Search

Abstract Background Practice facilitation (PF) is an evidence-based multicomponent in-person implementation strategy. COVID-19-related lockdowns caused many implementation initiatives to rapidly shift to virtual settings, but there is limited evidence on PF deployed exclusively using virtual meeting platforms. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of virtual PF used in a primary care setting to implement interdisciplinary opioid safety committees (OSCs) to improve care for patients using opioid medicines for persistent pain and reduce high-dose opioid prescribing. We also describe alignment of virtual PF with the core functions of PF and fidelity of participating clinics to the OSC intervention. Methods We applied qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate virtual PF used to implement a quality improvement project at Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington State. We established interdisciplinary OSCs in primary care clinics using virtual PF. OSCs were tasked with promoting opioid safety and high-quality pain care through population management and chart reviews. We used administrative data to calculate feasibility measures including attendance and retention. Acceptability data came from interviews with OSC members conducted by evaluators. Measures of fidelity to the OSC intervention were abstracted from meeting notes and administrative data. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence of virtual PF to the core functions of PF. Results Facilitators carried out a comprehensive PF approach virtually and demonstrated adherence to the core functions of PF. We established OSCs in eight clinics and conducted an average of 17.5 virtual PF meetings over eight months of PF for each clinic. Average attendance was 75% and we had 84% retention. OSC members were highly satisfied with virtual PF. Facilitators effectively supported teams through implementation and technical challenges and OSC members gained skills through virtual PF. We implemented OSCs with high fidelity, suggesting virtual PF is an effective implementation strategy. Conclusions We found virtual PF is a feasible and acceptable implementation strategy for this intervention and identified strategies to support care teams through challenges. Our findings can help inform future implementation efforts, especially those hoping to engage geographically dispersed clinics or remote clinical staff. Trial registration Not applicable.

BackgroundDelivering prescription digital therapeutics (ie, evidence-based interventions designed to treat, manage, or prevent disorders via websites or smartphone apps) in primary care could increase patient access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatments. However, the optimal approach to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in primary care remains unknown. ObjectiveThis pilot study is a precursor to a larger trial designed to test whether implementation strategies (practice facilitation [PF] and health coaching [HC]) improve the delivery of prescription digital therapeutics for SUDs in primary care. This mixed methods study describes outcomes among patients in the 2 pilot clinics and presents qualitative findings on implementation. MethodsFrom February 10 to August 6, 2021, a total of 3 mental health specialists embedded in 2 primary care practices of the same integrated health system were tasked with offering app-based prescription digital therapeutics to patients with SUD. In the first half of the pilot, implementation activities included training and supportive tools. PF (at 1 clinic) and HC (at 2 clinics) were added in the second half. All study analyses relied on secondary data, including electronic health records and digital therapeutic vendor data. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reached by the prescription digital therapeutics and fidelity related to ideal use. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence to planned activities and the barriers and facilitators to implementing prescription digital therapeutics. ResultsOf all 18 patients prescribed the apps, 10 (56%) downloaded the app and activated their prescription, and 8 (44%) completed at least 1 module of content. Patients who activated the app completed 1 module per week on average. Ideal use (fidelity) was defined as completing 4 modules per week and having a monthly SUD-related visit; 1 (6%) patient met these criteria for 10 weeks (of the 12-week prescription period). A total of 5 (28%) patients had prescriptions while HC was available, 2 (11%) were successfully contacted, and both declined coaching. Clinicians reported competing clinical priorities, technical challenges, and logistically complex workflows in part because the apps required a prescription. Some pilot activities were impacted by staff turnover that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. The facilitators to implementation were high engagement and the perception that the apps could meet patient needs. ConclusionsThe pilot study encountered the barriers to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in a real-world primary care setting, especially staffing shortages, turnover, and competing priorities for clinic teams. The larger randomized trial will clarify the extent to which PF and HC improve the implementation of digital therapeutics. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04907045; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04907045

Abstract Background Virtual patient engagement has become more common in recent years. Emerging research suggests virtual engagement can increase accessibility for patients managing long-term health conditions and those living in larger geographic areas, but it can also be challenging to establish relationships and maintain engagement over time. Little is known about virtual engagement lasting more than two years, nor about the specific contributions of patients to virtual engagement projects. Here we describe a project where virtual engagement was sustained over a long period of time (3.5 years), measure patients’ contributions to the work, and describe the facilitators and challenges of the project using the Valuing All Voices (VAV) patient engagement framework. Methods Five researchers recruited four patient partners living with persistent pain to work together virtually on a project to improve care for others with long-term pain. Researchers documented engagement activities and patient partner contributions and categorized them using Carman et al.’s 3 types of engagement. They also collected data via semi-structured group interviews with patient partners about the facilitators and challenges of the project using the VAV framework. Results In 3.5 years, patient partners contributed 487 h to the project, averaging 3.0 h per month, and participated in 40 meetings. They contributed to 17 products for patients, health care teams, and researchers. Most products (12 of 17) were created using the more in-depth engagement approaches of involvement or partnership and shared leadership. The group identified facilitators of the project across the five VAV domains of relationship-building, trust, understanding & acceptance, education & communication, and self-awareness, as well as some specific challenges such as keeping track of products across virtual platforms and managing the high volume of project information. Conclusions Long-term virtual patient engagement is feasible and can use more in-depth engagement approaches. Additionally, it can result in substantial contributions from patients in terms of time, effort, and products. These findings can inform future long-term virtual patient engagement efforts and provide insight into how researchers can structure their activities to encourage and maintain deep engagement over time.

Abstract Background Experts recommend that treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) be integrated into primary care. The Digital Therapeutics for Opioids and Other SUD (DIGITS) Trial tests strategies for implementing reSET® and reSET-O®, which are prescription digital therapeutics for SUD and opioid use disorder, respectively, that include the community reinforcement approach, contingency management, and fluency training to reinforce concept mastery. This purpose of this trial is to test whether two implementation strategies improve implementation success (Aim 1) and achieve better population-level cost effectiveness (Aim 2) over a standard implementation approach. Methods/Design The DIGITS Trial is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized trial. It examines outcomes of implementation strategies, rather than studying clinical outcomes of a digital therapeutic. It includes 22 primary care clinics from a healthcare system in Washington State and patients with unhealthy substance use who visit clinics during an active implementation period (up to one year). Primary care clinics implemented reSET and reSET-O using a multifaceted implementation strategy previously used by clinical leaders to roll-out smartphone apps (“standard implementation” including discrete strategies such as clinician training, electronic health record tools). Clinics were randomized as 21 sites in a 2x2 factorial design to receive up to two added implementation strategies: (1) practice facilitation, and/or (2) health coaching. Outcome data are derived from electronic health records and logs of digital therapeutic usage. Aim 1’s primary outcomes include reach of the digital therapeutics to patients and fidelity of patients’ use of the digital therapeutics to clinical recommendations. Substance use and engagement in SUD care are additional outcomes. In Aim 2, population-level cost effectiveness analysis will inform the economic benefit of the implementation strategies compared to standard implementation. Implementation is monitored using formative evaluation, and sustainment will be studied for up to one year using qualitative and quantitative research methods. Discussion The DIGITS Trial uses an experimental design to test whether implementation strategies increase and improve the delivery of digital therapeutics for SUDs when embedded in a large healthcare system. It will provide data on the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05160233 (Submitted 12/3/2021). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05160233