Search

Background: The Thrive program is an evidenced-based care model for Medicaid-insured adults in the hospital-to-home transition. A substantial portion of Thrive participants live with serious mental illness (SMI), yet Thrive's efficacy has not been tested among these patients. Purpose: To compare 30-day postdischarge outcomes between Thrive participants with and without SMI and explore Thrive's appropriateness and acceptability among participants with SMI. Methods: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 252 (62 with SMI) Thrive participants discharged from an academic medical center from February 2021 to August 2023. Interviews of participants with SMI were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Results: Participants with and without SMI experienced similar rates of 30-day readmissions, emergency room visits, and postdischarge follow-up visits, with these differences being nonsignificant. Participants with SMI were highly satisfied with Thrive's care coordination and attention to social needs, yet participants suggested stronger connections to behavioral health care. Conclusions: Participants with and without SMI benefit equitably from Thrive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain affects 100 million Americans and is most often treated in primary care, where the health care provider shortage remains a challenge. Nurse practitioners (NPs) represent a growing solution, yet their patterns of chronic pain management are understudied. Additionally, prescriptive authority limitations in many states limit NPs from prescribing opioids and often exist due to concerns of NP-driven opioid overprescribing. Little evidence on NP pain management prescribing patterns exists to address these issues. Objective: Systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to examine opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns of physicians, NPs, and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care. Eligible studies scored >=60% on the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklist. Data sources: Searches within PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Conclusions: Three themes were elucidated: 1) opioid prescribing in primary care, 2) similarities and differences in opioid prescribing by provider type, and 3) nonopioid pain management strategies. All provider groups had similar opioid prescribing patterns, although NPs and PAs may be slightly less likely to prescribe opioids than physicians. Although some studies suggested that NPs/PAs had higher opioid prescribing rates compared with physicians, methodological flaws may undermine these conclusions. Evidence is also lacking on nonopioid prescribing patterns across disciplines. Implications for practice: Nurse practitioner/PA prescriptive authority limitations may not be as effective of a solution for addressing opioid overprescribing as transdisciplinary interventions targeting the highest subset of opioid prescribers. Future research should examine prescribing patterns of nonopioid, including nonpharmacologic, therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People diagnosed with a co-occurring serious mental illness (SMI; ie, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia) but hospitalized for a nonpsychiatric condition experience higher rates of readmissions and other adverse outcomes, in part due to poorly coordinated care transitions. Current hospital-to-home transitional care programs lack a focus on the integrated social, medical, and mental health needs of these patients. The Thrive clinical pathway provides transitional care support for patients insured by Medicaid with multiple chronic conditions by focusing on posthospitalization medical concerns and the social determinants of health. This study seeks to evaluate an adapted version of Thrive that also meets the needs of patients with co-occurring SMI discharged from a nonpsychiatric hospitalization., Objective: This study aimed to (1) engage staff and community advisors in participatory implementation processes to adapt the Thrive clinical pathway for all Medicaid-insured patients, including those with SMI; (2) examine utilization outcomes (ie, Thrive referral, readmission, emergency department [ED], primary, and specialty care visits) for Medicaid-insured individuals with and without SMI who receive Thrive compared with usual care; and (3) evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and cost-benefit of an adapted Thrive clinical pathway that is tailored for Medicaid-insured patients with co-occurring SMI., Methods: This study will use a prospective, type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial design. We will randomize the initiation of Thrive referrals at the unit level. Data collection will occur over 24 months. Inclusion criteria for Thrive referral include individuals who (1) are Medicaid insured, dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, or Medicaid eligible; (2) reside in Philadelphia; (3) are admitted for a medical diagnosis for over 24 hours at the study hospital; (4) are planned for discharge to home; (5) agree to receive home care services; and (6) are aged ≥18 years. Primary analyses will use a mixed-effects negative binomial regression model to evaluate readmission and ED utilization, comparing those with and without SMI who receive Thrive to those with and without SMI who receive usual care. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, analyses will be conducted simultaneously for the survey and interview data of patients, clinicians, and health care system leaders. The cost of Thrive will be calculated from budget monitoring data for the research budget, the cost of staff time, and average Medicaid facility fee payments., Results: This research project was funded in October 2023. Data collection will occur from April 2024 through December 2025. Results are anticipated to be published in 2025-2027., Conclusions: We anticipate that patients with and without co-occurring SMI will benefit from the adapted Thrive clinical pathway. We also anticipate the adapted version of Thrive to be deemed feasible, acceptable, and appropriate by patients, clinicians, and health system leaders., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06203509; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06203509., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/64575., (©J Margo Brooks Carthon, Heather Brom, Kelvin Eyram Amenyedor, Michael O Harhay, Marsha Grantham-Murillo, Jacqueline Nikpour, Karen B Lasater, Daniela Golinelli, Pamela Z Cacchione, Amanda P Bettencourt. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 12.11.2024.)

Background: The Thrive program is an evidenced-based care model for Medicaid-insured adults in the hospital-to-home transition. A substantial portion of Thrive participants live with serious mental illness (SMI), yet Thrive's efficacy has not been tested among these patients., Purpose: To compare 30-day postdischarge outcomes between Thrive participants with and without SMI and explore Thrive's appropriateness and acceptability among participants with SMI., Methods: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 252 (62 with SMI) Thrive participants discharged from an academic medical center from February 2021 to August 2023. Interviews of participants with SMI were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis., Results: Participants with and without SMI experienced similar rates of 30-day readmissions, emergency room visits, and postdischarge follow-up visits, with these differences being nonsignificant. Participants with SMI were highly satisfied with Thrive's care coordination and attention to social needs, yet participants suggested stronger connections to behavioral health care., Conclusions: Participants with and without SMI benefit equitably from Thrive., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest for the current study., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

COVID-19 mortality disparities for socially vulnerable patients, including individuals facing higher levels of poverty, housing insecurity, and limited transportation, have been linked to the quality of hospitals where they received care. Few studies have examined the specific aspects of hospitals, such as nursing care quality, that may underlie disparate outcomes. Recent studies suggest that nursing resources in the pre-pandemic period were associated with mortality during the COVID-19 public health emergency. In this study, we examined the association between social vulnerability, the nurse work environment, and inpatient mortality among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of linked survey data collected from nurses working in New York and Illinois, Medicare claims, American Hospital Association Annual Survey data, and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Higher mortality rates were observed among patients in the highest quartile of social vulnerability compared to the lowest (6870 [25.8%] vs 5019 [19.1%]; P < .001). Using multivariable regression modeling, a statistically significant interaction was found between the highest SVI quartile and the nurse work environment (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; P < .05), implying that the effect of a higher quality nurse work environment on mortality was decidedly greater for patients in the highest quartile (odds ratio = 0.86 × 0.94 = 0.80) compared to patients in the lowest quartile (OR, 0.94). Post-hoc analyses demonstrated that hundreds of COVID-19 related deaths among the most socially vulnerable patients may have been avoided if all hospitals had a high-quality nurse work environment. Strengthening the quality of nurse work environments may help to reduce health disparities and should be considered in public health emergency planning, specifically in hospitals serving socially vulnerable communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.