Dataset Information

A Pharmacist-Led Program to Taper Opioid Use at Kaiser Permanente Northwest: Rationale, Design, and Evaluation.

ABSTRACT: IntroductionPrimary care practitioners (PCPs) are concerned about adverse effects and poor outcomes of opioid use but may find opioid tapering difficult because of a lack of pain management training or time constraints limiting patient counseling. In 2010, Kaiser Permanente Northwest implemented a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program—Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM)—to address high rates of opioid use, alleviate PCPs’ workload demands, and improve patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo describe the rationale, structure, and delivery of this unique pharmacist-led program, which partners with PCPs and provides individualized care to help patients reduce opioid use, and the Facilitating Lower Opioid Amounts through Tapering study, which examines the program’s effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation.ResultsThe STORM program includes a pain medicine physician, a social worker or nurse, and pharmacists who have received specialized clinical and communications training. The program has a 2-fold role: 1) to provide PCP education about pain management and opioid use and 2) to offer clinician and patient support with opioid tapering and pain management. After program training, PCPs are equipped to discuss the need for tapering with a patient and to refer to the program. Program pharmacists provide a range of services, including opioid taper plans, nonopioid pain management recommendations, and taper-support outreach to patients.DiscussionThe STORM program provides individualized care to assist patients with opioid tapering while reducing the burden on PCPs.ConclusionThe STORM program may be a valuable addition to health care systems and settings seeking options to address their patients’ opioid tapering needs.

SUBMITTER: Kuntz JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7213382 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Kaiser Permanente model of integrated health delivery is highly regarded for high-quality and efficient health care. Efforts to reproduce Kaiser's success have mostly failed. One factor that has received little attention and that could explain Kaiser's advantage is its commitment to and investment in nursing as a key component of organizational culture and patient-centered care.PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the role of Kaiser's nursing organization in promoting quality of care.MethodologyThis was a cross-sectional analysis of linked secondary data from multiple sources, including a detailed survey of nurses, for 564 adult, general acute care hospitals from California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey in 2006-2007. We used logistic regression models to examine whether patient (mortality and failure-to-rescue) and nurse (burnout, job satisfaction, and intent-to-leave) outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were better than in non-Kaiser hospitals. We then assessed whether differences in nursing explained outcomes differences between Kaiser and other hospitals. Finally, we examined whether Kaiser hospitals compared favorably with hospitals known for having excellent nurse work environments-Magnet hospitals.FindingsPatient and nurse outcomes in Kaiser hospitals were significantly better compared with non-Magnet hospitals. Kaiser hospitals had significantly better nurse work environments, staffing levels, and more nurses with bachelor's degrees. Differences in nursing explained a significant proportion of the Kaiser outcomes advantage. Kaiser hospital outcomes were comparable with Magnet hospitals, where better outcomes have been largely explained by differences in nursing.ImplicationsAn important element in Kaiser's success is its investment in professional nursing, which may not be evident to systems seeking to achieve Kaiser's advantage. Our results suggest that a possible strategy for achieving outcomes like Kaiser may be for hospitals to consider Magnet designation, a proven and cost-effective strategy to improve process of care through investments in nursing.

Project description:BackgroundTo inform Danish health care reform efforts, we compared health care system inputs and performance and assessed the usefulness of these comparisons for informing policy.MethodsRetrospective analysis of secondary data in the Danish Health Care System (DHS) with 5.3 million citizens and the Kaiser Permanente integrated delivery system (KP) with 6.1 million members in California. We used secondary data to compare population characteristics, professional staff, delivery structure, utilisation and quality measures, and direct costs. We adjusted the cost data to increase comparability.ResultsA higher percentage of KP patients had chronic conditions than did patients in the DHS: 6.3% vs. 2.8% (diabetes) and 19% vs. 8.5% (hypertension), respectively. KP had fewer total physicians and staff compared to DHS, with 134 physicians/100,000 individuals versus 311 physicians/100,000 individuals. KP physicians are salaried employees; in contrast, DHS primary care physicians own and run their practices, remunerated by a mixture of capitation and fee-for-service payments, while most specialists are employed at largely public hospitals. Hospitalisation rates and lengths of stay (LOS) were lower in KP, with mean acute admission LOS of 3.9 days versus 6.0 days in the DHS, and, for stroke admissions, 4.2 days versus 23 days. Screening rates also differed: 93% of KP members with diabetes received retinal screening; only 46% of patients in the DHS with diabetes did. Per capita operating expenditures were PPP$1,951 (KP) and PPP $1,845 (DHS).ConclusionCompared to the DHS, KP had a population with more documented disease and higher operating costs, while employing fewer physicians and resources like hospital beds. Observed quality measures also appear higher in KP. However, simple comparisons between health care systems may have limited value without detailed information on mechanisms underlying differences or identifying translatable care improvement strategies. We suggest items for more in-depth analyses that could improve the interpretability of findings and help identify lessons that can be transferred.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In the past decade, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been introduced to medical practice for several indications, with a wide range of dosing regimens. As both over- and under-dosing might lead to life-threatening events, development of methods promoting safe and effective utilization of these agents is imperative. The Hadassah Clinical Pharmacy team initiated a hospital-wide program, for monitoring and promoting safe and effective prescription of DOAC during hospitalization. This study describes the types of drug related problems addressed and the program's performance in terms of consultation rates and physician acceptance. METHODS:Electronic medical records throughout the hospital were screened for DOAC orders. All DOAC orders were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for potentially-inappropriate prescribing. When potentially-inappropriate prescribing or a drug-related problem was identified, the clinical pharmacist provided consultation on management options. In specific cases, additional guidance was provided by coagulation and pharmacology specialists. Data on patient characteristics, clinical pharmacist consultations, and physician response was retrospectively retrieved for the first six months of 2017. Characteristics of patients with and without consultations were compared, consultations were categorized by the recommended management of the drug related problem, and physician acceptance rates were evaluated by category. RESULTS:During the evaluated period, 585 patients with DOAC orders were identified. Patients were evenly distributed by gender, and age averaged 78?years. Most patients received apixaban (75%) followed by rivaroxaban (14%) and dabigatran (11%), and most (63%) received "reduced dose" regimens. Clinical pharmacists provided 258 consultations for 210 patients, regarding anticoagulation management, such that more than one in three patients on DOAC had potentially inappropriate prescribing or drug related problems. Consultations included alerts regarding potentially inappropriate DOAC doses and recommendations to increase (29%) or decrease (5%) the dose, potentially inappropriate concomitant antiplatelet agents (20%), need for DOAC level monitoring (23%), and alerts regarding other drug related problems (23%). More than 70% of recommendations were accepted by the attending physician. CONCLUSION:Due to the complexity of DOAC management, potentially-inappropriate prescribing and drug related problems are common. Multidisciplinary collaborative projects including review and consultation by clinical pharmacists are an effective method of improving management of patients on DOAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03527615 .

Project description:Background/AimsThe Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) Research Program on Genes, Environment, and Health (RPGEH) provides a research resource to support investigations of environmental and genetic factors in the development of a wide variety of conditions. While the resource is still evolving with new data collection, it consists of data from surveys and electronic medical records on over 400,000 adult members of KPNC; biospecimens collected and stored on ~200,000 of these individuals; and data from genome-wide and telomere-length assays on ~110,000 of those who have contributed biospecimens; and linkage of these members to environmental, area-level databases.MethodsThe RPGEH was developed in part with the understanding that it would be made available to the scientific community for appropriate studies. An Access and Collaborations Core has developed procedures for submission of applications for research studies, their review, and decisions on approval and support. Review of proposals by an Applications Review Committee follows a two-step process, with a pre-application to assess feasibility (e.g., adequate numbers of the phenotype: availability of appropriate data, given inclusion criteria) and a full application to assess appropriateness of the study in the RPGEH context. Scientific merit; alignment with RPGEH guiding principles, including ethical, legal, and social implications; consistency with informed consents; potential overlap with prior approvals; and collaboration with a researcher affiliated with the Division of Research are among the criteria for approval. As an alternative for select analyses, genomic and selected phenotypic data will be available in the NIH database of genotypes and phenotypes (dbGaP) for the substantial subset of RPGEH participants who have consented to dbGaP deposition.ResultsAs of October 31, 2012, the RPGEH has received 74 pre-applications and full applications for the use of its resources; only 6 pre-applications were not approved. In 2011–2012, 13 approved applications were funded by NIH and other agencies. Studies currently underway include genome-wide association studies of prostate cancer, bi-polar disorder, multiple sclerosis, and mammographic density.ConclusionsAccess to the unique and outstanding research resources of the RPGEH balances the mission of promoting research with the need to shepherd finite resources and safeguard member confidentiality.

Project description:BackgroundDeaths due to overdose from illicit drugs have risen in Canada, despite various community-led harm reduction programs. There have been limited pharmacist-led inpatient initiatives aimed at reducing opioid harm. The authors' group recently developed and implemented the Medication and Risk Factor Review, Optimize, Refer at Risk Patients, Educate and Plan (MORE) tool, a systematic checklist designed to help pharmacists follow and enhance the safety of in-hospital opioid prescribing.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led opioid stewardship program utilizing the MORE tool in the care of patients at one tertiary teaching hospital.MethodsThis study involved a review of health care records for patients admitted to general surgery and internal medicine clinical teaching units at a tertiary hospital between September 10 and December 31, 2018, for whom opioids were prescribed during the hospital stay. A descriptive data analysis was performed for patients who underwent assessment with the MORE tool.ResultsOf the 210 patients who met the initial eligibility criteria, including in-hospital opioid therapy for at least 3 days, 50 were assessed by a pharmacist using the MORE tool. For 40 (80%) of these patients, the pharmacist recommended an intervention, and 35 (87.5%) of these interventions were accepted by the prescriber. Among all 50 patients, the most common pharmacist interventions were adding or optimizing non-opioid pain medications (23 patients [46%]), decreasing opioid dose or frequency (15 patients [30%]), and adding a bowel regimen (9 patients [18%]).ConclusionsMost patients who underwent assessment by a pharmacist had risk factors for adverse events from opioid prescriptions and/or suboptimal orders and drug combinations. The MORE tool provided a guided approach for pharmacists to make targeted interventions aimed at improving opioid safety. A dedicated opioid stewardship pharmacist might be able to provide additional benefit.

Project description:Background: Given rising morbidity, mortality, and costs due to heart failure (HF), new approaches for prevention are needed. A quantitative risk-based strategy, in line with established guidelines for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention, may efficiently select patients most likely to benefit from intensification of preventive care, but a risk-based strategy has not yet been applied to HF prevention. Methods and Results: The Feasibility of the Implementation of Tools for Heart Failure Risk Prediction (FIT-HF) pilot study will enroll 100 participants free of cardiovascular disease who receive primary care at a single integrated health system and have a 10-year predicted risk of HF of ≥5% based on the previously validated Pooled Cohort equations to Prevent Heart Failure. All participants will complete a health and lifestyle questionnaire and undergo cardiac biomarker (B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTn]) and echocardiography screening at baseline and 1-year follow-up. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to either a pharmacist-led intervention or usual care for 1 year. Participants in the intervention arm will undergo consultation with a pharmacist operating under a collaborative practice agreement with a supervising cardiologist. The pharmacist will perform lifestyle counseling and recommend initiation or intensification of therapies to optimize risk factor (hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol) management according to the most recent clinical practice guidelines. The primary outcome is change in BNP at 1-year, and secondary and exploratory outcomes include changes in hs-cTn, risk factor levels, and cardiac mechanics at follow-up. Feasibility will be examined by monitoring retention rates. Conclusions: The FIT-HF pilot study will offer insight into the feasibility of a strategy of quantitative risk-based enrollment into a pharmacist-led prevention program to reduce heart failure risk. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04684264.

Dataset Information

A Pharmacist-Led Program to Taper Opioid Use at Kaiser Permanente Northwest: Rationale, Design, and Evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets