Roellinger, Daniel L

Background Digital and mobile (mHealth) solutions are online or application-based services intended to support individuals with health needs. Despite evidence supporting the use of mHealth for patients with chronic pain, and the increasing desire of these types of solutions by both patients and providers, adoption of mHealth solutions remains limited. Implementation mapping can serve as a practical method to facilitate implementation and adoption of mHealth solutions within healthcare settings. Methods Implementation mapping was used to develop implementation strategies based on contextual determinants organized within the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for mHealth eLearning solutions across an integrated, multi-site healthcare system. We describe our experience identifying stakeholders, delineating implementation facilitators and barriers, defining implementation outcomes using RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, outlining initial implementation strategies, and iterating on implementation strategies. Results A total of 30 implementation strategies were identified and implemented. Over the first year, primary and specialty care providers across all the clinical sites ( n = 70) placed 2559 orders for the mHealth solution. Most patients reported receiving the mHealth eLearning module (74%), and most patients felt that the tool improved their knowledge regarding their condition (82%) and their ability to provide self-care related to the condition (73%). Conclusion Practical applications of implementation science methods can help enable change within healthcare settings. Implementation mapping is an exercise that can engage stakeholders to facilitate the incorporation of new methods of care delivery, including mHealth solutions.

Abstract Background The protective efficacy of prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with or without vaccination remains unknown. This study sought to understand if 2 or more messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine doses provide additional protection in patients with prior infection, or if infection alone provides comparable protection. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the risk of COVID-19 from 16 December 2020 through 15 March 2022, among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients of all ages with and without prior infection. A Simon-Makuch hazard plot illustrated the incidence of COVID-19 between groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of demographics, prior infection, and vaccination status with new infection. Results Among 101 941 individuals with at least 1 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test prior to 15 March 2022, 72 361 (71.0%) received mRNA vaccination and 5957 (5.8%) were previously infected. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout the study period for those previously uninfected and unvaccinated, and lowest for those previously infected and vaccinated. After accounting for age, sex, and the interaction between vaccination and prior infection, a reduction in reinfection risk was noted during the Omicron and pre-Omicron phases of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%–41%; P = .0065) to 36% (95% CI, 10%–54%; P = .0108), respectively, among previously infected and vaccinated individuals, compared to previously infected subjects without vaccination. Conclusions Vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19, including in those with prior infection. Vaccination should be encouraged for all including those with prior infection, especially as new variants emerge and variant-specific booster vaccines become available.

Objective: We surveyed patients who visited multiple outpatient specialty practices to understand what summary content was most helpful with the goal of optimizing meaningful outpatient clinical visit summary content. Materials and Methods: We constructed a survey instrument to measure delivery, use, and contents of clinical visit summaries. We surveyed patients who visited with at least 2 different outpatient medical specialties to understand preferences. Results: Most patients in our sample valued the summary information they received, and retained it as healthcare documentation (84%) and/or quick reference in supporting self-care (70%). Patients most commonly reported that information on results of completed tests (91%) and treatment plan instructions (89%) were very helpful. Additionally, patients expressed the importance of online access to clinical visit summary information. Discussion: Most patients used the clinical visit summary as healthcare documentation, and valued online availability of their summary information. Patients most often reported that information on results of recently completed tests and specific instructions on treatment plan were very helpful. Patients who sought further information after their visit most often looked to a provider and/or online. Conclusions: Patients valued clinical visit summary accessibility and as a reference tool to summarize care and provide next steps. Optimal clinical visit summaries might collate and integrate assessments and recommendations from multiple specialties into coherent care plans for patients.

Introduction Safe management of warfarin in the inpatient setting can be challenging. At the Mayo Clinic hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota, we set out to improve the safety of warfarin management among surgical and non-surgical inpatients. Methods A multidisciplinary team designed a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol (PMWP) which designated warfarin dosing to inpatient pharmacists with guidance from computerised dosing algorithms. Ordering this protocol was ultimately designed as an ‘opt out’ practice. The primary improvement measure was frequency of international normalised ratio (INR) greater than 5; secondary measures included adoption rate of the protocol, a counterbalance INR metric (INR <1.7 three days after first inpatient warfarin dose), and complication rates, including bleeding and thrombosis events. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to compare outcomes. Results Among over 50 000 inpatient warfarin recipients, the PMWP was adopted for the majority of both surgical and non-surgical inpatients during the study period (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011). The primary improvement measure decreased from 5.6% to 3.4% for medical patients and from 5.2% to 2.4% for surgical patients during the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. The INR counterbalance measure did not change. Postoperative bleeding decreased from 13.5% to 11.1% among surgical patients, but bleeding was unchanged among medical patients. Conclusion Our PMWP led to achievement of improved INR control for inpatient warfarin recipients and to less near-term bleeding among higher risk, surgical patients.

To reliably assess quality, a standardized electronic approach is needed to identify bleeding events. The study aims were the following: (1) clinically validate an electronic health record–based algorithm for bleeding and (2) assess interrater results to determine validity and reliability. Data were analyzed before and after implementation of a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol. Bleeding was based on ≥2 of 3 criteria: (1) diagnosis indicating bleeding, (2) lab value decrease suggesting bleeding, and (3) blood product use. All suspected bleeds (234) and a sample (58) not meeting criteria were compared with clinical review. There were 234 bleeding cases identified electronically. Reviewer agreement was 78.2% (κ = 0.565). Algorithm sensitivity was 93.9% and positive predictive value 46.2%. Algorithm identification was least accurate for those with only 2 criteria but good for those with all criteria. This study supports using multiple electronic criteria to identify bleeding events. However, cases having exactly 2 criteria may require manual review for validation.