Witt, Terrence J.

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

Objective: There is a lack of evidence regarding tapering opioid medications in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The purpose of this survey was to gather perspectives on future research into opioid tapering from utilizers of chronic opioid therapy (COT) or other people affected by chronic noncancer pain. Methods: The survey was distributed in paper form to patients on COT and via an online platform to patients self-enrolled in the chronic pain patient engagement group. The survey included a layman’s description of a possible tapering trial of opioid medications and elicited binary responses regarding willingness to participate and reasoning as well as qualitative freeform responses. Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes in narrative responses. Results: A total of 190 surveys were returned with 72.1% of all respondents answering positively regarding their willingness to participate in a proposed study. The most common reasons for participating in the study included concerns regarding opioid dependence, adding to society’s knowledge of opioid medications, and determining if the respondent would personally receive benefit from opioid medications. Patients recently on COT felt it was important to be able to withdraw from the study and return to usual care at any time (41.8% for recent COT and 15.5% for no recent COT, P < .05). The most common reason for unwillingness to participate was that respondents did not feel they had enough information to feel comfortable participating. The narrative responses showed a group of respondents felt COT was the only answer to their or their loved ones’ chronic pain and that a study would demonstrate the need to continue these medications long-term. There were also stories of side effects and dependence with decreasing effectiveness of opioids for pain control. When prompted to comment on study design, respondents indicated the study should include alternative pain management options. This was accompanied by responses with the assumption that pain will worsen as opioid medications are decreased. Conclusion: Patient concerns regarding opioid medications and discontinuation reflect the lack of evidence available to prescribers. There appears to be patient support for future research into the effects of tapering opioid medications.

Background: Collaborative care management (CCM) is an evidence-based model that contributes to better outcomes for depression treatment in the primary care setting. Tobacco use increases overall economic costs, morbidity, and mortality and has been shown to impact behavioral health outcomes. Our study aims to observe clinical outcomes for depression treatment for patients with comorbid tobacco use and depression within the CCM model. Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM was performed to determine the association between regular tobacco use and depression outcomes. Baseline intake data consisting of clinical and demographic variables along with 6-month follow-up of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores for smokers (n = 727, 25.7%) and nonsmokers (n = 2099, 74.3%) were obtained. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Results: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the multivariate modeling demonstrated that smokers, at 6 months, had an increased adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for PDS: 1.624 (95% CI: 1.353-1.949). Furthermore, smokers had a lower AOR of depression remission: 0.603 (95% CI: 0.492-0.739). Patient adherence to treatment was also lower in smokers with an AOR of 0.666 (95% CI: 0.553-0.802). Conclusions: Smokers enrolled in CCM were associated with reduced treatment adherence and worse outcomes for depression treatment at 6 months compared to nonsmokers, even when baseline clinical and demographic variables were controlled. Thus, new tailored practices may be warranted within the CCM model to treat comorbid depression and tobacco use disorders.