BackgroundEvidence has continued to accumulate regarding the potential risks of treating chronic pain with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Clinical practice guidelines now encourage clinicians to implement practices designed to reduce opioid-related risks. Yet how clinicians implement these guidelines within the context of the patient encounter has received little attention.ObjectiveThis secondary analysis aimed to identify and describe clinicians’ strategies for managing prescription opioid misuse and aberrant behaviors among patients prescribed LTOT for chronic pain.DesignIndividual interviews guided by a semi-structured interview protocol probed: (1) methods clinicians utilize to reduce prescription opioid misuse and address aberrant opioid-related behaviors; (2) how clinicians respond to misuse; and (3) resources and constraints faced in managing and treating misuse among their patients.ParticipantsInterviews were conducted with 24 physicians and nurse practitioners, representing 22 Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities across the USA, who had one or more patients in their clinical panels who were prescribed LTOT for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.ApproachQualitative content analysis was the analytic approach utilized. A codebook was developed iteratively following group coding and discussion. All transcripts were coded with the finalized codebook. Quotes pertaining to key themes were retrieved and, following careful review, sorted into themes, which were then further categorized into sub-themes. Quotes that exemplified key sub-themes were selected for inclusion.Key ResultsWe detail the challenges clinicians describe in navigating conversations with patients around prescription opioid misuse, which include patient objection as well as clinician ambivalence. We identify verbal heuristics as one strategy clinicians utilize to structure these difficult conversations, and describe four heuristics: setting expectations, following orders, safety, and standardization.ConclusionClinicians frequently use verbal heuristics to routinize and increase the efficiency of care management discussions related to opioid prescribing, redirect responsibility, and defuse the potential emotional charge of the encounter.

From pneumonia to pericarditis, from sepsis to splenic abscess, Streptococcus pneumoniae is the causative agent of a diverse array of pyogenic disease. With the introduction of vaccines and effective antibiotic treatments, the incidence of complicated streptococcal infection has declined. We report a case of S. pneumoniae bacteremia, in the setting of occult sinusitis, complicated by hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and recurrent pneumococcal infection. Although severe streptococcal infection has been associated with immunodeficiency or splenectomy, no such predisposition was identified in our patient. We discuss the association of streptococcal infection with HLH and DIC and review occult sinusitis as a source of pneumococcal bacteremia, with the goal of enhancing the “illness scripts” of general medical practitioners to include such entities.

BackgroundThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an enhanced primary care model that aims to improve quality of care. Over the past several years, the PCMH model has been adopted by Medicare and private payers, which offer financial resources and technical assistance to participating practices. However, few studies have examined provider experiences and perspectives on the adoption of payer-based PCMH models in different practice settings.ObjectiveThe goal of this qualitative study was to analyze how providers experienced specific elements of a payer-based PCMH model and identify cross-cutting themes that can be applied to other payer-based PCMH initiatives.DesignObservational qualitative study.ParticipantsA total of 65 individuals (which includes 57 primary care physicians) participated in focus group sessions. Telephone interviews were conducted with an additional 14 physicians and 2 practice administrators.ApproachInterviews and focus groups were recorded after obtaining the informed consent of participants. Written transcripts from the recordings were then imported into NVivo 11 for subsequent coding and qualitative analysis of themes.Key ResultsWe found that nurse care coordinators (NCCs) were the single most valuable and visible program element. Individual care plans served as effective tools of communication between the NCC and physician on patient care management goals and issues. The online data portal was viewed as the least valuable element. With regard to cross-cutting themes, some providers expressed a strained relationship with CareFirst due to communication challenges, a lack of trust, and differing priorities in selecting patients for care plans.ConclusionNurse care coordinators and the targeted use of individualized care plans are essential components in a payer-based PCMH program. Improving communication and trust in data reports are critical for effective implementation. Future research should examine provider experiences in other payer-based PCMH programs to see how interactions with payers affect program implementation.

BackgroundIn countries with public health system, hospital bed reductions and increasing social and medical frailty have led to the phenomenon of “outliers” or “outlying hospital in-patients.” They are often medical patients who, because of unavailability of beds in their clinically appropriate ward, are admitted wherever unoccupied beds are. The present work is aimed to systematically review literature about quality and safety of care for patients admitted to clinically inappropriate wards.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of studies investigating outliers, published in peer-reviewed journals with no time restrictions. Search and screening were conducted by two independent researchers (MLR and ER). Studies were considered potentially eligible for this systematic review if aimed to assess the quality and/or the safety of care for patients admitted to clinically inappropriate units. Our search was supplemented by a hand search of references of included studies. Given the heterogeneity of studies, results were analyzed thematically. We used PRISMA guidelines to report our findings.ResultsWe collected 17 eligible papers and grouped them into six thematic categories. Despite their methodological limits, the included studies show increased trends in mortality and readmissions among outliers. Quality of care and patient safety are compromised as patients and health professionals declare and risk analysis displays. Reported solutions are often multicomponent, stress early discharge but have not been investigated in the control group.ConclusionsPublished literature cannot definitely conclude on the quality and safety of care for patients admitted to clinically inappropriate wards. As they may represent a serious threat for quality and safety, and moreover often neglected and under valued, well-designed and powered prospective studies are urgently needed.

BackgroundMentoring’s success has been attributed to individualised matching, holistic mentoring relationships (MRs) and personalised mentoring environments (MEs). Whilst there is growing data on matching and MRs, a dearth of ME data has hindered development of mentoring programme. Inspired by studies likening MEs to learning environments (LEs) and data highlighting common characteristics between the two, this systematic review scrutinises reports on LEs to extrapolate the findings to the ME context to provide a better understanding of ME and their role in the mentoring process.MethodsUsing identical search strategies, 6 reviewers carried out independent literature reviews of LEs in clinical medicine published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 using PubMed, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Scopus databases. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis was adopted to circumnavigate LE’s evolving, context-specific, goal-sensitive, learner-tutor relationally dependent nature.ResultsA total of 4574 abstracts were identified, 90 articles were reviewed, and 58 full-text articles were thematically analysed. The two themes identified were LE structure and LE culture. LE structure regards the framework that guides interactions within the LE. LE culture concerns the values and practices influencing learner-tutor-host organisation interactions.DiscussionLE is the product of culture and structure that influence and are influenced by the tutor-learner-host organisation relationship. LE structure guides the evolving tutor-learner-host organisation relationship whilst the LE culture nurtures it and oversees the LE structure. Similarities between LEs and MEs allow LE data to inform programme designers of ME’s role in mentoring’s success.

BackgroundInadequate diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding in primary care are an important source of medical errors. Delays appear particularly common in evaluation of rectal bleeding. Comparing pursuit and completion of diagnostic testing for these two conditions within the same practice settings could help highlight barriers and inform interventions.ObjectivesTo examine processes undertaken for diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding within the same practices and to compare them with regard to (a) the likelihood that diagnostic tests are ordered according to guidelines and (b) the timeliness of order placement and completion.DesignA retrospective cohort study using explicit chart abstraction methods.ParticipantsThree hundred women aged 30–80 presenting with breast lumps and 300 men and women aged 40–80 years presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices, 2012–2016.Main MeasuresRates and timing of test ordering and completion and patterns of visits and communications.Key ResultsAt initial presentation, physicians ordered recommended imaging or procedures at higher rates for patients with breast lumps compared to those with rectal bleeding (97% vs. 86% of patients recommended to receive imaging or endoscopy; p?

ObjectivesNon-pharmacological treatment options for common conditions such as chronic pain, anxiety, and depression are being given increased consideration in healthcare, especially given the recent emphasis to address the opioid crisis. One set of non-pharmacological treatment options are evidence-based complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as yoga, acupuncture, and meditation. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the nation’s largest healthcare system, has been at the forefront of implementing CIH approaches, given their patients’ high prevalence of pain, anxiety, and depression. We aimed to conduct the first national survey of veterans’ interest in and use of CIH approaches.MethodsUsing a large national convenience sample of veterans who regularly use the VHA, we conducted the first national survey of veterans’ interest in, frequency of and reasons for use of, and satisfaction with 26 CIH approaches (n?=?3346, 37% response rate) in July 2017.ResultsIn the past year, 52% used any CIH approach, with 44% using massage therapy, 37% using chiropractic, 34% using mindfulness, 24% using other meditation, and 25% using yoga. For nine CIH approaches, pain and stress reduction/relaxation were the two most frequent reasons veterans gave for using them. Overall, 84% said they were interested in trying/learning more about at least one CIH approach, with about half being interested in six individual CIH approaches (e.g., massage therapy, chiropractic, acupuncture, acupressure, reflexology, and progressive relaxation). Veterans appeared to be much more likely to use each CIH approach outside the VHA vs. within the VHA.ConclusionsVeterans report relatively high past-year use of CIH approaches and many more report interest in CIH approaches. To address this gap between patients’ level of interest in and use of CIH approaches, primary care providers might want to discuss evidence-based CIH options to their patients for relevant health conditions, given most CIH approaches are safe.

BackgroundMore and more Veterans are receiving care from community providers, increasing the need for effective coordination across health systems. For Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), this need is intensified by complex comorbidity patterns that often include multiple providers co-managing patient care.ObjectivesWe sought to understand how VA providers perceive coordination with community providers for Veterans with COPD.DesignQualitative study of VA providers.MethodsWe selected six geographically diverse VA sites and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with providers practicing in inpatient and/or outpatient settings who care for Veterans with COPD.Main MeasuresInterviews focused on communication with community providers about discharge information and clinic management. We analyzed responses according to the principles of conventional content analysis, allowing inductive themes to emerge.Key ResultsWe interviewed 25 providers during the period of June to October 2017. Qualitative data analysis yielded five themes: (1) VA providers perceive communication challenges between VA and community providers, including difficult, inadequate, and delayed communication; (2) communication is facilitated by personal relationships across health systems; (3) the lack of electronic health record (EHR) interoperability impairs communication, resulting in transmission of unstructured data; (4) poor communication leads to duplicative efforts and wasted resources; and (5) providers frequently rely on patients to communicate about care taking place in the community.ConclusionsVA providers described major challenges in coordinating with community providers, leading to perceptions of delayed, missed, or duplicative care and jeopardizing the overall quality, safety, and efficiency of Veteran care. Our study highlights the need for system-level solutions to support coordination across health systems for Veterans with COPD and may have implications for other conditions that lead to recurrent hospitalization and/or care in the community.