Clinical Validity of the PROMIS Healthcare Engagement 8-Item Short Form.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare engagement is a key measurement target for value-based healthcare, but a reliable and valid patient-reported measure has not yet been widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a newly developed patient-reported measure of healthcare engagement, the 8-item PROMIS Healthcare Engagement (PHE-8a). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of the association between healthcare engagement and quality of care over 1 year. We fit mixed effects models of quality indicators as a function of engagement scores, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, rural residence, and risk scores. PARTICIPANTS: National stratified random sample of 9552 Veterans receiving Veterans Health Administration care for chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes) or mental health conditions (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder). MAIN MEASURES: Patient experience: Consumer Assessment of Health Plans and Systems communication and self-management support composites; no-show rates for primary care and mental health appointments; use of patient portal My HealtheVet; and Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set electronic quality measures: HbA1c poor control, controlling high blood pressure, and hyperlipidemia therapy adherence. KEY RESULTS: Higher engagement scores were associated with better healthcare quality across all outcomes, with each 5-point increase (1/2 standard deviation) in engagement scores associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains in quality. Across the continuum of low to high engagement scores, we observed a concomitant reduction in primary care no-show rates of 37% and 24% for mental health clinics; an increased likelihood of My HealtheVet use of 15.4%; and a decreased likelihood of poor diabetes control of 44%. CONCLUSIONS: The PHE-8a is a brief, reliable, and valid patient-reported measure of healthcare engagement. These results confirm previously untested hypotheses that patient engagement can promote healthcare quality.

Effect of a Predictive Analytics-Targeted Program in Patients on Opioids: a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Risk of overdose, suicide, and other adverse outcomes are elevated among sub-populations prescribed opioid analgesics. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM)-a provider-facing dashboard that utilizes predictive analytics to stratify patients prescribed opioids based on risk for overdose/suicide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the case review mandate on serious adverse events (SAEs) and all-cause mortality among high-risk Veterans. DESIGN: A 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in all 140 VHA medical centers between 2018 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 44,042 patients actively prescribed opioid analgesics with high STORM risk scores (i.e., percentiles 1% to 5%) for an overdose or suicide-related event. INTERVENTION: A mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on opioid analgesic-prescribed patients at high risk of overdose/suicide. MAIN MEASURES: Nine serious adverse events (SAEs), case review completion, number of risk mitigation strategies, and all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: Mandated review inclusion was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality within 4 months of inclusion (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.65-0.94). There was no detectable effect on SAEs. Stepped-wedge analyses found that mandated review patients were five times more likely to receive a case review than non-mandated patients with similar risk (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 3.64-7.23) and received more risk mitigation strategies than non-mandated patients (0.498; CI: 0.39-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Among VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics, identifying high risk patients and mandating they receive an interdisciplinary case review was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality. Results suggest that providers can leverage predictive analytic-targeted population health approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16012111.

Randomized Policy Evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM).

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a dashboard Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STROM) to guide clinical practice interventions. VHA released a policy mandating that high-risk patients of an adverse event based on the STORM dashboard are to be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of clinicians. AIM: Randomized program evaluation to evaluate if patients in the oversight arm had a lower risk of opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs) or death compared to those in the non-oversight arm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred and forty VHA facilities (aka medical centers) were randomly assigned to two groups: oversight and non-oversight arms. VHA patients who were prescribed opioids between April 18, 2018, and November 8, 2019, were included in the cohort. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We hypothesized that patients cared for by VHA facilities that received the policy with the oversight accountability language would achieve lower opioid-related SAEs or death. PROGRAM EVALUATION: We did not observe a relationship between the oversight arm and opioid-related SAEs or death. Patients in the non-oversight arm had a significantly higher chance of receiving a case review compared to those in the oversight arm. DISCUSSION: Even though our findings were unexpected, the STORM policy overall was likely successful in focusing the provider's attention on very high-risk patients.

Psychometric evaluation of a patient-reported item bank for healthcare engagement.

PURPOSE: Healthcare engagement is a core measurement target for efforts to improve healthcare systems. This construct is broadly defined as the extent to which healthcare services represent collaborative partnerships with patients. Previous qualitative work operationalized healthcare engagement as generalized self-efficacy in four related subdomains: self-management, collaborative communication, health information use, and healthcare navigation. Building on this work, our objective was to establish a healthcare engagement instrument that is sufficiently unidimensional to yield a single score. METHOD: We conducted cognitive interviews followed by a nation-wide mail survey of US Veteran Administration (VA) healthcare users. Data were collected on 49 candidate healthcare engagement items, as well as measures of self-efficacy for managing symptoms, provider communication, and perceived access. Items were subjected to exploratory bifactor, statistical learning, and IRT analyses. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews were completed by 56 patients and 9552 VA healthcare users with chronic conditions completed the mail survey. Participants were mostly white and male but with sizable minority participation. Psychometric analyses and content considerations reduced the item pool to 23 items, which demonstrated a strong general factor (OmegaH of .89). IRT analyses revealed a high level of reliability across the trait range and little DIF across groups. Most health information use items were removed during analyses, suggesting a more independent role for this domain. CONCLUSION: We provide quantitative evidence for a relatively unidimensional measure of healthcare engagement. Despite developed with VA healthcare users, the measure is intended for general use. Future work includes short-form development and validation with other patient groups.

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. METHODS: Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. RESULTS: Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Providers' Unneeded Lumbar Spine MRI Orders for Acute, Uncomplicated Low-Back Pain: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines suggest that magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine (LS-MRI) is unneeded during the first 6 weeks of acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Unneeded LS-MRIs do not improve patient outcomes, lead to unnecessary surgeries and procedures, and cost the US healthcare system about $300 million dollars per year. However, why primary care providers (PCPs) order unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To characterize and explain the factors contributing to PCPs ordering unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans Affairs PCPs identified from administrative data as having high or low rates of guideline-concordant LS-MRI ordering in 2016. APPROACH: Providers were interviewed about their use of LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain and factors contributing to their decision-making. Directed content analysis of transcripts was conducted to identify and compare environmental-, patient-, and provider-level factors contributing to unneeded LS-MRI. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-five PCPs participated (8.6% response rate). Both low (n = 33) and high (n = 22) guideline-concordant providers reported that LS-MRIs were required for specialty care referrals, but they differed in how other environmental factors (stringency of radiology utilization review, management of patient travel burden, and time constraints) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. Low- and high-guideline-concordant providers reported similar patient factors (beliefs in value of imaging and pressure on providers). However, provider groups differed in how provider-level factors (guideline familiarity and agreement, the extent to which they acquiesced to patients, and belief in the value of LS-MRI) contributed to LS-MRI ordering patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Results describe how diverse environmental, patient, and provider factors contribute to unneeded LS-MRI for acute, uncomplicated low-back pain. Prior research using a single intervention to reduce unneeded LS-MRI has been ineffective. Results suggest that multifaceted de-implementation strategies may be required to reduce unneeded LS-MRI.

"They are interrelated, one feeds off the other": A taxonomy of perceived disease interactions derived from patients with multiple chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' experiences with condition interactions and develop a taxonomy to inform care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis of free-text data from patient surveys in which respondents were asked to indicate their most bothersome chronic condition and describe how their other conditions affect their self-care for that condition. Using standard content analysis, we developed a taxonomy comprising how patients perceive interactions among their conditions, and examined cross-cutting themes that reflect qualities of these interactions. RESULTS: Among 383 eligible survey respondents, the mean (SD) number of chronic conditions was 4 (2); common conditions included hypertension (60%), chronic pain (49%), arthritis (41%), depression (32%), diabetes (29%), and post-traumatic stress disorder (26%). Patients' perceived condition interactions took four broad forms: 1) unidirectional interactions among conditions and/or treatments, 2) cyclical or multidimensional interactions, 3) uncertain or indistinct interactions, and 4) no perceived interaction. Cross-cutting themes included beliefs about causal relationships between conditions, identification of interactions as negative vs. positive, and interactions between physical and mental health. CONCLUSION: This study presents a novel taxonomy of condition interactions from the patient perspective. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Understanding perceived condition interactions may support patient self-management and shared decision-making efforts.

Opportunity or Burden? A Behavioral Framework for Patient Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients as partners in their care is clinically appealing, yet challenging to implement, and we lack a measurement framework that is applicable to vulnerable populations. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative study to refine a conceptual framework that reflects an individual's propensity to engage with care. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to refine the framework's domains of engagement behavior; identify key behaviors within each domain that describe engagement with providers, health systems or settings; and illustrate examples for each behavior where higher self-efficacy describes an opportunity to enhance engagement, and lower self-efficacy describes difficulties with engagement that risk burden. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We elicited patient perspectives by conducting individual semistructured interviews with veterans receiving care for mental health and/or chronic conditions from the Veterans Health Administration. Data were analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: The resulting engagement framework encompassed 4 interrelated domains: Self-Management, Health Information Use, Collaborative Communication, and Healthcare Navigation. The propensity to engage with care was conceptualized as the cumulative self-efficacy to engage in behaviors across these domains. Results emphasize the collaborative nature of engagement behaviors and the impact of veteran cultural influences via perceptions of collective efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework can be applied to judgments regarding a patient's propensity to engage in care. Because self-efficacy is an individual's context-specific judgment of their capabilities, this framework may inform health care and social service interventions that aim to engage patients. This maybe especially useful for public sector settings and populations with social risks.

Randomized program evaluation of the Veterans Health Administration Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM): A research and clinical operations partnership to examine effectiveness.

The United States is facing an opioid crisis in which overdose is the leading cause of injury death-misuse of opioids constitutes the vast majority of those deaths. In 2016 alone, over 42,000 people died from opioid overdose, an increase of 27% from the prior year. Deployment of the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a clinical decision support tool to improve opioid safety, is one response by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to the opioid crisis. STORM identifies VHA patients at very high risk of opioid-related adverse events and lists potential risk mitigation strategies. Deployment of STORM also helps VHA meet certain requirements of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016. In alignment with the VHA's learning health care system initiative, a multidisciplinary team designed a randomized evaluation of a policy approach to mandating case reviews of very-high-risk patients identified by STORM and the impacts of patient inclusion versus exclusion in mandated STORM case reviews using a stepped-wedge design. The STORM evaluation involves drafting the policy notice, shepherding it through the VHA approval process, and implementing the cluster randomized design. This mixed-methods evaluation includes (1) a qualitative assessment of medical center implementation strategies with the aim of understanding of how STORM is incorporated into practice, and (2) quantitative analyses of the relations between policy mandates and STORM inclusion on opioid-related adverse events. The findings from this synergistic research design will yield critical insights for VHA leadership to refine opioid prescribing-related policy and practice.

Overdose Risk Associated with Opioid Use upon Hospital Discharge in Veterans Health Administration Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an association between opioid use upon hospital discharge (ongoing and newly started) in surgical patients and risks of opioid overdose and delirium for the first year. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: Population-level study of Veterans Health Administration patients. SUBJECTS: All Veterans Health Administration patients (N = 64,391) who underwent surgery in 2011, discharged after one or more days, and without a diagnosis of opioid overdose or delirium from 90 days before admission through 30 days postdischarge (to account for additional opioid dosing in the context of chronic use). METHODS: Patients' opioid use was categorized as 1) no opioids, 2) tramadol only, 3) short-acting only, 4) long-acting only, 5) short- and long-acting. We calculated unadjusted incidence rates and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for opioid overdose and drug delirium for two time intervals: postdischarge days 0-30 and days 31-365. We then modeled outcomes of opioid overdose and delirium for postdischarge days 31-365 using a multivariable extended Cox regression model. Sensitivity analysis examined risk factors for overdose for postdischarge days 0-30. RESULTS: Incidence of overdose was 11-fold greater from postdischarge days 0-30 than days 31-365: 26.3 events/person-year (N = 68) vs 2.4 events/person-year (N = 476; IRR = 10.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.37-13.92). Higher-intensity opioid use was associated with increasing risk of overdose for the year after surgery, with the highest risk for the short- and long-acting group (hazard ratio = 4.84, 95% CI = 3.28-7.14). Delirium (IRR = 10.66, 95% CI = 7.96-14.29) was also associated with higher opioid intensity. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients should be treated with the lowest effective intensity of opioids and be monitored to prevent opioid-related adverse events.

"I had to change so much in my life to live with my new limitations": Multimorbid patients' descriptions of their most bothersome chronic conditions.

Objective To characterize diseases that are described as most bothersome by individuals with multiple chronic conditions and to identify themes that characterize their experiences with their most bothersome condition. Methods In a survey of patients at an academic center and a Veterans Affairs hospital, we asked individuals with multiple chronic conditions to identify their most bothersome chronic condition and describe why it is challenging. Standard content analysis methods were used to code responses and identify themes reflecting characteristics of most bothersome conditions. Results The most commonly cited bothersome conditions were chronic pain (52%), diabetes (43%), post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), heart failure (24%), and lung problems (20%). Conditions were described as most bothersome due to: (a) impact on function and quality of life (e.g. active symptoms, activity limitations), (b) health consequences or sequelae (e.g. risk of complications), and (c) challenges associated with treatment or self-management. Patterns of theme dominance varied for conditions with different characteristics. Discussion The conditions that patients with multiple chronic conditions identify as most bothersome vary depending on individuals' diseases and their health-related preferences and priorities. Ascertaining patients' most bothersome conditions and associated challenges, stress, and frustrations may help ensure that management decisions are aligned with patient preferences and priorities.

Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach.

While genetic testing gains adoption in specialty services such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology, use of genetic and genomic testing has yet to be adopted as widely in primary care. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare patient and primary care provider (PCP) expectations of genetics services in primary care. Patient and PCP perspectives were assessed through a mixed-method approach combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews in a primary care department of a large academic medical institution. A convenience sample of 100 adult primary care patients and 26 PCPs was gathered. The survey and interview questions focused on perceptions of genetic testing, experience with genetic testing, and expectations of genetic services in primary care. Patients felt that their PCP was knowledgeable about genetic testing and expected their PCP to be the first to recognize a need for genetic testing based on family history. Nonetheless, patients reported that PCPs rarely used family history information to discuss genetic risks or order testing. In contrast, PCPs felt uncertain about the clinical utility and scientific value of genetic testing. PCPs were concerned that genetic testing could cause anxiety, frustration, discrimination, and reduced insurability, and that there was unequal access to testing. PCPs described themselves as being "gatekeepers" to genetic testing but did not feel confident or have the desire to become experts in genetic testing. However, PCPs were open to increasing their working knowledge of genetic testing. Within this academic medical center, there is a gap between what patients expect and what primary care providers feel they are adequately prepared to provide in terms of genetic testing services.

Providers' Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators to Connecting Women Veterans to Alcohol-Related Care From Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy drinking is relatively common among women U.S. military Veterans. Primary care is often the setting where patients first come into contact with the health care system, and providers in this setting play a critical role in connecting unhealthy drinkers to appropriate care. Little is known about primary care providers' perspectives on factors that affect whether women Veterans presenting to primary care with unhealthy drinking connect to alcohol-related care. Understanding factors that affect whether patients connect to alcohol-related care may improve providers' ability to support women Veterans with unhealthy drinking get needed care. METHODS: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 14 providers from two Veterans Administration Women's Health primary care clinics, including nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants, and physicians, and colocated mental health providers. The interviews were transcribed, and themes pertaining to providers' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to connecting women Veterans' with unhealthy drinking to alcohol-related care were identified through template analysis. FINDINGS: Primary care providers perceived numerous provider- and clinic-level factors as relevant to their ability to connect women Veterans to alcohol-related care. Barriers providers described were insufficient care resources, provider prioritization of alcohol-related care, insufficient knowledge of care options or the referral process among providers, time constraints during routine clinical visits, and the referral process for alcohol-related care. They also described resources available in primary care, primary care provider behaviors, and initiatives at the Veterans Administration as helpful. DISCUSSION: Although primary care providers are gatekeepers to specialty treatment services, ongoing education, and colocated mental health staff could help reduce barriers to these services, ultimately improving health outcomes for women Veterans and others with unhealthy drinking.

Primary Care-Based Skin Cancer Screening in a Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Importance: Skin cancer screening may improve melanoma outcomes and keratinocyte carcinoma morbidity, but little is known about the feasibility of skin cancer training and clinical skin examination (CSE) by primary care practitioners (PCPs) in large health care systems. Objective: To assess the association of skin cancer training and screening by PCPs with dermatology referral patterns and rates of skin biopsies. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pilot interventional study performed at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, patients 35 years or older scheduled for an annual health habits screen in the PCP general medicine clinics were studied. Interventions: Six PCPs underwent Internet Curriculum for Melanoma Early Detection (INFORMED) training in May 2015, and 5 screened patients during the following 14 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of dermatology referrals, subsequent skin biopsies, and PCP diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer or precancer compared with dermatologist diagnosis were assessed in screened patients 14 months before the intervention (February 18, 2014, through April 30, 2015) and after the intervention (June 18, 2015, through August 30, 2016). Results: Among 258 patients offered screening (median age, 70 years; age range, 35-94 years; 255 [98.8%] male), 189 (73.3%) received CSE and 69 (26.7%) declined. A total of 62 of 189 patients (32.8%) were referred to a dermatologist after intervention: 33 (53.2%) for presumptive skin cancers and 15 (24.2%) for precancers. Nine of 50 patients (18.0%) evaluated in dermatology clinic underwent biopsy to exclude skin cancer. Correct diagnoses were made by PCPs in 13 of 38 patients (34.2%; 4 of 27 patients [14.8%] diagnosed with skin cancers and 5 of 11 patients [45.5%] diagnosed with actinic keratoses). Comparison of all outpatient visits for the 5 main participating PCPs before vs after intervention revealed no significant differences in dermatology referrals overall and those for presumptive skin cancer or actinic keratoses, skin biopsies, or PCP diagnostic accuracy with the exception of significantly fewer postintervention dermatology referrals that lacked specific diagnoses (25 [1.0%] vs 10 [0.4%], P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This pilot study suggests that PCP-based skin cancer training and screening are feasible and have the potential to improve PCP diagnostic accuracy without increasing specialty referrals or skin biopsies. Additional studies comparing screening rates, specialty referrals, and patient outcomes in trained vs untrained PCPs are needed before screening is widely implemented in large health care systems in the United States.

Development and applications of the Veterans Health Administration's Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) to improve opioid safety and prevent overdose and suicide.

Concerns about opioid-related adverse events, including overdose, prompted the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to launch an Opioid Safety Initiative and Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution program. To mitigate risks associated with opioid prescribing, a holistic approach that takes into consideration both risk factors (e.g., dose, substance use disorders) and risk mitigation interventions (e.g., urine drug screening, psychosocial treatment) is needed. This article describes the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), a tool developed in VHA that reflects this holistic approach and facilitates patient identification and monitoring. STORM prioritizes patients for review and intervention according to their modeled risk for overdose/suicide-related events and displays risk factors and risk mitigation interventions obtained from VHA electronic medical record (EMR)-data extracts. Patients' estimated risk is based on a predictive risk model developed using fiscal year 2010 (FY2010: 10/1/2009-9/30/2010) EMR-data extracts and mortality data among 1,135,601 VHA patients prescribed opioid analgesics to predict risk for an overdose/suicide-related event in FY2011 (2.1% experienced an event). Cross-validation was used to validate the model, with receiver operating characteristic curves for the training and test data sets performing well (>.80 area under the curve). The predictive risk model distinguished patients based on risk for overdose/suicide-related adverse events, allowing for identification of high-risk patients and enrichment of target populations of patients with greater safety concerns for proactive monitoring and application of risk mitigation interventions. Results suggest that clinical informatics can leverage EMR-extracted data to identify patients at-risk for overdose/suicide-related events and provide clinicians with actionable information to mitigate risk. (PsycINFO Database Record

Providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to disclosure of alcohol use by women veterans.

Aim To better understand barriers and facilitators that hinder or help women veterans discuss their alcohol use with providers in primary care in order to better identify problematic drinking and enhance provider-patient communication about harmful drinking. BACKGROUND: Women presenting to primary care may be less likely than men to disclose potentially harmful alcohol use. No studies have qualitatively examined the perspectives of primary care providers about factors that affect accurate disclosure of alcohol use by women veterans during routine clinic visits. METHODS: Providers (n=14) were recruited from primary care at two veterans Administration Women's Health Clinics in California, United States. An open-ended interview guide was developed from domains of the consolidated framework for implementation science. Interviews elicited primary care providers' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to women veterans' (who may or may not be using alcohol in harmful ways) disclosure of alcohol use during routine clinic visits. Interview data were analyzed deductively using a combination of template analysis and matrix analysis. Findings Participants reported six barriers and five facilitators that they perceived affect women veteran's decision to accurately disclose alcohol use during screenings and openness to discussing harmful drinking with a primary care provider. The most commonly described barriers to disclosure were stigma, shame, and discomfort, and co-occuring mental health concerns, while building strong therapeutic relationships and using probes to 'dig deeper' were most often described as facilitators. Findings from this study may enhance provider-patient discussions about alcohol use and help primary care providers to better identify problematic drinking among women veterans, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Receptivity to alcohol-related care among U.S. women Veterans with alcohol misuse.

Previous research indicates women Veterans have a potentially large, unmet need for alcohol-related care but are under-represented in treatment settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with women Veterans' receptivity to a recommendation for alcohol-related care when they present to Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care with alcohol misuse. Semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2012-2013 with 30 women Veterans at two VA facilities who screened positive for alcohol misuse during a primary care visit and discussed their alcohol use with their primary-care provider. Qualitative analyses identified 9 themes women used to describe what affected their receptivity to a recommendation for alcohol-related care (i.e., VA specialty substance use disorder services). The most common themes positively associated with women's receptivity included self-appraisal of their drinking behavior as more severe, the provider's presentation of treatment options, availability of gender-specific services, and worse physical and mental health. The themes identified here may have important implications for the clinical strategies providers can use to present alcohol-related care options to women Veterans to facilitate their use of care. These strategies include educating women about the health effects of alcohol misuse and increasing providers' knowledge about available care options (within the care organization or the community), including the availability of gender-specific services.

Time-to-Cessation of Postoperative Opioids: A Population-Level Analysis of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine 1) the epidemiology of perioperative opioid use; and 2) the association between patterns of preoperative opioid use and time-to-cessation of postoperative opioids. DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: National, population-level study of Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) electronic clinical data. SUBJECTS: All VHA patients (n = 64,391) who underwent surgery in 2011, discharged after stays of ≥1 day, and receiving ≥1 opioid prescription within 90 days of discharge. METHODS: Patients' preoperative opioid use were categorized as 1) no opioids, 2) tramadol only, 3) short-acting (SA) acute/intermittent (≤ 90 days fill), 4) SA chronic (> 90 days fill), or 5) any long-acting (LA). After defining cessation as 90 consecutive, opioid-free days, the authors calculated time-to-opioid-cessation (in days), from day 1 to day 365, after hospital discharge. The authors developed extended Cox regression models with a priori identified predictors. Sensitivity analyses used alternative cessation definitions (30 or 180 consecutive days). RESULTS: Almost 60% of the patients received preoperative opioids: tramadol (7.5%), SA acute/intermittent (24.1%), SA chronic (17.5%), and LA (5.2%). For patients opioid-free preoperatively, median time-to-cessation of opioids postoperatively was 15 days. The SA acute/intermittent cohort (HR =1.96; 95% CI =1.92-2.00) had greater risk for prolonged time-to-cessation than those opioid-free (reference), but lower risk than those taking tramadol only, SA chronic (HR = 9.09; 95% CI = 8.33-9.09), or LA opioids (HR = 9.09; 95% CI = 8.33-10.00). Diagnoses of chronic pain, substance-use, or affective disorders were weaker positive predictors. Sensitivity analyses maintained findings. CONCLUSION: Greater preoperative levels of opioid use were associated with progressively longer time-to-cessation postoperatively.