Background

Pharmacist-led programs and clinics have been integrated into primary and specialty care clinics in a variety of ways, for example, to improve diabetes outcomes via patient education and counseling. However, factors important to the implementation of different outpatient pharmacy models have not been well elucidated.

Objective

To identify provider- and health system-level drivers of implementation and sustainability of pharmacy-led programs in the outpatient setting.

Design

Qualitative study of key informants using semi-structured interviews of individuals working in various roles throughout a large health system, including ambulatory clinical pharmacists, pharmacy managers, medical directors and physician leaders, and operations and quality managers.

Participants

Key informants (n=19) with leadership roles in pharmacy programs and front-line experience providing integrated pharmacy care were selected purposively and with snowball sampling.

Approach

We coded the interviews using a codebook derived from the 2022 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which details various internal and external factors important for implementation.

Key results

We identified the following themes related to implementing ambulatory care pharmacy programs: (1) pharmacy programs varied in their level of embeddedness in the outpatient clinic, (2) establishing pharmacy program required leadership advocacy and coordination among stakeholders, (3) continued operations required integrated workflows and demonstrated value to the health system and clinicians, and (4) established revenue streams or added indirect value and continued improvement of integration sustained programs over time.

Conclusions

External policies and incentives such as new reimbursement codes and quality measurement programs that rely on pharmacy input play a significant role in shaping the design, implementation, and sustainability of health system outpatient pharmacy programs. Ensuring that quality metrics used in value-based contracts or programs demonstrate pharmacy benefits will be critical to supporting and growing pharmacy programs.

Objective

Language barriers during inpatient medication management can occur during medication reconciliation on admission and discharge, and during the hospitalization. Understanding inpatient clinicians' experiences with language barriers and use of interpreters can help inform interventions aimed at improving medication management with Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients. Our objective was to examine clinicians' experiences with language barriers around inpatient medication management.

Methods

We used semi-structured interviews with pharmacist technicians, pharmacists, nurses, and physicians working in a tertiary care hospital. We used the constant comparison method to guide data collection and analysis.

Results

We interviewed 14 providers. Nurses and physicians perceived lack of time to use formal interpreters, particularly during busy or night shifts. Clinicians strongly preferred virtual and in-person interpreter services over telephonic services, and highlighted communication challenges with patients with low health literacy, concerns about the quality of interpretation, and inconsistencies in the use of translated materials.

Conclusions

Ensuring access to formal interpreters during all shifts, translation of materials into the patient/caregiver's language, and access to in-person/virtual services would improve quality of care for LEP patients.

Practice implications

Current laws require use of interpreters, but do not provide for their reimbursement, resulting in suboptimal use. Reimbursement for interpreter services may increase their availability.

Objective

We sought to characterize the performance of inpatient and outpatient computerized clinical decision support (CDS) alerts aimed at reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative medication prescribing in older adults 18 months after implementation.

Methods

We reviewed the performance of two CDS alerts in the outpatient and inpatient settings in 2019. To examine the alerts' effectiveness, we analyzed metrics including overall alert adherence, provider-level adherence, and reasons for alert trigger and override.

Results

In 2019, we identified a total of 14,534 and 4,834 alerts triggered in the outpatient and inpatient settings, respectively. Providers followed only 1% of outpatient and 3% of inpatient alerts. Most alerts were ignored (68% outpatient and 60% inpatient), while providers selected to override the remaining alerts. In each setting, the top 2% of clinicians were responsible for approximately 25% of all ignored or overridden alerts. However, a small proportion of clinicians (2% outpatient and 4% inpatient) followed the alert at least half of the time and accounted for a disproportionally large fraction of the total followed alerts. Our analysis of the free-text comments revealed that many alerts were to continue outpatient prescriptions or for situational anxiety.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the importance of evaluation of CDS performance after implementation. We found large variation in response to the inpatient and outpatient alerts, both with respect to follow and ignore rates. Reevaluating the alert design by providing decision support by indication may be more helpful and may reduce alert fatigue.

Objective

Adverse selection in medical insurance is well documented; however, little is known about the role of behavioral health. This study's objective was to examine the probability of being enrolled in the lowest-deductible plan among commercially insured patients, according to psychiatric diagnosis.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used 2012-2013 benefit design and plan choice data linked to 2011-2012 behavioral health claims for a national sample of individuals (N=116,975) and different family types (couple with at least one dependent, N=59,237; single subscriber with at least one dependent, N=19,066; couple with no dependents, N=40,917) with Optum, UnitedHealth Group "carve-in" plans. Analyses included multiple logistic regressions examining whether the individual (or family) was enrolled in the plan with the lowest deductible as functions of whether individuals (or family members) had any psychiatric diagnosis, the number of psychiatric diagnoses they had, and whether they had individual major psychiatric diagnoses.

Results

For individuals, having any psychiatric diagnosis was associated with an increase of about 10% in the probability of being enrolled in the lowest-deductible plan compared with having no psychiatric diagnosis (44.9% vs. 40.7%, p=0.04). Each additional psychiatric diagnosis increased this probability by three percentage points (p=0.02). A diagnosis of depression was associated with the largest increase.

Conclusions

When individuals were offered the choice of a health insurance plan, having a prior psychiatric diagnosis (specifically depression) was associated with being enrolled in the lowest-deductible plans. Individuals with depression may anticipate future expenditures and select plans accordingly.

BACKGROUND:Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly. AIMS:In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology. RESULTS:Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS:Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: This qualitative study describes health system barriers to high-quality care for Latino older adults with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Compared to non-Latino Whites, Latino older adults are more likely to receive low-quality dementia care such as high-risk medications or services. Caregivers play a critical role in managing medical care for persons with dementia (PWD). Yet little is known about the perceptions and knowledge of dementia quality of care among Latino caregivers of PWD. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used a qualitative research design and conducted interviews with Latino caregivers of PWD and caregiver advocates. We recruited both from community organizations, senior centers, and clinics. Our interview guide focused on experiences of caregiving, interactions with medical system, and knowledge and experiences managing behavioral and eating problems. We used Grounded Theory methodology for coding and analysis, focusing on contrasting and comparing experiences within and between caregivers and caregiver advocates. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Preliminary results from interviews with two caregivers and two caregiver advocates illustrate that caregivers of persons with dementia have a difficult time receiving high quality care from primary care clinicians. All participants noted that many primary care doctors didn’t know how to diagnose ADRD and dismissed critical symptoms as part of old age. Caregivers also reported that they wished they had more information on what to expect with ADRD disease progression, noting they received little information from the formal medical care system. With respect to behavioral problems, caregiver advocates noted that primary care doctors often did not provide non-pharmacological alternatives to behavioral problems. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Findings from our pilot study demonstrate that there is a clear need to train primary care physicians who serve Latino older adults on ADRD care. Improved diagnosis and management could improve outcomes among Latino older adults with dementia.