The risks of opioid treatment: Perspectives of primary care practitioners and patients from safety-net clinics.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hurstak EE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5568522 | biostudies-other | 2017 Apr-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.
| S-EPMC6222992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for new strategies to improve the success of obesity treatment within the primary care setting.ObjectiveTo determine if patients offered low out-of-pocket cost weight management tools achieved more weight loss compared to usual care.DesignTwelve-month pragmatic clinical weight loss trial with a registry-based comparator group performed in primary care clinics of an urban safety-net hospital.ParticipantsFrom a large clinical registry, we randomly selected 428 patients to have the opportunity to receive the intervention.InterventionsMedical weight management tools-partial meal replacements, recreation center vouchers, pharmacotherapy, commercial weight loss program vouchers, and a group behavioral weight loss program-for $5 or $10 monthly. Patients chose their tools, could switch tools, and could add a second tool at 6 months.Main measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of intervention-eligible patients who achieved ≥ 5% weight loss. The main secondary outcome was the proportion of on-treatment patients who achieved ≥ 5% weight loss.Key resultsOverall, 71.3% (305 of 428) had available weight measurement data/PCP visit data to observe the primary outcome. At 12 months, 23.3% (71 of 305) of intervention-eligible participants and 15.7% (415 of 2640) of registry-based comparators had achieved 5% weight loss (p < 0.001). Of the on-treatment participants, 34.5% (39 of 113) achieved 5% weight loss. Mean percentage weight loss was - 3.15% ± 6.41% for on-treatment participants and - 0.30% ± 6.10% for comparators (p < 0.001). The initially preferred tools were meal replacements, pharmacotherapy, and recreation center passes.ConclusionsAccess to a variety of low out-of-pocket cost weight management tools within primary care resulted in ≥ 5% body weight loss in approximately one quarter of low-income patients with obesity.Trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922934.
| S-EPMC6848318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveLittle is known about the role of primary care safety-net clinics, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, in providing mental health services to youths. This study examined correlates and quality of mental health care for youths treated in these settings.MethodsMedicaid claims data (2008-2010) from nine states were used to identify youths initiating medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (N=6,433) and youths with an incident depression diagnosis (N=13,209). The authors identified youths who received no ADHD or depression-related visits in a primary care safety-net clinic, some (but less than most) visits in these clinics, and most visits in these clinics. Using bivariate and regression analyses, they examined correlates of mental health treatment in these settings and whether mental health visits in these settings were associated with quality measures.ResultsOnly 13.5% of the ADHD cohort and 7.2% of the depression cohort sought any ADHD- or depression-related visits in primary care safety-net clinics. Residence in a county with a higher (versus lower) percentage of residents living in an urban area was negatively associated with receiving the majority of mental health visits in these settings (p<0.05). Compared with youths with no visits in these settings, youths who received most of their mental health treatment in these settings received lower-quality care on five of six measures (p<0.01).ConclusionsAs investment in the expansion of mental health services in primary care safety-net clinics grows, future research should assess whether these resources translate into improved mental health care access and quality for Medicaid-enrolled youths.
| S-EPMC8052634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of safety-net use for primary care among non-Medicaid insured adults (i.e., those with private insurance or Medicare).MethodsCross-sectional analysis using the 2006-2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, annual probability samples of outpatient visits in the U.S. We estimated national prevalence of safety-net visits using weighted percentages to account for the complex survey design. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to examine characteristics associated with safety-net clinic use.ResultsMore than one-third (35.0%) of all primary care safety-net clinic visits were among adults with non-Medicaid primary insurance, representing 6,642,000 annual visits nationally. The strongest predictors of safety-net use among non-Medicaid insured adults were: being from a high-poverty neighborhood (AOR 9.53, 95% CI 4.65-19.53), being dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid (AOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.38-3.30), and being black (AOR 1.97, 95% CI 1.06-3.66) or Hispanic (AOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.32-3.93). Compared to non-safety-net users, non-Medicaid insured adults who used safety-net clinics had a higher prevalence of diabetes (23.5% vs. 15.0%, p<0.001), hypertension (49.4% vs. 36.0%, p<0.001), multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions; 53.5% vs. 40.9%, p<0.001) and polypharmacy (≥4 medications; 48.8% vs. 34.0%, p<0.001). Nearly one-third (28.9%) of Medicare beneficiaries in the safety-net were dual eligibles, compared to only 6.8% of Medicare beneficiaries in non-safety-net clinics (p<0.001).ConclusionsSafety net clinics are important primary care delivery sites for non-Medicaid insured minority and low-income populations with a high burden of chronic illness. The critical role of safety-net clinics in care delivery is likely to persist despite expanded insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
| S-EPMC4814117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAfter decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing.ObjectiveTo evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013-2014.DesignRetrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies.Patients273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017-2018.InterventionsPolicies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases.Main measuresOpioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview.Key resultsThe interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: -52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: -109.9, -10.6]; year 2: -106.2 MME [-195.0, -34.6]; year 3: -98.6 MME [-198.7, -23.9]; year 4: -72.6 MME [-160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [-0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year.ConclusionsClinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.
| S-EPMC8738839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems.MethodsWe interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews.ResultsCOVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions.ConclusionsThis study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.
| S-EPMC10067010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth centers provide care to vulnerable and high-need populations. Recent investments have promoted use of health information technology (HIT) capabilities for improving care coordination and quality of care in health centers. This study examined factors associated with use of these HIT capabilities and the association between these capabilities and quality of care in a census of health centers in the United States.MethodsCross-sectional secondary data from the 2015 Health Resources and Services Administration's Uniform Data System was used to examine 6 measures of HIT capability related to care coordination and clinical decision support and 16 measures of quality (12 process measures, 3 outcome measures, 1 composite measure) for health centers in the United States. Adjusted logistic regressions were used to examine health center characteristics associated with use of HIT capabilities, and adjusted linear regressions were used to examine associations between HIT capabilities and quality of care.ResultsMany health centers reported using HIT for care coordination activities, including coordinating enabling services (67.3%) or engaging patients (81.0%). Health center size and medical home recognition were associated with significantly greater odds of using HIT for enabling services and engaging patients. These HIT capabilities were associated with higher overall quality and higher rates of six process measures (adult screening and maternal and child health) and hemoglobin A1c control.ConclusionUse of HIT for such activities as arranging enabling services and engaging patients are underleveraged tools for care coordination. There may be opportunities to further improve quality of care for vulnerable patients by promoting health centers' use of these HIT capabilities.
| S-EPMC6996474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SignificanceGuidelines urge primary care practices to routinely provide tobacco cessation care (i.e., assess tobacco use, provide brief cessation advice, and refer to cessation support). This study evaluates the impact of a systems-based strategy to provide tobacco cessation care in eight primary care clinics serving low-income patients.MethodsA non-randomized stepped wedge study design was used to implement an intervention consisting of (1) changes to the electronic health record (EHR) referral functionality and (2) expansion of staff roles to provide brief advice to quit; assess readiness to quit; offer a referral to tobacco cessation counseling; and sign the referral order. Outcomes assessed from the EHR include performance of tobacco cessation care tasks, referral contact, and enrollment rates for the quitline (QL) and in-house Freedom from Smoking (FFS) program. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) methods were used to compute odds ratios contrasting the pre-implementation vs. 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-implementation periods.ResultsOf the 176,061 visits, 26.1% were by identified tobacco users. All indicators significantly increased at each time period evaluated post-implementation. In comparison with the pre-intervention period, assessing smoking status (26.6% vs. 55.7%; OR = 3.7, CI = 3.6-3.9), providing advice (44.8% vs. 88.7%; OR = 7.8, CI = 6.6-9.1), assessing readiness to quit (15.8% vs. 55.0%; OR = 6.2, CI = 5.4-7.0), and acceptance of a referral to tobacco cessation counseling (0.5% vs. 30.9%; OR = 81.0, CI = 11.4-575.8) remained significantly higher 12 months post-intervention. For the QL and FFS, respectively, there were 1223 and 532 referrals; 324 (31.1%) and 103 (24.7%) were contacted; 241 (74.4%) and 72 (69.6%) enrolled; and 195 (80.9%) and 14 (19.4%) received at least one counseling session.ConclusionsThis system change intervention that includes an EHR-supported role expansion substantially increased the provision of tobacco cessation care and improvements were sustained beyond 1 year. This approach has the potential to greatly increase the number of individuals referred for tobacco cessation counseling.
| S-EPMC7661631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between medical home transformation and patient experience of chronic illness care.Study settingThirteen safety net clinics located in five states enrolled in the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative.Study designRepeated cross-sectional surveys of randomly selected adult patients were completed at baseline (n = 303) and postintervention (n = 271).Data collection methodsQuestions from the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) (100-point scale) were used to capture patient experience of chronic illness care. Generalized estimating equation methods were used to (i) estimate how differential improvement in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) capability affected differences in modified PACIC scores between baseline and postintervention, and (ii) to examine cross-sectional associations between PCMH capability and modified PACIC scores for patients at completion of the intervention.Principal findingsIn adjusted analyses, high PCMH improvement (above median) was only marginally associated with a larger increase in total modified PACIC score (adjusted ? = 7.7, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -1.1 to 16.5). At completion of the intervention, a 10-point higher PCMH capability score was associated with an 8.9-point higher total modified PACIC score (95 percent CI: 3.1-14.7) and higher scores in four of five subdomains (patient activation, delivery system design, contextual care, and follow-up/coordination).ConclusionsWe report that sustained, 5-year medical home transformation may be associated with modest improvement in patient experience of chronic illness care for vulnerable populations in safety net clinics.
| S-EPMC5785313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prescription opioid use disorder and overdose have risen substantially in the U.S. Primary care physicians are critical to many ongoing and proposed efforts to address the prescription opioid epidemic. Yet, little is known about their attitudes and beliefs surrounding this issue. This study aimed to determine primary care physicians' perceptions of the seriousness of the problem, its causes, groups responsible for addressing it, attitudes toward individuals with prescription opioid use disorder, beliefs about the effectiveness of addiction treatments, and support for various policies. METHODS:We conducted a national web-based survey in 2014 among 1010 primary care physicians. We gauged responses to attitude and belief items on 7-point Likert scales. We examined the proportion agreeing with each statement, and whether responses differed among physicians prescribing higher and lower volumes of opioids. RESULTS:Respondents largely attributed the causes of prescription opioid use disorder to individual-oriented factors and certain physician-oriented factors, and believed that individuals with prescription opioid use disorder and physicians were primarily responsible for addressing the problem. Negative attitudes toward people with prescription opioid use disorder were prevalent, but a majority believed that treatment could be effective. There was majority support for all measured policies, with the highest levels of support for policies to monitor prescribing among patients potentially at risk for an opioid use disorder and to improve physician education and training. CONCLUSIONS:Given strong endorsement of recommended policies, physician support could be leveraged to advance efforts to curb prescription opioid use disorder and overdose.
| S-EPMC4939126 | biostudies-literature