Communication processes in an advance care planning initiative: A socio-ecological perspective for service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning initiatives are becoming more widespread, increasing expectations for providers to engage in goals of care conversations. However, less is known about how providers communicate advance care planning within and throughout a health care system. AIM: To explore perspectives of communication processes in the rollout of an advance care planning initiative. DESIGN: Theoretically informed secondary analysis of 31 semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Key partners in a Veterans Health Administration goals of care initiative. RESULTS: Using the constant comparative approach followed by qualitative mapping of themes to the layers of the Socio-Ecological Model, four themes and corresponding Socio-Ecological layers were identified: Goals of Care Communication Training (Policy, Community, and Institutional) requires more resources across sites and better messaging to reduce provider misconceptions and promote an institutional culture invested in advance care planning; Interprofessional Communication (Interpersonal) suggests care team coordination is needed to facilitate continuity in goals of care messaging; Communication in Documentation (Institutional, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal) highlights the need for capturing the context for goals of care preferences; and Patient/Family Communication (Interpersonal and Intrapersonal) encourages offering materials and informational resources early to facilitate rapport building and readiness to determine goals of care. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for initiatives to incorporate an evaluation of how goals of care are discussed beyond the interpersonal exchange between patient and provider and signal opportunities for applying the Socio-Ecological Model to better understand goals of care communication processes, including opportunities to improve initiation and documentation of goals of care.

Serious illness care quality during COVID-19: Identifying improvement opportunities in narrative reports from a National Bereaved Family Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly impacted care delivery to seriously ill patients, especially around including family and caregivers in patient care. AIM: Based on routinely collected bereaved family reports, actionable practices were identified to maintain and improve care in the last month of life, with potential application to all seriously ill patients. DESIGN: The Veterans Health Administration's Bereaved Family Survey is used nationally to gather routine feedback from families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents; the survey includes multiple structured items as well as space for open narrative responses. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 5372 responses to the free response questions of which 1000 (18.6%) responses were randomly selected. The 445 (44.5%) responses from 377 unique individuals included actionable practices. RESULTS: Bereaved family members and caregivers identified four opportunities with a total of 32 actionable practices. Opportunity 1: Facilitate the use of video communication, included four actionable practices. Opportunity 2: Provide timely and accurate responses to family concerns, included 17 actionable practices. Opportunity 3: Accommodate family/caregiver visitation, included eight actionable practices. Opportunity 4: Offer physical presence to the patient when family/caregivers are unable to visit, included three actionable practices. CONCLUSION: The findings from this quality improvement project are applicable during a pandemic, but also translate to improving the care of seriously ill patients in other circumstances, such as when family members or caregivers are geographically distant from a loved one during the last weeks of life.

"Diving in the deep-end and swimming": a mixed methods study using normalization process theory to evaluate a learning collaborative approach for the implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis centers.

BACKGROUND: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is an implementation theory that can be used to explain how and why implementation strategies work or not in particular circumstances. We used it to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption and routinization of palliative care within hemodialysis centers. METHODS: We employed a longitudinal, mixed methods approach to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of palliative care practices among ten hemodialysis centers participating in an Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough- Series learning collaborative. Qualitative methods included longitudinal observations of collaborative activities, and interviews with implementers at the end of the study. We used an inductive and deductive approach to thematic analysis informed by NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) and implementation outcomes. The NoMAD survey, which measures NPT constructs, was completed by implementers at each hemodialysis center during early and late implementation. RESULTS: The four mechanisms posited in NPT had a dynamic and layered relationship during the implementation process. Collaborative participants participated because they believed in the value and legitimacy of palliative care for patients receiving hemodialysis and thus had high levels of cognitive participation at the start. Didactic Learning Sessions were important for building practice coherence, and sense-making was solidified through testing new skills in practice and first-hand observation during coaching visits by an expert. Collective action was hampered by limited time among team members and practical issues such as arranging meetings with patients. Reflexive monitoring of the positive benefit to patient and family experiences was key in shifting mindsets from disease-centric towards a patient-centered model of care. NoMAD survey scores showed modest improvement over time, with collective action having the lowest scores. CONCLUSIONS: NPT was a useful framework for understanding the implementation of palliative care practices within hemodialysis centers. We found a nonlinear relationship among the mechanisms which is reflected in our model of implementation of palliative care practices through a learning collaborative. These findings suggest that the implementation of complex practices such as palliative care may be more successful through iterative learning and practice opportunities as the mechanisms for change are layered and mutually reinforcing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04125537 . Registered 14 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Cultivating Relationship-Centered Care: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Communication Preferences for and Experiences with Prognostic Conversations.

Prognostic conversations present many challenges for patients, caregivers, and providers alike. Most research examining the context of prognostic conversations have used a more siloed approach to gather the range of perspectives of those involved, typically through the lens of patient-centered care. However, the mutual influence evident in prognostic conversations suggests a relationship-centered care model may be useful in cancer communication research. Similarities and differences in preferences for and experiences with prognostic conversations among oncology patients, caregivers, and providers (N = 32) were explored. Identified themes were then mapped to the principles of the relationship-centered care framework to extend our understanding of prognostic conversations and contribute to a new direction in the application of relationship-centered care. Findings suggest fewer similarities than differences, point to important discrepancies among participant perspectives, and reinforce the utility of relationship-centered care in identifying communication practices that enhance the prognostic conversation experience.

Facilitators of palliative care quality improvement team cohesion: Lessons from a seven-site implementation project in India.

BACKGROUND: The Palliative Care: Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) initiative is a team-based, palliative care (PC) quality improvement (QI) project working to promote high-quality PC in India. As a PC QI initiative, PC-PAICE implementation relied upon building interdisciplinary teams, providing the ideal context for understanding facilitators of team cohesion that compelled clinical, organizational, and administrative team members to work together. There is an opportunity to leverage the intersection between QI implementation and organizational theory to inform and improve implementation science. PURPOSE: As a subaim of a larger implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators of team cohesion within QI implementation context. METHODOLOGY: A quota sampling approach captured the perspectives of 44 stakeholders across three strata (organizational leaders, clinical leaders, and clinical team members) from all seven sites through a semistructured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches informed by organizational theory to identify facilitators. RESULT: We identified three facilitators of PC team cohesion: (a) balancing formalization and flexibility around team roles, (b) establishing widespread awareness of the QI project, and (c) prioritizing a nonhierarchical organizational culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Leveraging CFIR to analyze PC-PAICE stakeholder interviews created a data set conducive to understanding complex multisite implementation. Layering role and team theory to our implementation analysis helped us identify facilitators of team cohesion across levels within the team (bounded team), beyond the team (teaming), and surrounding the team (culture). These insights demonstrate the value of team and role theories in implementation evaluation efforts.

Promising Strategies to Support COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: Qualitative Insights from the VHA National Implementation.

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, up to 30% of Americans were uncertain about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, including some healthcare personnel (HCP). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) HCP vaccination program. DESIGN: We conducted key informant interviews with employee occupational health (EOH) providers, using snowball recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 43 VHA EOH providers representing 29 of VHA's regionally diverse healthcare systems. APPROACH: Thematic analysis elucidated 5 key themes and specific strategies recommended by EOH. KEY RESULTS: Implementation themes reflected logistics of distribution (supply), addressing any vaccine concerns or hesitancy (demand), and learning health system strategies/approaches for shared learnings. Specifically, themes included the following: (1) use interdisciplinary task forces to leverage diverse skillsets for vaccine implementation; (2) invest in processes and align resources with priorities, including creating detailed processes, addressing time trade-offs for personnel involved in vaccine clinics by suspending everything non-essential, designating process/authority to shift personnel where needed, and proactively involving leaders to support resource allocation/alignment; (3) expect and accommodate vaccine buy-in occurring over time: prepare for some HCP's slow buy-in, align buy-in facilitation with identities and motivation, and encourage word-of-mouth and hyper-local testimonials; (4) overcome misinformation with trustworthy communication: tailor communication to individuals and address COVID vaccines "in every encounter," leverage proactive institutional messaging to reinforce information, and invite bi-directional conversations about any vaccine concerns. A final overarching theme focused on learning health system needs and structures: (5) use existing and newly developed communication channels to foster shared learning across teams and sites. CONCLUSIONS: Expecting deliberation allows systems to prepare for complex distribution logistics (supply) and make room for conversations that are trustworthy, bi-directional, and identity aligned (demand). Ideally, organizations provide time for conversations that address individual concerns, foster bi-directional shared decision-making, respect HCP beliefs and identities, and emphasize shared identities as healthcare providers.

Teaming in Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions in Primary Care: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

Patient and Caregiver Prioritization of Palliative and End-of-Life Cancer Care Quality Measures.

BACKGROUND: Development and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities. OBJECTIVE: To inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers. DESIGN: Using modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5"). KEY RESULTS: Cancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9-8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2-8.9). Forced choice nominations of the "top 5" helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the "top 5" by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21. CONCLUSIONS: Input from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation.

"Never waste a good crisis": A qualitative study of the impact of COVID-19 on palliative care in seven hospitals using the Dynamic Sustainability Framework.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid adaptations among palliative care services, but it is unclear how these adaptations vary in relation to their unique organizational contexts. AIM: Understand how the pandemic impacted the implementation of new and existing palliative care programs in diverse hospital systems using the Dynamic Sustainability Framework. DESIGN: Twelve in-depth interviews with 15 key informants representing palliative care programs from seven hospital systems between April and June 2020. SETTING: Public, not-for-profit private, community, and academic teaching hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area with existing palliative care programs that were expanding services to new clinical areas (e.g. new outpatient clinic or community-based care). RESULTS: Six themes characterized how palliative care programs were impacted and adapted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: palliative care involvement in preparing for surge, increased emphasis on advance care planning, advocating for visitors for dying patients, providing emotional support to clinicians, adopting virtual approaches to care, and gaps in chaplaincy support. There was variation in how new and existing programs were able to adapt to early pandemic stresses; systems with new outpatient programs struggled to utilize their programs effectively during the crisis onset. CONCLUSIONS: The fit between palliative care programs and practice setting was critical to program resiliency during the early stages of the pandemic. Reconceptualizing the Dynamic Sustainability Framework to reflect a bidirectional relationship between ecological system, practice setting, and intervention levels might better guide implementers and researchers in understanding how ecological/macro changes can influence interventions on the ground.

Barriers and Facilitators of Using Quality Improvement To Foster Locally Initiated Innovation in Palliative Care Services in India.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) methods represent a vehicle for fostering locally initiated innovation cycles. We partnered with palliative care services from seven diverse practice settings in India to foster locally initiated improvement projects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation experiences of locally initiated palliative care improvement projects at seven diverse sites and understand the barriers and facilitators of using QI to improve palliative care in India. PARTICIPANTS: We use a quota sampling approach to capture the perspectives of 44 local stakeholders in each of the following three categories (organizational leaders, clinic leaders, and clinical team members) through a semi-structured interview guide informed by the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). We use standard qualitative methods to identify facilitators and barriers to using QI methods in seven diverse palliative care contexts. RESULTS: Across all sites, respondents emphasized the following factors important in the success of quality improvement initiative: leveraging clinic level data, QI methods training, provider buy-in, engaged mentors, committed leadership, team support, interdepartmental coordination, collaborations with other providers, local champions, and having a structure for accountability. Barriers to using QI methods to improve palliative care services included lack of designated staff, high patient volume, resources, patient population geographic constraints, general awareness and acceptance of palliative care, and culture. CONCLUSIONS: Empowering local leaders and medical personnel to champion, design, and iterate using QI methods represents a promising powerful tool to spread palliative care services in developing countries.

Exploring expanded interdisciplinary roles in goals of care conversations in a national goals of care initiative: A qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: The United States Veterans Health Administration National Center for Ethics in Health Care implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative throughout the Veterans Health Administration health care system in 2017. This policy encourages goals of care conversations, referring to conversations about patient's treatment and end-of-life wishes for life-sustaining treatments, among Veterans with serious illnesses. A key component of the initiative is expanding interdisciplinary provider roles in having goals of care conversations. AIM: Use organizational role theory to explore medical center experiences with expanding interdisciplinary roles in the implementation of a goals of care initiative. DESIGN: A qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Initial participants were recruited using purposive sampling of local medical center champions. Snowball sampling identified additional participants. Participants included thirty-one interdisciplinary providers from 12 geographically diverse initiative pilot and spread medical centers. RESULTS: Five themes were identified. Expanding provider roles in goals of care conversations (1) involves organizational culture change; (2) is influenced by medical center leadership; (3) is supported by provider role readiness; (4) benefits from cross-disciplinary role agreement; and (5) can "overwhelm" providers. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational role theory is a helpful framework for exploring interdisciplinary roles in a goals of care initiative. Support and recognition of provider role expansion in goals of care conversations was important for the adoption of a goals of care initiative. Actionable strategies, including multi-level leadership support and the use of interdisciplinary champions, facilitate role change and have potential to strengthen uptake of a goals of care initiative.

Development and Progress of a Collaborative Learning Model for Quality Improvement in the Field of Palliative Care in India.

Quality is central to healthcare and even more so in the field of palliative care. Palliative care approach is centered around discovering facets of care crucial to improving the quality of life of the patient; be it symptom control, emotional concerns, impact on social roles or reviving the sense of spiritual connectedness. Although there are essential and desirable standards for quality of services, the journey taken by a service, toward quality improvement (QI), is often complex and uncharted. It is up to individual service units to strive toward improvement and reach higher levels of quality. Evidence suggests using a structured methodology for successful improvement in healthcare quality, as most problems are complex and multifaceted. This article introduces the concept and application of QI methodology in the field of palliative care in India and provides an overview of the first cohort of QI projects, facilitated through an international collaborative. The sequence of training, the tools, and the key ingredients for success are enumerated.

Can Patient-Provider Interpersonal Interventions Achieve the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.

"Asking Is Never Bad, I Would Venture on That": Patients' Perspectives on Routine Pain Screening in VA Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for pain in routine care is one of the efforts that the Veterans Health Administration has adopted in its national pain management strategy. We aimed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences about the experience of being screened for pain in primary care. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews captured patient perceptions and preferences of pain screening, assessment, and management. SUBJECTS: We completed interviews with 36 patients: 29 males and seven females ranging in age from 28 to 94 years from three geographically distinct VA health care systems. METHODS: We evaluated transcripts using constant comparison and identified emergent themes. RESULTS: Theme 1: Pain screening can "determine the tone of the examination"; Theme 2: Screening can initiate communication about pain; Theme 3: Screening can facilitate patient recall and reflection; Theme 4: Screening for pain may help identify under-reported psychological pain, mental distress, and suicidality; Theme 5: Patient recommendations about how to improve screening for pain. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patients perceive meaningful, positive impacts of routine pain screening that as yet have not been considered in the literature. Specifically, screening for pain may help capture mental health concerns that may otherwise not emerge.

Neurologist Strategies for Optimizing the Parkinson's Disease Clinical Encounter.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), effective communication during neurology encounters is critical to ensuring the treatment plan maximizes quality of life. However, few research studies have engaged neurologists as key experts in identifying opportunities to optimize the clinical encounter. In this study, 16 neurologists from 4 clinic sites participated in hour-long semistructured interviews targeting opportunities to better address patients' quality of life needs. MAIN FINDINGS: Neurologists identified opportunities to meet needs across 4 domains: (1) PD patient education materials and self-management tools to facilitate clinical communication; (2) techniques for improving clinical communication, including strategies for eliciting nonmotor symptoms and contextualizing symptoms to better meet patient quality of life needs; (3) addressing system-level barriers, including time constraints and the lack of an identified specialist referral network; and (4) training in how to lead difficult conversations. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Neurologists identified specific barriers, and proposed solutions, to improving care delivery for patients with PD. Integrating practice tools to address quality of life needs, training neurologists in communication around end-of-life care, and strengthening referral networks for rehabilitation and psychosocial support hold promise for improving quality of life for patients with PD.

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA.

PURPOSE: Veterans with advanced cancer can receive hospice care concurrently with treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy. However, variations exist in concurrent care use across Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs), and overall, concurrent care use is relatively rare. In this qualitative study, we aimed to identify, describe, and explain factors that influence the provision of concurrent cancer care (defined as chemotherapy or radiation treatments provided with hospice) for veterans with terminal cancer. METHODS: From August 2015 to April 2016, we conducted six site visits and interviewed 76 clinicians and staff at six VA sites and their contracted community hospices, including community hospices (n = 16); VA oncology (n = 25); VA palliative care (n = 17); and VA inpatient hospice and palliative care units (n = 18). RESULTS: Thematic qualitative content analysis found three themes that influenced the provision of concurrent care: (1) clinicians and staff at community hospices and at VAs viewed concurrent care as a viable care option, as it preserved hope and relationships while patient goals are clarified during transitions to hospice; and (2) the presence of dedicated liaisons facilitated care coordination and education about concurrent care; however, (3) clinicians and staff concerns about Medicare guideline compliance hindered use of concurrent care. CONCLUSIONS: While concurrent care is used by a small number of veterans with advanced cancer, VA staff valued having the option available and as a bridge to hospice. Hospice staff felt concurrent care improved care coordination with VAMCs, but use may be tempered due to concerns related to Medicare compliance.

What Do Providers Want from a Pain Screening Measure Used in Daily Practice?

Objectives: We aimed to understand providers' experiences and preferences regarding several brief pain screening measures. Methods: We collected two waves of data for this analysis. Wave one: We conducted nine focus groups with multidisciplinary Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) providers. Wave two: To understand an emergent theme in wave one, we conducted 15 telephone interviews with prescribing providers where we used a semistructured guide comparing screening measures currently used in VA practices. Using content analysis of the wave two interviews, we evaluated providers' perceptions of important aspects of brief pain screening measures and reported emergent themes. Results: Five emergent themes underlie providers' perceptions of the utility of brief pain screening measures: 1) item abstractness: how bounded and concrete a patient's interpretation of an individual item is; 2) item distinctness: belief in the patient's ability to differentiate between the meaning of various items in a pain measure; 3) item anchoring: presence of a description under each response option making the meaning explicit; 4) item look-back period: the period of time over which patients are asked to remember and comment on their pain; 5) parsimony: identifying the shortest and simplest approach possible to acquire desired information. Conclusions: Overly complex or adaptive screening tools may include information that is ultimately not used by providers. Conversely, overly simplistic pain screening tools may omit information that helps providers understand the impact of pain on patients' lives. As pain is nuanced, complex, and subjective, all screening measures exhibit some limitations. No single pain measure serves all chronic pain patients, and specific contexts or settings may warrant additional specific items.

Core Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Research: Recommendations from a Veterans Health Administration Work Group.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. It would be advantageous to have common outcome measures when comparing results across different CMSP research studies. METHODS: The Veterans Health Administration appointed a work group to recommend core outcome measures for assessing pain intensity and interference as well as important secondary domains in clinical research. The work group used three streams of data to inform their recommendations: 1) literature synthesis augmented by three recently completed trials; 2) review and comparison of measures recommended by other expert groups; 3) two Delphi surveys of work group members. RESULTS: The single-item numerical rating scale and seven-item Brief Pain Inventory interference scale emerged as the recommended measures for assessing pain intensity and interference, respectively. The secondary domains ranked most important included physical functioning and depression, followed by sleep, anxiety, and patient-reported global impression of change (PGIC). For these domains, the work group recommended the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System four-item physical function and sleep scales, the Patient Health Questionnaire two-item depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder two-item anxiety scale, and the single-item PGIC. Finally, a single-item National Health Interview Survey item was favored for defining chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Two scales comprising eight items are recommended as core outcome measures for pain intensity and interference in all studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and brief scales comprising 13 additional items can be added when possible to assess important secondary domains.

Barriers to Using Nonpharmacologic Approaches and Reducing Opioid Use in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing for chronic pain, including the potential for over-reliance and misuse, is a public health concern. OBJECTIVE: In the context of Veterans Administration (VA) primary care team-based pain management, we aimed to understand providers' perceptions of barriers to reducing opioid use and improving the use of nonpharmacologic pain management therapies (NPTs) for chronic pain. DESIGN: A semistructured interview elucidated provider experiences with assessing and managing pain. Emergent themes were mapped to known dimensions of VA primary care access. SUBJECTS: Informants included 60 primary care providers, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, clerks, psychologists, and social workers at two VA Medical Centers. METHODS: Nine multidisciplinary focus groups. RESULTS: Provider perceptions of barriers to reducing opioids and improving use of NPTs for patients with chronic pain clustered around availability and access. Barriers to NPT access included the following subthemes: geographical (patient distance from service), financial (out-of-pocket cost to patient), temporal (treatment time delays), cultural (belief that NPTs increased provider workload, perception of insufficient training on NPTs, perceptions of patient resistance to change, confrontation avoidance, and insufficient leadership support), and digital (measure used for pain assessment, older patients hesitant to use technology, providers overwhelmed by information). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing reliance on opioids for chronic pain requires a commitment to local availability and provider-facing strategies that increase efficacy in prescribing NPTs. Policies and interventions for decreasing utilization of opioids and increasing use of NPTs should comprehensively consider access barriers.

Expanding the role of clinical pharmacists on interdisciplinary primary care teams for chronic pain and opioid management.

BACKGROUND: Facilitating appropriate and safe prescribing of opioid medications for chronic pain management in primary care is a pressing public health concern. Interdisciplinary team-based models of primary care are exploring the expansion of clinical pharmacist roles to support disease management for chronic conditions, e.g. pain. Our study aims to 1) identify roles clinical pharmacists can assume in primary care team based chronic pain care processes and 2) understand the barriers to assuming these expanded roles. METHODS: Setting: Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented an interdisciplinary team-based model for primary care which includes clinical pharmacists. DESIGN: We employed an inductive two part qualitative approach including focus groups and semi-structured interviews with key informants. PARTICIPANTS: 60 members of VA primary care teams in two states participated in nine preliminary interdisciplinary focus groups where a semi-structured interview guide elucidated provider experiences with screening for and managing chronic pain. To follow up on emergent themes relating to clinical pharmacist roles, an additional 14 primary care providers and clinical pharmacists were interviewed individually. We evaluated focus group and interview transcripts using the method of constant comparison and produced mutually agreed upon themes. RESULTS: Clinical pharmacists were identified by primary care providers as playing a central role with the ongoing management of opioid therapy including review of the state prescription drug monitoring program, managing laboratory screening, providing medication education, promoting naloxone use, and opioid tapering. Specific barriers to clinical pharmacists role expansion around pain care include: limitations of scopes of practice, insufficient institutional support (low staffing, dedicated time, insufficient training, lack of interdisciplinary leadership support), and challenges and opportunities for disseminating clinical pharmacists' expanded roles. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the role of the clinical pharmacist to collaborate with providers around primary care based chronic pain management is a promising strategy for improving pain management on an interdisciplinary primary care team. However, expanded roles have to be balanced with competing responsibilities relating to other conditions. Interdisciplinary leadership is needed to facilitate training, resources, adequate staffing, as well as to prepare both clinical pharmacists and the providers they support, about expanded clinical pharmacists' scopes of practice and capabilities.