Assessment of an education tool to improve knowledge and reduce stigma of a syringe service program (SSP) at a VA Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose deaths are a growing epidemic in the United States owing in part to inadequate support from health care systems. In response, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) plans to implement syringe service programs (SSPs) across VHA medical centers. This SSP education project aims to positively affect health care staff perceptions regarding SSPs and reduce the stigma surrounding substance use. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to allow Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) students to implement and assess an educational program regarding SSP enactment at this institution. Furthermore, the objectives of the educational program were to address the stigma associated with substance use and provide knowledge to staff about SSPs. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Eleven complete and one abbreviated (no questionnaire) presentations were delivered by APPE students throughout the main facility and outpatient clinics, with presentations being delivered to physicians, nurses, and a range of other professions. PRACTICE INNOVATION: APPE students developed educational content and pre- and postsurveys that were used to assess for changes in knowledge and perception surrounding substance use and SSPs. EVALUATION METHODS: The primary outcome was to assess individual pre- and postprogram survey responses using mean, SD, and mean change to measure the impact that the presentation had on individualized stigma. RESULTS: A total of 104 completed surveys were analyzed in Microsoft Excel and subcategorized by profession; 10 of the 15 questions asked in the questionnaire yielded statistical significance when comparing pre- and postpresentation results (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A presentation method developed and delivered by APPE students resulted in a statistically significant change in perception and knowledge, proving to be an effective method for educating health care staff on SSPs.

Cognitive task analysis of clinicians' drug-drug interaction management during patient care and implications for alert design.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are common and can result in patient harm. Electronic health records warn clinicians about DDIs via alerts, but the clinical decision support they provide is inadequate. Little is known about clinicians' real-world DDI decision-making process to inform more effective alerts. OBJECTIVE: Apply cognitive task analysis techniques to determine informational cues used by clinicians to manage DDIs and identify opportunities to improve alerts. DESIGN: Clinicians submitted incident forms involving DDIs, which were eligible for inclusion if there was potential for serious patient harm. For selected incidents, we met with the clinician for a 60 min interview. Each interview transcript was analysed to identify decision requirements and delineate clinicians' decision-making process. We then performed an inductive, qualitative analysis across incidents. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient care at a major, tertiary Veterans Affairs medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, pharmacists and nurse practitioners. OUTCOMES: Themes to identify informational cues that clinicians used to manage DDIs. RESULTS: We conducted qualitative analyses of 20 incidents. Data informed a descriptive model of clinicians' decision-making process, consisting of four main steps: (1) detect a potential DDI; (2) DDI problem-solving, sensemaking and planning; (3) prescribing decision and (4) resolving actions. Within steps (1) and (2), we identified 19 information cues that clinicians used to manage DDIs for patients. These cues informed their subsequent decisions in steps (3) and (4). Our findings inform DDI alert recommendations to improve clinicians' decision-making efficiency, confidence and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides three key contributions. Our study is the first to present an illustrative model of clinicians' real-world decision making for managing DDIs. Second, our findings add to scientific knowledge by identifying 19 cognitive cues that clinicians rely on for DDI management in clinical practice. Third, our results provide essential, foundational knowledge to inform more robust DDI clinical decision support in the future.

Assessment of hepatitis C monitoring adherence after viral eradication in veterans with substance use to improve care and surveil reinfection.

Introduction: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) incidence rates are rising for patients with substance use and/or SUDs. Guidelines provide monitoring recommendations to ensure remission after successful treatment. The study's objective was to identify gaps in follow-up for patients with documented substance use and/or SUD through assessment of adherence to guideline-recommended HCV RNA lab 12 months post-treatment. Methods: Patients treated for HCV through the Veteran Health Indiana Hepatitis C Pharmacy Clinic were retrospectively evaluated. Subjects were categorized based on the provider assigned for follow-up care after 12-week sustained virologic response (SVR12) labs (primary care provider [PCP] or HCV provider). The primary outcome was HCV RNA obtained 11 to 13 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes were HCV RNA detected post-treatment, substance use, engagement in substance use treatment, and engagement with social work. Results: Two hundred forty-one patients were included in the HCV provider cohort and 139 in the PCP cohort. Forty-one patients did not have a specified clinic for follow-up treatment, and 20 patients did not achieve SVR12. Sixty-one patients (28%) in the HCV provider cohort completed a 12-month HCV RNA within 11 to 13 months post-treatment vs 15 patients (11%) in the PCP cohort (P ≤ .01). One patient had HCV RNA detected post-treatment. Discussion: This study reveals inadequate HCV post-treatment follow-up for patients with substance use and/or SUD. SUD is a chronic disease that requires continued monitoring to prevent complications. Further studies are needed to identify reinfection rates and improvements of care in this population.

Care Coordination Strategies and Barriers during Medication Safety Incidents: a Qualitative, Cognitive Task Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are prevalent in healthcare institutions worldwide, often arising from difficulties in care coordination among primary care providers, specialists, and pharmacists. Greater knowledge about care coordination surrounding medication safety incidents can inform efforts to improve patient safety. OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies that hospital and outpatient healthcare professionals (HCPs) use, and barriers encountered, when they coordinate care during a medication safety incident involving an adverse drug reaction, drug-drug interaction, or drug-renal concern. DESIGN: We asked HCPs to complete a form whenever they encountered these incidents and intervened to prevent or mitigate patient harm. We stratified incidents across HCP roles and incident categories to conduct follow-up cognitive task analysis interviews with HCPs. PARTICIPANTS: We invited all physicians and pharmacists working in inpatient or outpatient care at a tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We examined 24 incidents: 12 from physicians and 12 from pharmacists, with a total of 8 incidents per category. APPROACH: Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via a two-stage inductive, qualitative analysis. In stage 1, we analyzed each incident to identify decision requirements. In stage 2, we analyzed results across incidents to identify emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: Most incidents (19, 79%) were from outpatient care. HCPs relied on four main strategies to coordinate care: cognitive decentering; collaborative decision-making; back-up behaviors; and contingency planning. HCPs encountered four main barriers: role ambiguity and constraints, breakdowns (e.g., delays) in care, challenges related to the electronic health record, and factors that increased coordination complexity. Each strategy and barrier occurred across all incident categories and HCP groups. Pharmacists went to extra effort to ensure safety plans were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Similar strategies and barriers were evident across HCP groups and incident types. Strategies for enhancing patient safety may be strengthened by deliberate organizational support. Some barriers could be addressed by improving work systems.

HCV eradication in veterans with underlying mental health disorders and substance use.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) disproportionately affects those with mental health disorders and those with substance use, and the increasing HCV transmission in the United States is driven by the opioid epidemic. However, patients with a mental health disorder, substance use, or combination of both historically have had limited access to HCV treatment. The goal of our study was to compare sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of HCV treatment with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) between subjects with and without a mental health disorder, substance use, or combination of both. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review at 1 Veterans affairs medical center of patients enrolled in the hepatitis C pharmacy clinic who completed DAA treatment from August 17, 2013 to August 17, 2017. The participants (N = 833 patients) were categorized into 2 groups: those with at least 1 mental health disorder, substance use, or combination of both and those without. Baseline variables relevant to HCV treatment, DAA regimen, number of documented efforts to engage patients, and SVR data were collected. RESULTS: Of the 833 study participants, 579 patients had a mental health disorder, substance use, or combination of both. The 3 most prevalent disorders were patient-reported substance use (n = 333), substance-related and addictive disorders (n = 176), and depressive disorders (n = 159). The SVR rates and number of documented efforts to engage patients before and during treatment through SVR laboratory completion between those with a mental health disorder, substance use, or combination of both and those without were not statically significant. CONCLUSION: DAA-based HCV treatment is highly effective with SVR rates exceeding 95% in the entire study cohort, including patients with or without mental health disorders, substance use, or combination of both.

Pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary pretreatment workup process for hepatitis C care: A novel model for same-day pretreatment workup.

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to describe and quantify the impact of a novel practice model for pharmacist involvement in care coordination and patient education in hepatitis C virus (HCV) care. SETTING: This practice model was implemented in the gastroenterology clinic at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Traditional pretreatment workup for HCV requires multiple on-site appointments to complete imaging and laboratory assessments and for provider and social work appointments. High pretreatment time burden and increasing psychosocial complexity of the patient population present significant barriers to HCV eradication. Patients frequently miss appointments, and each on-site visit creates a separate opportunity for patients to be lost to follow-up. PRACTICE INNOVATION: The pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary pretreatment workup process was launched by HCV pharmacists to mitigate barriers. Patients complete the pretreatment evaluation process, which includes same-day pharmacy education, provider visit, social work assessment, FibroScan, and laboratory assessments, in approximately 2.5 hours. EVALUATION: Forty-six patients who completed the pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary pretreatment workup process versus 235 patients who completed traditional workup were analyzed for time from date of HCV consultation placement to treatment start and time from most recent HCV provider visit to treatment start. RESULTS: From time of HCV consult entry to date of treatment start, patients were initiated on HCV treatment in an average of 42.2 ± 7.5 days and 184.1 ± 27.6 days (P = 0.0001) within the intervention and traditional workup groups, respectively. A decreased time from most recent HCV provider visit to treatment initiation was noted between groups with 38.2 ± 7.1 days and 54.7 ± 3.6 days (P = 0.04) in the intervention and traditional workup groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary pretreatment workup process is an effective way to engage patients and decrease time to treatment initiation. This model could be replicated in other practice settings, especially those challenged by multi-step care coordination.

Medication decision-making for patients with renal insufficiency in inpatient and outpatient care at a US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre: a qualitative, cognitive task analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies identify factors that contribute to renal prescribing errors, but few examine how healthcare professionals (HCPs) detect and recover from an error or potential patient safety concern. Knowledge of this information could inform advanced error detection systems and decision support tools that help prevent prescribing errors. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cognitive strategies that HCPs used to recognise and manage medication-related problems for patients with renal insufficiency. DESIGN: HCPs submitted documentation about medication-related incidents. We then conducted cognitive task analysis interviews. Qualitative data were analysed inductively. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient facilities at a major US Veterans Affairs Medical Centre. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses and pharmacists who took action to prevent or resolve a renal-drug problem in patients with renal insufficiency. OUTCOMES: Emergent themes from interviews, as related to recognition of renal-drug problems and decision-making processes. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 HCPs. Results yielded a descriptive model of the decision-making process, comprised of three main stages: detect, gather information and act. These stages often followed a cyclical path due largely to the gradual decline of patients' renal function. Most HCPs relied on being vigilant to detect patients' renal-drug problems rather than relying on systems to detect unanticipated cues. At each stage, HCPs relied on different cognitive cues depending on medication type: for renally eliminated medications, HCPs focused on gathering renal dosing guidelines, while for nephrotoxic medications, HCPs investigated the need for particular medication therapy, and if warranted, safer alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our model is useful for trainees so they can gain familiarity with managing renal-drug problems. Based on findings, improvements are warranted for three aspects of healthcare systems: (1) supporting the cyclical nature of renal-drug problem management via longitudinal tracking mechanisms, (2) providing tools to alleviate HCPs' heavy reliance on vigilance and (3) supporting HCPs' different decision-making needs for renally eliminated versus nephrotoxic medications.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for external ventricular drains in pediatric neurosurgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to describe the use of antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis of external ventricular drains (EVDs) in a pediatric neurosurgical population and determine the incidence of EVD-related infections among different antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This retrospective chart review included patients up to 18 years old who underwent EVD insertion at either of two tertiary care academic hospitals in the same health system between August 1, 2008, and July 31, 2012. Patients were included if they received at least one dose of antibiotics before EVD insertion. Patients who received only perioperative antibiotics were compared with those who also received antibiotics after this period. The primary endpoint was incidence of EVD-related infection. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics and compare antibiotic regimens between groups. Pearson's chi square and Mann Whitney U tests compared nonparametric data. RESULTS: A total of 182 EVD insertions were documented, and 88 included in the study. Of these 88, 27 were associated only with perioperative doses of antibiotics, and 61 with prolonged antibiotic use. Baseline characteristics and antibiotic choices were similar between the groups. At least 55 (63%) catheters were antibiotic-impregnated, but types of catheters couldn't be compared between groups due to insufficient data. No central nervous system infections were identified in either group, so the primary objective could not be evaluated statistically. CONCLUSION: No infections were identified in any study subjects during EVD treatment. An adequately powered, multi-center prospective study should be performed to determine if prolonged use of antibiotics beyond the perioperative period is of benefit.