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: This systematic review compared the efficacy of interventions to usual care on adherence to oral anticancer regimens. LITERATURE SEARCH: Embase®, PubMed®, and CINAHL® were searched for eligible comparative studies published between January 2000 and May 2021. Outcomes of interest included adherence, cancer-related morbidity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and other patient-specific outcomes. DATA EVALUATION: Reviewers assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. SYNTHESIS: Risk assessment, ongoing or periodic assessment, proactive follow-up, motivational interviewing, or structured programs may improve adherence. Education or coaching interventions may improve or have little to no effect on adherence. Technological interventions may improve adherence, but interactive compared to noninteractive technology may have little to no effect. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: As more cancer treatments move to oral formulations, work remains to identify the most effective interventions to support people receiving oral anticancer regimens.

Development and assessment of the usability of a web-based referral to treatment tool for persons with substance use disorders.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized people with unhealthy substance use should be referred to treatment. Although inpatient referral resources are often available, clinicians report that outpatient referral networks are not well-established. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the development and usability testing of a web-based Referral to Treatment Tool (RTT © 2020 Trustees of Indiana University, all rights reserved) designed to identify treatment centers for people with unhealthy substance use. RESULTS: The RTT was conceptualized, developed, and then populated with public use and local survey data of treatment centers from 14 market ZIP codes of hospitals participating in an SBIRT implementation study. The tool underwent initial heuristic testing, followed by usability testing at three hospitals within a large healthcare system in the Midwest region of the United States. Administrative (n = 6) and provider (n = 12) users of the RTT completed a list of tasks and provided feedback through Think-Aloud Tests, the System Usability Scale, and in-person interviews. Patients (n = 4) assessed multiple versions of a take-home printout of referral sites that met their specifications and completed in-person interviews to provide feedback. Each administrative task was completed in less than 3 min, and providers took an average of 4 min and 3 s to identify appropriate referral sites for a patient and print a referral list for the patient. The mean System Usability Scale score (M = 77.22, SD = 15.57, p = 0.03) was significantly higher than the passable score of 70, indicating favorable perceptions of the usability of the RTT. Administrative and provider users felt that the RTT was useful and easy to use, but the settings and search features could be refined. Patients indicated that the printouts contained useful information and that it was helpful to include multiple referral sites on the printout. CONCLUSION: The web-based referral tool has the potential to facilitate voluntary outpatient referral to treatment for patients with unhealthy substance use. The RTT can be customized for a variety of health care settings and patient needs. Additional revisions based on usability testing results are needed to prepare for a broader multi-site clinical evaluation. Trial Registration Not applicable.

Strategies to promote the implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in healthcare settings: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT), is an approach for the prevention and treatment of substance use disorders, but is often underutilized in healthcare settings. Although the implementation of SBIRT is challenging, the use of multi-faceted and higher intensity strategies are more likely to result in the successful incorporation of SBIRT into practice in primary care settings. SBIRT may be used in different healthcare settings, and the context for implementation and types of strategies used to support implementation may vary by setting. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview regarding the use of strategies to support implementation of SBIRT in all healthcare settings and describe the associated outcomes. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using CINAHL Complete, HealthBusiness FullTEXT, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Embase to search for articles published in English prior to September 2019. The search returned 462 citations, with 18 articles included in the review. Two independent reviewers extracted data from each article regarding the theory, design, timeline, location, setting, patient population, substance type, provider, sample size and type, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. The reviewers entered all extracted data entered into a table and then summarized the results. RESULTS: Most of the studies were conducted in the United States in primary care or emergency department settings, and the majority of studies focused on SBIRT to address alcohol use in adults. The most commonly used strategies to support implementation included training and educating stakeholders or developing stakeholder interrelationships. In contrast, only a few studies engaged patients or consumers in the implementation process. Efforts to support implementation often resulted in an increase in screening, but the evidence regarding the brief intervention is less clear, and most studies did not assess the reach or adoption of the referral to treatment. DISCUSSION: In addition to summarizing the strategies used to increase reach and adoption of SBIRT in healthcare settings, this scoping review identified multiple gaps in the literature. Two major gaps include implementation of SBIRT in acute care settings and the application of implementation theories to inform healthcare efforts to enable use of SBIRT.

Perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, outcomes, and helpfulness of strategies to implement screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in acute care.

BACKGROUND: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a clinical intervention used to address alcohol and illicit drug use. SBIRT use has resulted in positive health and social outcomes; however, SBIRT implementation remains low. Research on implementing interventions, such as SBIRT, lacks information about challenges and successes related to implementation. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) provides a framework to guide comprehension, clarity, and relevance of strategies available for implementation research. This framework was applied to qualitative feedback gathered from site coordinators (SCs) leading SBIRT implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe the SCs' experiences pertaining to SBIRT implementation across a health system. METHODS: Within the context of a larger parent study, a semi-structured interview guide was used to capture 14 SCs' perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes pertaining to SBIRT implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using standard content analytic procedures. A follow-up survey was developed based on 14 strategies identified from qualitative data and was administered electronically to determine the SC's perceptions of the most helpful implementation strategies on a scale of 1 (least helpful) to 5 (most helpful). RESULTS: All 14 invited SCs participated in the SBIRT implementation interview, and 11 of 14 (79%) responded to the follow-up survey. Within the categories of barriers, facilitators, and outcomes, 25 subthemes emerged. The most helpful implementation strategies were reexamining the implementation (M = 4.38; n = 8), providing ongoing consultation (M = 4.13; n = 8), auditing and providing feedback (M = 4.1; n = 10), developing education materials (M = 4.1; n = 10), identifying and preparing champions (M = 4; n = 7), and tailoring strategies (M = 4; n = 7). CONCLUSION: SCs who led implementation efforts within a large healthcare system identified several barriers and facilitators to the implementation of SBIRT. Additionally, they identified clinician-related outcomes associated with SBIRT implementation into practice as well as strategies that were helpful in the implementation process. This information can inform the implementation of SBIRT and other interventions in acute care settings.

Implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) by nurses on acute care units: A qualitative descriptive study.

Background: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based intervention for patients with substance use disorders, but this intervention is under-utilized. Little is known about the implementation of SBIRT in acute care facilities. The purpose of this study is to describe implementation of SBIRT by nurses in acute care hospitals. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was used for this study. Registered nurses who agreed to participate in the study completed a 1:1 interview using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and then data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: When implementing SBIRT in an acute care setting, participants identified several factors that affect implementation. Some nurses felt that it is "one more thing to do" but other nurses feel that it was a "good, simple" screening tool that does not take long to do and can "plant the seeds of change" for patients. Additionally, participants mentioned barriers and facilitators related to the patients' responses to SBIRT and organizational factors. Conclusions: This study identified several barriers and facilitators to SBIRT implementation related to the nurses, patients, and organization. By understanding the factors that influence implementation, healthcare providers can develop strategies to support effective implementation of SBIRT.

Assessing public behavioral health services data: a mixed method analysis.

BACKGROUND: Measuring behavioral health treatment accessibility requires timely, comprehensive and accurate data collection. Existing public sources of data have inconsistent metrics, delayed times to publication and do not measure all factors related to accessibility. This study seeks to capture this additional information and determine its importance for informing accessibility and care coordination. METHODS: The 2018 National Survey for Substance Abuse and Treatment Services (N-SSATS) data were used to identify behavioral health facilities in Indiana and gather baseline information. A telephone survey was administered to facilities with questions parallel to the N-SSATS and additional questions regarding capacity and patient intake. Quantitative analysis includes chi-square tests. A standard qualitative analysis was used for theming answers to open-ended questions. RESULTS: About 20% of behavioral health facilities responded to the study survey, and non-response bias was identified by geographic region. Among respondents, statistically significant differences were found in several questions asked in both the study survey and N-SSATS. Data gathered from the additional questions revealed many facilities to have wait times to intake longer than 2 weeks, inconsistency in intake assessment tools used, limited capacity for walk-ins and numerous requirements for engaging in treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite the low response rate to this study survey, results demonstrate that multiple factors not currently captured in public data sources can influence coordination of care. The questions included in this study survey could serve as a framework for routinely gathering these data and can facilitate efforts for successful coordination of care and clinical decision-making.

Development and use of a toolkit to facilitate implementation of an evidence-based intervention: a descriptive case study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based clinical interventions in real-world settings becomes a futile effort when effective strategies to foster adoption are not used. A toolkit, or a collection of adaptable documents to inform and facilitate implementation, can increase the use of evidence-based interventions. Most available toolkits provide resources about the intervention but lack guidance for adaptation to different contexts or strategies to support implementation. This paper describes the development and use of a toolkit to guide the implementation of an evidence-based intervention to identify and intervene for people with risky substance use. METHODS: A descriptive case study describes the development and use of a toolkit throughout a two-year study. Investigators and site coordinators from 14 acute care hospitals developed tools and engaged external stakeholders as they prepared for implementation, integrated the clinical intervention into practice, and reflected on implementation. RESULTS: The final toolkit included 54 different tools selected or created to define the intervention, engage and communicate with stakeholders, assess for readiness and plan for implementation, train clinical nurses and other stakeholders, evaluate training and implementation effectiveness, create policies and procedures for different contexts, and identify opportunities for reimbursement. Each tool corresponds to one or more implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: The approach used to develop this implementation toolkit may be used to create resources for the implementation of other evidence-based interventions.

Variation in SBIRT delivery among acute care facilities.

BACKGROUND: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based process to recognize and intervene with people who use substances. Despite evidence to support the SBIRT effectiveness, this process is rarely used in acute care. To facilitate use of SBIRT in acute care, it is important to first understand the implementation processes. PURPOSE: To describe SBIRT processes across 14 acute care facilities. METHODS: A phone interview was conducted with site coordinators at 14 facilities to describe their SBIRT process and clinicians involved in each step. FINDINGS: Seven different SBIRT processes were identified for people that use alcohol and/or drugs, and five different processes were identified for people that use tobacco. The function of SBIRT was consistent throughout facilities, but the form of implementation varied based on organizational context. DISCUSSION: Future SBIRT dissemination efforts will need to first understand the local processes and clinicians involved within each facility to tailor implementation to local context.

Competent Patient Refusal of Nursing Care: An Innovative Approach to a Complex Problem.

Pressure injury development results in significant morbidity and costs. Despite well-defined guidelines, nurses are frequently faced with subtle and overt patient resistance when implementing prevention strategies. Case law and hospital policies guide decision making when confronted with refusal of medical care; however, there are limited recommendations that guide competent patient refusal of nursing care. This article presents findings of an integrative literature review and idea-generating forum about competent patient refusal of nursing care. Emerging topics from the literature review were mirrored in responses generated during the innovation forum; responses from the forum confirmed the clinical relevance of the issue and the lack of resources to guide care in this area for approach.

Study protocol testing toolkit versus usual care for implementation of screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment in hospitals: a phased cluster randomized approach.

BACKGROUND: Alarming rates of unhealthy alcohol, non-prescription drug, and tobacco use highlight the preventable health risks of substance abuse and the urgent need to activate clinicians to recognize and treat risky use. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious and effective processes to identify, reduce and prevent risky use of substances. This paper describes a study protocol testing implementation of a toolkit to enhance use of SBIRT in acute care settings to recognize and address patient risky alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. METHODS: This study uses a phased cluster randomized mixed method design to test nurse-led implementation of an SBIRT toolkit on one medical-surgical unit at 14 acute care hospitals (critical access, community and academic health centers). Medical surgical units will be randomly assigned to implement the SBIRT toolkit (engagement and communication, assessment, planning, training, and evaluation tools) or a wait-list usual care control group that begins implementation 6 months later. Primary endpoints are documentation of SBIRT delivery in randomly selected electronic medical records at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after group 1 implementation (61 records per unit per time period, N = 2562). Two surveys will be administered to unit nurses: smoking cessation activities will be assessed at baseline and SBIRT use will be assessed on randomly-selected days after implementation. In addition, site coordinators will complete a baseline capacity assessment, an implementation fidelity survey post-implementation, and a structured interview at the end of the study. Multilevel mixed-effects effects logistic and linear models will be used to analyze use of SBIRT and cost outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will guide subsequent SBIRT implementation, dissemination, and spread across rural, community and urban healthcare systems throughout the state and beyond. The long-term objective is to activate clinicians to recognize, intervene and refer people with risky substance use to improve health and decrease substance use disorders. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03560076.

Optimizing Drug Delivery of Small-Volume Infusions.

When administering intermittent secondary intravenous infusions, commonly referred to as intravenous piggyback (IVPB) infusions, residual medication remains in the administration set and bag. No previous studies exist examining the optimal technique to infuse the residual medication. The aims of this study were to identify various IVPB ancillary techniques used to administer medication residing in the secondary administration set and bag following an infusion, evaluate the potential drug loss associated with each technique, and recommend a standard ancillary technique for administration of select small-volume IVPB infusions. Qualitative and quantitative tests were performed, leading to a recommendation for a standard ancillary technique for select small-volume IVPB infusions.

Pharmacokinetics of Cefepime in Patients with Cancer and Febrile Neutropenia in the Setting of Hematologic Malignancies or Hematopoeitic Cell Transplantation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of standard cefepime dosing regimens in a hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplant patient population with febrile neutropenia. DESIGN: Open-label, single-center, prospective pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. PATIENTS: Nine adults with hematologic malignancies or hematopoietic cell transplants who had febrile neutropenia and were admitted to a hematology-oncology service between January and July 2014. INTERVENTION: Patients received empirical cefepime 2 g every 8 hours, administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion, for febrile neutropenia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Steady-state cefepime serum concentrations were measured after at least 2 days of continuous therapy. Venous blood samples were intensively sampled between 0 and 8 hours after the start of the 30-minute infusion at steady state. Seven of the nine patients had a hematologic malignancy diagnosis of acute leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma, and two patients had a germ cell tumor diagnosis. Noncompartmental analysis revealed mean ± SD parameters as follows at steady state: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0-8 hours 222.9 ± 72.9 mg hour/L, maximum concentration 120.9 ± 21.8 mg/L, clearance 9.7 ± 3.7 L/hour, apparent volume of distribution 19.2 ± 4.65 L, and elimination half-life 1.4 ± 0.3 hours. A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model identified a mean ± SD volume of distribution of 20.9 ± 1.3 L and an elimination rate constant of 0.39 ± 0.03 hour(-1) . The mean estimated percentage of time that drug concentration remains above the pathogen minimum inhibitory concentration (fT>MIC) in serum was 55%, 77%, and 99% at MICs of 16, 8, and 4 mg/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with hematologic malignancies or hematopoietic cell transplants who had febrile neutropenia demonstrated homogeneous calculated cefepime volumes and clearances. The population parameters presented in this study may aid in the calculation of patient-specific fT>MIC for similar patients.

Engraftment syndrome in hematopoietic stem cell transplantations.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an increasingly common treatment option for malignant and nonmalignant diseases, but it has significant associated morbidity and mortality. Nurses caring for HSCT recipients must be aware of all potential complications, including engraftment syndrome (ES). Previous nursing literature has included little information on this syndrome, which often presents with noninfectious fever, skin rash, and pulmonary infiltrates, and ES may be fatal if left unidentified and treatment is not initiated promptly. Reports of the risk factors, incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes have much variation, likely from a lack of definite diagnostic criteria and inconsistency in the terminology associated with ES. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of ES and the implications for nursing practice and research.