Clinical Inquiry in Nursing Readiness Fellowship: Increasing Air Force Nurse Corps Evidence-Based Practice Leadership Infrastructure.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demands to generate, translate, and implement evidence into practice in manpower and budget-constrained environments triggered innovative support for the nursing scientific community. The Clinical Inquiry in Nursing Readiness (CINR) fellowship is a solution to integrate readiness into clinical inquiry priorities and develop future experts in the field. METHODS: This article describes the fellowship program structure, implementation, and contributions to nursing science, readiness, and professional development. We share specific recommendations based on our experiences to enhance and sustain this valuable fellowship program. RESULTS: Six fellows have completed the CINR fellowship since its launch in July 2019. Fellows garnered $40,000 in grant funds for five evidence-based practices, two research studies, and six clinical inquiry initiatives. So far, the fellows have produced 20 knowledge products: Three published manuscripts, three evidence-based resource toolkits, nine professional conference presentations (one international), five professional certifications, a variety of organization-wide leadership briefings, and two military decorations specific to the pandemic response. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a fellowship program to develop a pipeline of readiness-focused nurse scientists and evidence-based practice experts builds future capacity for the enterprise while professionally developing individual nurses for advanced degrees and clinical inquiry leadership roles. Individuals and organizations aspiring to promote a culture of nursing inquiry may benefit from fellowships such as the CINR program.

A Case-Control Analysis of Bone Stress Injury on Advancement and Health Care Utilization in US Air Force Basic Military Trainees.

INTRODUCTION: Every year, approximately 35,000 recruits enter the United States Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT). Musculoskeletal problems are particularly vexing for BMT because a broad array of differentials render definitive diagnosis burdensome and while most sufferers will fully recover, healing often requires protracted training delays resulting in increased unrecoverable training costs to the program. The purpose of this study is to conduct a case-control study of basic military trainees entering service from 2012 to 2015 to assess detectable differences in demographics, retention, and health care utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study of existing data and records obtained from existing and active information record systems for individuals who attended BMT between the years 2012 and 2015. Cohort assignment was based on incidence of first stress fracture diagnosis (i.e., having a select diagnosis code in one's medical record) relative to arrival at BMT. Health care utilization is operationalized as medical encounter frequencies and associated international classification of disease (ICD) codes occurring for all patients from BMT recruit date of arrival to 6 months post-graduation (i.e., 180 days). RESULTS: The primary dataset includes 132,359 distinct individuals, of which 129,637 (98%) had no history of stress fracture diagnosis and 1,487 (1%) of which have a diagnosis of stress fracture more than 60 days after arrival at BMT; these are assigned to the CONTROL group. There are 1,235 (0.9%) assigned to the CASE group. CASE members presented with 30.1 unique ICD-10 codes post-graduation compared to 6.3 in the CONTROL group. Six of the top thirteen ICD-10 codes were musculoskeletal in nature and all presented significantly higher rates for the CASE group. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees who suffered a bone stress injury (BSI) during the United States Air Force BMT advanced in rank on par with trainees who did not, but BSI sufferers exhibited greater health care utilization than those who did not suffer BSI. The cost to replace a trainee unable to complete BMT is considerable; however, it is also important to consider the reduction in resiliency and readiness to the Department of Defense and the financial burdens from increased health care utilization. The 2-fold increase in BSI presentation in the graduated control group reflects that more needs to be done for all populations to identify better proactive efforts to foundationally support wellness and prevention rather than accept injury as the status quo.

Attitudes Toward a Pre-authorized Concealed Opioid Taper: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Clinician Perspectives.

Standard opioid tapers tend to be associated with increased patient anxiety and higher pain ratings. Pre-authorized concealed opioid reductions may minimize expectations such as fear of increased pain due to the reduction of opioids and, prolong analgesic benefits in experimental settings. We recently observed that patients and clinicians are open to concealed opioid tapering. However, little is known about the "why" behind their attitudes. Based on this lack of data, we analyzed qualitative responses to survey questions on patients' and clinicians' acceptance of a concealed opioid reduction for chronic pain. Seventy-four patients with a history of high dose opioid therapy and 49 clinicians completed a web-based questionnaire with open-ended questions examining responses to two hypothetical clinical trials comparing a concealed opioid reduction pre-authorized by patients vs. standard tapering. We used content analysis based on qualitative descriptive methodology to analyze comments from the patients and clinicians. Five themes were identified: informed consent; anxiety; safety; support; and ignorance is bliss, or not. These themes highlight the overall positive attitudes toward concealed opioid tapers. Our findings reinforce the importance of patient-centered care and are expected to inform the design of clinical trials from both the patient and clinician perspective. This qualitative study presents patients' and clinicians' attitudes toward hypothetical scenarios for a trial of pre-authorized reduction of opioids. The findings indicate positive attitudes and the relevance of engaging patients with effective decision-making processes.

Patient and Provider Acceptability of a Patient Preauthorized Concealed Opioid Reduction.

OBJECTIVE: Limited research of how to best taper opioids brings about an ethical and clinical dilemma. Experiments using overt and concealed administration of opioids have demonstrated the benefits of a concealed reduction to eliminate negative expectations and prolong analgesic benefits. This may allow for opioid tapering without significant increases in pain. Based on this, we investigated patient and provider acceptance of a concealed opioid reduction for chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey via REDcap with 74 patients, who are currently taking or have taken high dose opioids, and 49 providers using a validated questionnaire based on two hypothetical clinical trials comparing a patient preauthorized concealed opioid reduction vs standard tapering. RESULTS: We found that patients and providers have positive attitudes toward a concealed reduction of opioid dosages. More than 60% of providers and patients surveyed viewed the hypothetical clinical trial as helpful to reduce pain, side effects, and withdrawal symptoms. Sixty-one percent of patients and 77.6% of providers recognized that there would be differences in pain relief depending upon which group the hypothetical participants would be enrolled in. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers appear to understand the benefits of a concealed opioid reduction. Our findings support future randomized controlled trials that compare concealed and overt opioid tapering in patients with chronic pain. More research is needed to understand the difference in attitudes between research and clinical practice and to test the acceptability of a concealed reduction following a participation in an active clinical trial.