Identifying Implementation Factors for the Development, Operation, and Sustainment of Ambulatory Care Pharmacy Programs: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led programs and clinics have been integrated into primary and specialty care clinics in a variety of ways, for example, to improve diabetes outcomes via patient education and counseling. However, factors important to the implementation of different outpatient pharmacy models have not been well elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To identify provider- and health system-level drivers of implementation and sustainability of pharmacy-led programs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Qualitative study of key informants using semi-structured interviews of individuals working in various roles throughout a large health system, including ambulatory clinical pharmacists, pharmacy managers, medical directors and physician leaders, and operations and quality managers. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants (n=19) with leadership roles in pharmacy programs and front-line experience providing integrated pharmacy care were selected purposively and with snowball sampling. APPROACH: We coded the interviews using a codebook derived from the 2022 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which details various internal and external factors important for implementation. KEY RESULTS: We identified the following themes related to implementing ambulatory care pharmacy programs: (1) pharmacy programs varied in their level of embeddedness in the outpatient clinic, (2) establishing pharmacy program required leadership advocacy and coordination among stakeholders, (3) continued operations required integrated workflows and demonstrated value to the health system and clinicians, and (4) established revenue streams or added indirect value and continued improvement of integration sustained programs over time. CONCLUSIONS: External policies and incentives such as new reimbursement codes and quality measurement programs that rely on pharmacy input play a significant role in shaping the design, implementation, and sustainability of health system outpatient pharmacy programs. Ensuring that quality metrics used in value-based contracts or programs demonstrate pharmacy benefits will be critical to supporting and growing pharmacy programs.

Barriers to Implementing the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative End-Stage Kidney Disease Life Plan Guideline.

OBJECTIVE: The updated 2019 National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative vascular access guidelines recommend patient-centered, multi-disciplinary construction and regular update of an individualized end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) Life-Plan (LP) for each patient, a dramatic shift from previous recommendations and policy. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementing the LP among key stakeholders. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive coding. Codes were mapped to relevant domains in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: We interviewed 34 participants: 11 patients with end-stage kidney disease, 2 care partners, and 21 clinicians who care for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In both the clinician and the patient/care partner categories, saturation (where no new themes were identified) was reached at 8 participants. We identified significant barriers and facilitators to implementation of the ESKD LP across three CFIR domains: Innovation, Outer setting, and Inner setting. Regarding the Innovation domain, patients and care partners valued the concept of shared decision-making with their care team (CFIR construct: innovation design). However, both clinicians and patients had significant concerns about the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and the ability of patients to digest the overwhelming amount of information needed to effectively participate in creating the LP (innovation complexity). Clinicians expressed concerns regarding the lack of existing evidence base which limits their ability to effectively counsel patients (innovation evidence base) and the implementation costs (innovation cost). Within the Outer Setting, both clinicians and patients were concerned about performance measurement pressure under the existing "Fistula First" policies and had concerns about reimbursement (financing). In the Inner Setting, clinicians and patients stressed the lack of available resources and access to knowledge and information. CONCLUSION: Given the complexity of decision-making around kidney substitutes and vascular access, our findings point to the need for implementation strategies, infrastructure development, and policy change to facilitate ESKD LP development.

Design, implementation, and evaluation of a pharmacist-led outpatient benzodiazepine-tapering clinic.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are commonly used among older adults, despite well-known risks. Clinical pharmacists can lead tapering efforts, leveraging their clinical expertise and relieving time-pressured primary care providers. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to describe the design, implementation, and evaluation of an outpatient pharmacist-led benzodiazepine-tapering clinic. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: The clinic is based within a community medical group associated with a large academic health system in Los Angeles, California. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The clinic is staffed by clinical pharmacists and supervised by a psychiatrist. The initial visit consists of patient education, design of patient-driven tapering schedule, and medical history review. Follow-up phone/video visits are used to monitor withdrawal symptoms and provide support. EVALUATION METHODS: We used chart review to assess tapering status among those enrolled in the tapering clinic versus those who did not enroll. We compared outcomes across the 2 groups using bivariate statistics. RESULTS: From March 2017 to May 2019, 176 patients were referred to the clinic; 17 were deemed ineligible. Of the 159 patients contacted, 62 patients enrolled in the clinic; 97 patients did not enroll. Among patients in the clinic, 13 (27%) of patients were tapered down, 29 (60%) completely tapered off, 6 (13%) were unable to taper, and 14 (23%) were in the process of tapering. In contrast, among patients who did not enroll, 3 (4%) of patients were tapered down, 15 (20%) completely tapered off, 57 (76%) were unable to taper, and 22 (22%) were in the process of tapering. Ninety percent of patients had at least some benzodiazepine tapering when enrolled in the clinic compared to 41% among not enrolled in the clinic (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led benzodiazepine-tapering clinic can be an effective way to engage patients motivated to taper down. Lessons learned include the importance of ensuring referring providers adequately counsel patients prior to referral.

A qualitative dual-site analysis of the pharmacist discharge care (PHARM-DC) intervention using the CFIR framework.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults face several challenges when transitioning from acute hospitals to community-based care. The PHARMacist Discharge Care (PHARM-DC) intervention is a pharmacist-led Transitions of Care (TOC) program intended to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and emergency department visits at two large hospitals. This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework to evaluate pharmacist perceptions of the PHARM-DC intervention. METHODS: Intervention pharmacists and pharmacy administrators were purposively recruited by study team members located within each participating institution. Study team members located within each institution coordinated with two study authors unaffiliated with the institutions implementing the intervention to conduct interviews and focus groups remotely via telecommunication software. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, with transcriptions imported into NVivo for qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was performed using an iterative process to identify "a priori" constructs based on CFIR domains (intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation) and to create overarching themes as identified during coding. RESULTS: In total, ten semi-structured interviews and one focus group were completed across both hospitals. At Site A, six interviews were conducted with intervention pharmacists and pharmacists in administrative roles. Also at Site A, one focus group comprised of five intervention pharmacists was conducted. At Site B, interviews were conducted with four intervention pharmacists and pharmacists in administrative roles. Three overarching themes were identified: PHARM-DC and Institutional Context, Importance of PHARM-DC Adaptability, and Recommendations for PHARM-DC Improvement and Sustainability. Increasing pharmacist support for technical tasks and navigating pharmacist-patient language barriers were important to intervention implementation and delivery. Identifying cost-savings and quantifying outcomes as a result of the intervention were particularly important when considering how to sustain and expand the PHARM-DC intervention. CONCLUSION: The PHARM-DC intervention can successfully be implemented at two institutions with considerable variations in TOC initiatives, resources, and staffing. Future implementation of PHARM-DC interventions should consider the themes identified, including an examination of institution-specific contextual factors such as the roles that pharmacy technicians may play in TOC interventions, the importance of intervention adaptability to account for patient needs and institutional resources, and pharmacist recommendations for intervention improvement and sustainability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04071951 .

Challenges and Successes of Global Deprescribing Networks: A Qualitative Key Informant Study.

The landscape of deprescribing has been rapidly evolving and expanding globally with the formation of regional and national deprescribing networks. The work of these networks is primarily focused on older adults and high-risk medications. The purpose of the current qualitative study is to describe successes and challenges of deprescribing from thought-leaders across the world. Fourteen key informant interviews were conducted from various disciplines, levels of experiences, and regions around the globe. From the interviews, six major themes across two domains were identified: (a) network structure, (b) public perception, (c) policy implications, (d) implementation, (e) challenges, and (f) recommendations. These domains, themes, and insight provided by deprescribing leaders contribute to the advancement of deprescribing networks as global efforts continue to focus on optimizing medication management. Collaboration among interprofessional team members will be critical to the expansion as well as sustainability of this important work. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(1), 7-14.].

How do contraindications to non-opioid analgesics and opioids affect the likelihood that patients with back pain diagnoses in the primary care setting receive an opioid prescription? An observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Given the risks of opioids, clinicians are under growing pressure to treat pain with non-opioid medications. Yet non-opioid analgesics such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have their own risks: patients with kidney disease or gastrointestinal diseases can experience serious adverse events. We examined the likelihood that patients with back pain diagnoses and contraindications to NSAIDs and opioids received an opioid prescription in primary care. METHODS: We identified office visits for back pain from 2012 to 2017 and sampled the first office visit per patient per year (N = 24,543 visits). We created indicators reflecting contraindications for NSAIDs (kidney, liver, cardiovascular/cerebrovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases; concurrent or chronic use of anticoagulants/antiplatelets, chronic corticosteroid use) and opioids (depression, anxiety, substance use (SUD) and bipolar disorders, and concurrent benzodiazepines) and estimated four logistic regression models, with the one model including all patient visits and models 2-4 stratifying for previous opioid use. We estimated the population attributable risk for each contraindication. RESULTS: In our model with all patients-visits, patients received an opioid prescription at 4% of visits. The predicted probability (PP) of receiving an opioid was 4% without kidney disease vs. 7% with kidney disease; marginal effect (ME): 3%; 95%CI: 1-4%). For chronic or concurrent anticoagulant/antiplatelet prescriptions, the PPs were 4% vs. 6% (ME: 2%; 95%CI: 1-3%). For concurrent benzodiazepines, the PPs were 4% vs. 11% (ME: 7%, 95%CI: 5-9%) and for SUD, the PPs were 4% vs. 5% (ME: 1%, 95%CI: 0-3%). For the model including patients with previous long-term opioid use, the PPs for concurrent benzodiazepines were 25% vs. 24% (ME: -1%; 95%CI: - 18-16%). The population attributable risk (PAR) for NSAID and opioid contraindications was small. For kidney disease, the PAR was 0.16% (95%CI: 0.08-0.23%), 0.44% (95%CI: 0.30-0.58%) for anticoagulants and antiplatelets, 0.13% for substance use (95%CI: 0.03-0.22%) and 0.20% for concurrent benzodiazepine use (95%CI: 0.13-0.26%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diagnoses of kidney disease and concurrent use of anticoagulants/antiplatelet medications had a higher probability of receiving an opioid prescription at a primary care visit for low back pain, but these conditions do not explain a large proportion of the opioid prescriptions.

How Do Clinicians of Different Specialties Perceive and Use Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis, states and health systems are encouraging clinicians to use risk mitigation strategies aimed at assessing a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse: opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and urine drug tests (UDT). Objective: The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians perceived and used risk mitigation strategies for opioid abuse/misuse and identify barriers to implementation. Methods: We interviewed clinicians who prescribe opioid medications in the outpatient setting from 2016-2018 and analyzed the data using Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology. Results: We interviewed 21 primary care clinicians and 12 specialists. Nearly all clinicians reported using the PDMP. Some clinicians (adopters) found the opioid agreement and UDTs to be valuable, but most (non-adopters) did not. Adopters found the agreements and UDTs helpful in treating patients equitably, setting limits, and having objective evidence of misuse; protocols and workflows facilitated the use of the strategies. Non-adopters perceived the strategies as awkward, disruptive to the clinician-patient relationship, and introducing a power differential; they also cited lack of time and resources as barriers to use. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that clinicians in certain settings have found effective ways to implement and use the PDMP, opioid agreements, and UDT but that other clinicians are less comfortable with their use. Administrators and policymakers should ensure that the strategies are designed in a way that strengthens the clinician-patient relationship while maximizing safety for patients and that clinicians are adequately trained and supported when introducing the strategies.

Understanding Clinicians' Decisions to Assume Prescriptions for Inherited Patients on Long-term Opioid Therapy: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Given the changing political and social climate around opioids, we examined how clinicians in the outpatient setting made decisions about managing opioid prescriptions for new patients already on long-term opioid therapy. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 32 clinicians in Southern California who prescribed opioid medications in the outpatient setting for chronic pain. The study design, interview guides, and coding for this qualitative study were guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: We identified three approaches to assuming a new patient's opioid prescriptions. Staunch Opposers, mostly clinicians with specialized training in pain medicine, were averse to continuing opioid prescriptions for new patients and often screened outpatients seeking opioids. Cautious and Conflicted Prescribers were wary about prescribing opioids but were willing to refill prescriptions if they perceived the patient as trustworthy and the medication fell within their comfort zone. Clinicians in the first two groups felt resentful about other clinicians "dumping" patients on opioids on them. Rapport Builders, mostly primary care physicians, were the most willing to assume opioid prescriptions and were strategic in their approach to transitioning patients to safer doses. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians with the most training in pain management were the least willing to assume responsibility for opioid prescriptions for patients already on long-term opioid therapy. In contrast, primary care clinicians were the most willing to assume this responsibility. However, primary care clinicians face barriers to providing high-quality care for patients with complex pain conditions, such as short visit times and less specialized training.

Urine Drug Testing among Opioid-Naïve and Long-Term Opioid Nevada Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that, when prescribing opioids, providers use urine drug testing (UDT) for harm reduction. Objective: To identify whether Medicaid beneficiaries in Nevada at increased risk for opioid misuse received UDT. Methods: We used Nevada Medicaid claims data (2017-2018) to describe UDT among three samples: opioid naïve patients (N = 11,326), opioid naïve patients with a second follow-up prescription (N = 8,910), and long-term opioid patients (N = 19,173). Predictors of opioid misuse include past diagnoses of mental health and substance use, demographic characteristics and potentially risky behaviors. Outcomes include receiving UDT prior to opioid prescription among the two naïve samples and within six months for the long-term sample. We report predicted probabilities (PP) from logistic regressions and hazard ratios (HR) and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: A small percentage of patients received UDT (naïve sample: 2.5%; naïve with a second follow-up prescription sample: 3.5%; long-term sample: 9.9%). Adults with alcohol disorders and other substance use disorders had the highest PP of UDT, among both the naïve (alcohol related disorder: 3.1%; other substance use disorder: 7.7%) and the naïve with a second follow-up prescription (alcohol related disorder: 4.1%; other substance use disorder: 11.7%) samples. Among the long-term sample, similar predictors were significant. Conclusions: Although there was an association between having risk factors for opioid misuse (e.g. past alchohol disorders and other substance use disorder diagnoses) and receiving UDT, the percentage of patients who received UDT was unexpectedly low, pointing to the need to increase guideline adherence and implementation among providers who prescribe opioids.

Patient and provider differences in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly. AIMS: In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain.

Optimizing Selection of Biologics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Development of an Online Patient Decision Aid Using Conjoint Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Recent drug approvals have increased the availability of biologic therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), making it difficult for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) to navigate treatment options. Here we developed a conjoint analysis to examine patient decision-making surrounding biologic medicines for IBD. We used the results to create an online patient decision aid that generates a unique "preferences report" for each patient to assist with shared decision-making with their provider. METHODS: We administered an adaptive choice-based conjoint survey to IBD patients that quantifies the relative importance of biologic attributes (e.g., efficacy, side effect profile, mode of administration, and mechanism of action) in decision making. The conjoint software determined individual patient preferences by calculating part-worth utilities for each attribute. We conducted regression analyses to determine if demographic and disease characteristics (e.g., type of IBD and severity) predicted how patients made decisions. RESULTS: 640 patients completed the survey (UC=304; CD=336). In regression analyses, demographics and IBD characteristics did not predict individual patient preferences; the main exception was IBD type. When compared to UC, CD patients were more likely to report side effect profile as most important (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.30). Conversely, those with UC were more likely to value therapeutic efficacy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Biologic decision-making is highly personalized; demographic and disease characteristics poorly predict individual preferences, indicating that IBD patients are unique and difficult to statistically categorize. The online decision tool resulting from this study (www.ibdandme.org) may be used by patients to support shared decision-making and optimize personalized biologic selection with their provider.

Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery and Opioid-Free Anesthesia on Opioid Prescriptions at Discharge From the Hospital: A Historical-Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The United States is in the midst of an opioid epidemic, and opioid use disorder often begins with a prescription for acute pain. The perioperative period represents an important opportunity to prevent chronic opioid use, and recently there has been a paradigm shift toward implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols that promote opioid-free and multimodal analgesia. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of an ERAS intervention for colorectal surgery on discharge opioid prescribing practices. METHODS: We conducted a historical-prospective quality improvement study of an ERAS protocol implemented for patients undergoing colorectal surgery with a focus on the opioid-free and multimodal analgesia components of the pathway. We compared patients undergoing colorectal surgery 1 year before implementation (June 15, 2015, to June 14, 2016) and 1 year after implementation (June 15, 2016, to June 14, 2017). RESULTS: Before the ERAS intervention, opioids at discharge were not significantly increasing (1% per month; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1% to 3%; P = .199). Immediately after the ERAS intervention, opioid prescriptions were not significantly lower (13%; 95% CI, -30% to 3%; P = .110). After the intervention, the rate of opioid prescriptions at discharge did not decrease significantly 1% (95% CI, -3% to 1%) compared to the pre-period rate (P = .399). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with a combination of low discharge pain scores, no preoperative opioid use, and low morphine milligram equivalents consumption before discharge, the rate of discharge opioid prescription was 72% (95% CI, 61%-83%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to report discharge opioid prescribing practices in an ERAS setting. Although an ERAS intervention for colorectal surgery led to an increase in opioid-free anesthesia and multimodal analgesia, we did not observe an impact on discharge opioid prescribing practices. The majority of patients were discharged with an opioid prescription, including those with a combination of low discharge pain scores, no preoperative opioid use, and low morphine milligram equivalents consumption before discharge. This observation in the setting of an ERAS pathway that promotes multimodal analgesia suggests that our findings are very likely to also be observed in non-ERAS settings and offers an opportunity to modify opioid prescribing practices on discharge after surgery. For opioid-free anesthesia and multimodal analgesia to influence the opioid epidemic, the dose and quantity of the opioids prescribed should be modified based on the information gathered by in-hospital pain scores and opioid use as well as pain history before admission.

Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions on Nursing Home Residents', Families', and Staff's Perceptions of Bioethical Principles: A Qualitative Study.

In this study, we employed a pre-interview survey and conducted interviews with nursing home staff members and residents/family members to understand their perceptions of whether the COVID-19 restrictions fulfilled obligations to nursing home residents under various principles, including autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and privacy. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with staff members from 14 facilities, and 20 with residents and/or family members from 13 facilities. We used a qualitative descriptive study design and thematic analysis methodology to analyze the interviews. Findings from the pre-interview survey indicated that, compared to nursing home staff, residents and their families perceived lower adherence to bioethics principles during the pandemic. Qualitative analysis themes included specific restrictions, challenges, facility notifications, consequences, communication, and relationships between staff and residents/family members. Our study exposes the struggle to balance infection control with respecting bioethical principles in nursing homes, suggesting avenues for improving processes and policies during public health emergencies.

Cumulative Update of a Systematic Overview Evaluating Interventions Addressing Polypharmacy.

Importance: Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview. Objective: To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. Evidence Review: A search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention. Findings: Fourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: This updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Implementation of an intervention aimed at deprescribing benzodiazepines in a large US healthcare system using patient education materials: a pre/post-observational study with a control group.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system. DESIGN: We used a pre-post design with a non-randomised control group. SETTING: A network of primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ≥60 days' supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible. INTERVENTION: In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.