BackgroundSystematic implementation of guidelines for opioid therapy management in chronic non-cancer pain can reduce opioid-related harms. However, implementation of guideline-recommended practices in routine care is subpar. The goal of this quality improvement (QI) project is to assess whether a clinic-tailored QI intervention improves the implementation of a health system-wide, guideline-driven policy on opioid prescribing in primary care. This manuscript describes the protocol for this QI project.MethodsA health system with 28 primary care clinics caring for approximately 294,000 primary care patients developed and implemented a guideline-driven policy on long-term opioid therapy in adults with opioid-treated chronic non-cancer pain (estimated N = 3980). The policy provided multiple recommendations, including the universal use of treatment agreements, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and standardized documentation of the chronic pain diagnosis and treatment plan. The project team drew upon existing guidelines, feedback from end-users, experts and health system leadership to develop a robust QI intervention, targeting clinic-level implementation of policy-directed practices. The resulting multi-pronged QI intervention included clinic-wide and individual clinician-level educational interventions. The QI intervention will augment the health system’s “routine rollout” method, consisting of a single educational presentation to clinicians in group settings and a separate presentation for staff. A stepped-wedge design will enable 9 primary care clinics to receive the intervention and assessment of within-clinic and between-clinic changes in adherence to the policy items measured by clinic-level electronic health record-based measures and process measures of the experience with the intervention.DiscussionDeveloping methods for a health system-tailored QI intervention required a multi-step process to incorporate end-user feedback and account for the needs of targeted clinic team members. Delivery of such tailored QI interventions has the potential to enhance uptake of opioid therapy management policies in primary care. Results from this study are anticipated to elucidate the relative value of such QI activities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3227-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) in the United States cause many preventable deaths each year. Finding effective ways to manage SUDs is vital to improving outcomes for individuals seeking treatment. This has increased interest in using e-health technologies in behavioral healthcare settings. This research is part of a larger study evaluating the efficacy of the NIATx coaching intervention for implementing RISE Iowa, an e-health patient recovery app, in SUD treatment organizations and seeks to examine clinician perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 clinicians from 9 different intervention sites involved in the study. Results: Major barriers to implementing e-health technology include inability to access the technology, lack of time for both patients and clinicians, and a perceived lack of patient motivation to make changes. Facilitators to implementation include collaboration with other staff using e-health technology and integrating technology use into typical workflows. Conclusions: Implementation of e-health technology in SUD treatment will require integrating the technology into clinical workflows and improving patient access to the technology.

Background: Teleophthalmology is a validated method for diabetic eye screening that is underutilized in U.S. primary care clinics. Even when made available to patients, its long-term effectiveness for increasing screening rates is often limited. Introduction: We hypothesized that a stakeholder-based implementation program could increase teleophthalmology use and sustain improvements in diabetic eye screening. Materials and Methods: We used the NIATx Model to test a stakeholder-based teleophthalmology implementation program, I-SITE at one primary care clinic (Main) and compared teleophthalmology use and diabetic eye screening rates with those of other primary care clinics (Outreach) within a U.S. multipayer health system where teleophthalmology was underutilized. Results: Teleophthalmology use increased post-I-SITE implementation (odds ratio [OR] = 5.73 [p < 0.001]), and was greater at the Main than at the Outreach clinics (OR = 10.0 vs. 1.69, p < 0.001). Overall diabetic eye screening rates maintained an increase from 47.4% at baseline to 60.2% and 64.1% at 1 and 2 years post-I-SITE implementation, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients who were younger (OR = 0.98 per year of age, p = 0.02) and men (OR = 1.98, p = 0.002) were more likely to use teleophthalmology than in-person dilated eye examinations for diabetic eye screening. Discussion: Our stakeholder-based implementation program achieved a significant increase in overall teleophthalmology use and maintained increased post-teleophthalmology diabetic eye screening rates. Conclusion: Stakeholder-based implementation may increase the long-term reach and effectiveness of teleophthalmology to reduce vision loss from diabetes. Our approach may improve integration of telehealth interventions into primary care.

Background Clinician utilization of practice guidelines can reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing and harm in chronic non-cancer pain; yet, implementation of “opioid guidelines” is subpar. We hypothesized that a multi-component quality improvement (QI) augmentation of “routine” system-level implementation efforts would increase clinician adherence to the opioid guideline-driven policy recommendations. Methods Opioid policy was implemented system-wide in 26 primary care clinics. A convenience sample of 9 clinics received the QI augmentation (one-hour academic detailing; 2 online educational modules; 4–6 monthly one-hour practice facilitation sessions) in this non-randomized stepped-wedge QI project. The QI participants were volunteer clinic staff. The target patient population was adults with chronic non-cancer pain treated with long-term opioids. The outcomes included the clinic-level percentage of target patients with a current treatment agreement (primary outcome), rates of opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse risk screening, and prescription drug monitoring database check; additional measures included daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED), and the percentages of all target patients and patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED. T-test, mixed-regression and stepped-wedge-based analyses evaluated the QI impact, with significance and effect size assessed with two-tailed p < 0.05, 95% confidence intervals and/or Cohen’s d. Results Two-hundred-fifteen QI participants, a subset of clinical staff, received at least one QI component; 1255 patients in the QI and 1632 patients in the 17 comparison clinics were prescribed long-term opioids. At baseline, more QI than comparison clinic patients were screened for depression (8.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.019) and prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED (23.0% vs 15.5%, p = 0.038). The stepped-wedge analysis did not show statistically significant changes in outcomes in the QI clinics, when accounting for the comparison clinics’ trends. The Cohen’s d values favored the QI clinics in all outcomes except opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed that patients prescribed ≥90 mg/day MED in the QI compared to comparison clinics improved urine drug screening rates (38.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.02), but not other outcomes (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions Augmenting routine policy implementation with targeted QI intervention, delivered to volunteer clinic staff, did not additionally improve clinic-level, opioid guideline-concordant care metrics. However, the observed effect sizes suggested this approach may be effective, especially in higher-risk patients, if broadly implemented. Trial registration Not applicable.

Background: Clinician utilization of practice guidelines can reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing and harm in chronic non-cancer pain; yet, implementation of “opioid guidelines” is subpar. We hypothesized that a multi-component quality improvement (QI) augmentation of “routine” system-level implementation efforts would increase clinician adherence to the opioid guideline-driven policy recommendations. Methods: Opioid policy was implemented system-wide in 26 primary care clinics. A convenience sample of 9 clinics received the QI augmentation (one-hour academic detailing; 2 online educational modules; 4-6 monthly one-hour practice facilitation sessions) in this non-randomized stepped-wedge QI project. The QI participants were volunteer clinic staff. The target patient population was adults with chronic non-cancer pain treated with long-term opioids. The outcomes included the clinic-level percentage of target patients with a current treatment agreement (primary outcome), rates of opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing, urine drug testing, depression and opioid misuse screening, and prescription drug monitoring database check; additional measures included daily morphine-equivalent dose (MED), and the percentages of all target patients and patients prescribed ≥90mg/day MED. T-test, mixed-regression and stepped-wedge-based analyses evaluated the QI impact, with significance and effect size assessed with two-tailed p<0.05, 95% confidence intervals and/or Cohen’s d. Results: Two-hundred-fifteen QI participants, a subset of clinical staff, received at least one QI component; 1,255 patients in the QI and 1,632 patients in the 17 comparison clinics were prescribed long-term opioids. At baseline, more QI than comparison clinic patients were screened for depression (8.1% vs 1.1%, p=0.019) and prescribed ≥90mg/day MED (23.0% vs 15.5%, p=0.038). The stepped-wedge analysis did not show statistically significant change in outcomes in the QI clinics, when accounting for the comparison clinics’ trends. The Cohen’s d values favored the QI clinics in all outcomes except opioid-benzodiazepine co-prescribing. Subgroup analysis showed that patients prescribed ≥90mg/day MED in the QI compared to comparison clinics improved urine drug screening rates (38.8% vs 19.1%, p=0.02), but not other outcomes (p³0.05). Conclusions: Augmenting routine policy implementation with targeted QI intervention, delivered to volunteer clinic staff, did not additionally improve clinic-level, opioid guideline-concordant care metrics. However, the observed effect sizes suggested this approach may be effective, especially in higher-risk patients, if broadly implemented.Trial Registration – Not applicable