Search

Background: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.Methods: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined.Results: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p's < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses.Discussion: Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain and interested in tapering their opioid dose were randomly assigned to a 22-week taper support intervention (psychiatric consultation, opioid dose tapering, and 18 weekly meetings with a physician assistant to explore motivation for tapering and learn pain self-management skills) or usual care (N = 35). Assessments were conducted at baseline and 22 and 34 weeks after randomization. Using an intention to treat approach, we constructed linear regression models to compare groups at each follow-up. At 22 weeks, adjusted mean daily morphine-equivalent opioid dose in the past week (primary outcome) was lower in the taper support group, but this difference was not statistically significant (adjusted mean difference = -42.9 mg; 95% confidence interval, -92.42 to 6.62; P = .09). Pain severity ratings (0-10 numeric rating scale) decreased in both groups at 22 weeks, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted mean difference = -.68; 95% confidence interval, -2.01 to .64; P = .30). The taper support group improved significantly more than the usual care group in self-reported pain interference, pain self-efficacy, and prescription opioid problems at 22 weeks (all P-values < .05). This taper support intervention is feasible and shows promise in reducing opioid dose while not increasing pain severity or interference.Perspective: In a pilot randomized trial comparing a prescription opioid taper support intervention to usual care, lower opioid doses and pain severity ratings were observed at 22 weeks in both groups. The groups did not differ significantly at 22 weeks in opioid dose or pain severity, but the taper support group improved significantly more in pain interference, pain self-efficacy, and perceived opioid problems. These results support the feasibility and promise of this opioid taper support intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Building federated data sharing architectures requires supporting a range of data owners, effective and validated semantic alignment between data resources, and consistent focus on end-users. Establishing these resources requires development methodologies that support internal validation of data extraction and translation processes, sustaining meaningful partnerships, and delivering clear and measurable system utility. We describe findings from two federated data sharing case examples that detail critical factors, shared outcomes, and production environment results.Methods: Two federated data sharing pilot architectures developed to support network-based research associated with the University of Washington's Institute of Translational Health Sciences provided the basis for the findings. A spiral model for implementation and evaluation was used to structure iterations of development and support knowledge share between the two network development teams, which cross collaborated to support and manage common stages.Results: We found that using a spiral model of software development and multiple cycles of iteration was effective in achieving early network design goals. Both networks required time and resource intensive efforts to establish a trusted environment to create the data sharing architectures. Both networks were challenged by the need for adaptive use cases to define and test utility.Conclusion: An iterative cyclical model of development provided a process for developing trust with data partners and refining the design, and supported measureable success in the development of new federated data sharing architectures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.Methods: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).Results: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.Conclusions: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Diagnostic imaging is often the first step in evaluating patients with back pain and likely functions as a “gateway” to a subsequent cascade of interventions. However, lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals incidental findings among normal, pain-free individuals suggesting that treatment of these “abnormalities” may not be warranted. Our prior work suggested that inserting the prevalence of imaging findings in patients without back pain into spine imaging reports may reduce subsequent interventions. We are now conducting a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that inserting this prevalence data into lumbar spine imaging reports for studies ordered by primary care providers will reduce subsequent spine-related interventions. Methods/design We are using a stepped wedge design that sequentially randomizes 100 primary care clinics at four health systems to receive either standard lumbar spine imaging reports, or reports containing prevalence data for common imaging findings in patients without back pain. We capture all outcomes passively through the electronic medical record. Our primary outcome is spine-related intervention intensity based on Relative Value Units (RVUs) during the following year. Secondary outcomes include subsequent prescriptions for opioid analgesics and cross-sectional lumbar spine re-imaging. Discussion If our study shows that adding prevalence data to spine imaging reports decreases subsequent back-related RVUs, this intervention could be easily generalized and applied to other kinds of testing, as well as other conditions where incidental findings may be common. Our study also serves as a model for cluster randomized trials that are minimal risk and highly pragmatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The objective of the study was to develop and implement a stepped collaborative care intervention targeting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and related comorbidities to enhance the population impact of early trauma-focused interventions. Method: We describe the design and implementation of the Trauma Survivors Outcomes and Support study. An interdisciplinary treatment development team was composed of trauma surgical, clinical psychiatric and mental health services “change agents” who spanned the boundaries between frontline trauma center clinical care and acute care policy. Mixed method clinical epidemiologic and clinical ethnographic studies informed the development of PTSD screening and intervention procedures. Results: Two hundred seven acutely injured trauma survivors with high early PTSD symptom levels were randomized into the study. The stepped collaborative care model integrated care management (i.e., posttraumatic concern elicitation and amelioration, motivational interviewing and behavioral activation) with cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy targeting PTSD. The model was feasibly implemented by frontline acute care masters in social work and nurse practioner providers. Conclusions: Stepped care protocols targeting PTSD may enhance the population impact of early interventions developed for survivors of individual and mass trauma by extending the reach of collaborative care interventions to acute care medical settings and other nonspecialty posttraumatic contexts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]