Learning from the implementation of a surgical opioid reduction initiative in an integrated health system: a qualitative study among providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical opioid overprescribing can result in long-term use or misuse. Between July 2018 and March 2019, the multicomponent intervention, Minimizing Opioid Prescribing in Surgery (MOPiS) was implemented in the general surgery clinics of five hospitals and successfully reduced opioid prescribing. To date, various studies have shown a positive outcome of similar reduction initiatives. However, in addition to evaluating the impact on clinical outcomes, it is important to understand the implementation process of an intervention to extend sustainability of interventions and allow for dissemination of the intervention into other contexts. This study aims to evaluate the contextual factors impacting intervention implementation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews held with providers and patients of the general surgery clinics of five hospitals of a single health system between March and November of 2019. Interview questions focused on how contextual factors affected implementation of the intervention. We coded interview transcripts deductively, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify the relevant contextual factors. Content analyses were conducted using a constant comparative approach to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 clinicians (e.g., surgeons, nurses), 1 quality representative, 1 scheduler, and 28 adult patients and identified 3 key themes. First, we found high variability in the responses of clinicians and patients to the intervention. There was a strong need for intervention components to be locally adaptable, particularly for the format and content of the patient and clinician education materials. Second, surgical pain management should be recognized as a team effort. We identified specific gaps in the engagement of team members, including nurses. We also found that the hierarchical relationships between surgical residents and attendings impacted implementation. Finally, we found that established patient and clinician views on opioid prescribing were an important facilitator to effective implementation. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of a complex set of opioid reduction interventions in surgery requires locally adaptable elements of the intervention, a team-centric approach, and an understanding of patient and clinician views regarding changes being proposed.

The development of a safe opioid use agreement for surgical care using a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Opioids prescribed to treat postsurgical pain have contributed to the ongoing opioid epidemic. While opioid prescribing practices have improved, most patients do not use all their pills and do not safely dispose of leftovers, which creates a risk for unsafe use and diversion. We aimed to generate consensus on the content of a "safe opioid use agreement" for the perioperative settings to improve patients' safe use, storage, and disposal of opioids. METHODS: We conducted a modified three-round Delphi study with clinicians across surgical specialties, quality improvement (QI) experts, and patients. In Round 1, participants completed a survey rating the importance and comprehensibility of 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments. In Round 2, a sub-sample of participants attended a focus group to discuss items with the lowest agreement. In Round 3, the survey was repeated with the updated items. Quantitative values from the Likert scale and qualitative responses were summarized. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts (26 clinicians, seven patients/patient advocates, and three QI experts) participated in the study. In Round 1, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five on the importance of nine items and on the comprehensibility of six items. In Round 2, participants provided feedback on the comprehensibility, formatting, importance, and purpose of the agreement, including a desire for more specificity and patient education. In Round 3, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five for comprehensibility and importance of all 10 updated item. The final agreement included seven items on safe use, two items on safe storage, and one item on safe disposal. CONCLUSION: The expert panel reached consensus on the importance and comprehensibility of the content for an opioid use agreement and identified additional patient education needs. The agreement should be used as a tool to supplement rather than replace existing, tailored education.

Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data. CONCLUSIONS: While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.