Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Evidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure. METHODS:Hospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS. RESULTS:percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS:A CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER/UNASSIGNED:NCT02858674.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Emergency departments (EDs) frequently care for patients who are homeless or unstably housed. One promising approach taken by the homeless services system is to provide interventions that attempt to prevent homelessness before it occurs. Experts have suggested that health care settings may be ideal locations to identify and intervene with patients at risk for homelessness, yet little is known even about the basic characteristics of patients who might benefit from such interventions. METHODS:We conducted in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews with ED patients who had become homeless within the past 6 months. Using a semistructured interview guide, we asked patients about their pathways into homelessness and what might have prevented them from becoming homeless. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded line by line by multiple investigators who then met as a group to discuss and refine codes in an iterative fashion. RESULTS:Interviews were completed with 31 patients. Mean interview length was 42 minutes. Four main themes emerged: 1) unique stories yet common social and health contributors to homelessness, 2) personal agency versus larger structural forces, 3) limitations in help from family or friends, and 4) homelessness was not expected. CONCLUSIONS:These findings demonstrate gaps in current homeless prevention services and can help inform future interventions for unstably housed and homeless ED patients. More immediately, the findings provide rich, unique context to the lives of a vulnerable patient population commonly seen in EDs.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Small independent primary care practices (SIPs) often lack the resources to implement system changes. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, studied the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular disease- related care in 257 SIPs. We sought to understand SIP clinicians' perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation. METHODS:We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 SIP clinicians enrolled in HealthyHearts NYC. Interviews were transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. To understand whether the perceived benefits of practice facilitation differ based on the availability of internal staff for quality improvement (QI), we compared themes pertaining to benefits between practices with 3 or fewer office staff vs more than 3 office staff. RESULTS:Clinicians perceived 2 main benefits of practice facilitation. First, facilitators served as a connection to the external health care environment for SIPs, often through teaching and information sharing. Second, facilitators provided electronic health record (EHR)/data expertise, often by teaching functionality and completing technical assistance and tasks. SIPs with more than 3 office staff felt that facilitators provided benefits primarily through teaching, whereas SIPs with 3 or fewer staff felt that facilitators also provided hands-on support. At the intersections of these benefits, there emerged 3 central practice facilitation benefits: (1) creating awareness of quality gaps, (2) connecting practices to information, resources, and strategies, and (3) optimizing the EHR for QI goals. CONCLUSIONS:SIP clinicians perceived practice facilitation to be an important resource for connecting their practice to the external health care environment and resources, and helping their practice build QI capacity through teaching, hands-on support, and EHR-driven solutions.

BACKGROUND:Tobacco remains a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., responsible for more than 440,000 deaths each year. Approximately 10% of these deaths are attributable to exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke (SHS). Residents living in public multi-unit housing (MUH) are at excess risk for SHS exposure compared to the general population. On November 30, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) passed a rule requiring all public housing agencies to implement smoke-free housing (SFH) policies in their housing developments by July 30, 2018. METHODS:As part of a larger natural experiment study, we designed a protocol to evaluate indoor SHS levels before and after policy implementation through collection of repeat indoor air samples in non-smoking apartments and common areas of select high-rise NYCHA buildings subject to the HUD SFH rule, and also from socio-demographically matched private-sector high-rise control buildings not subject to the rule. A baseline telephone survey was conducted in all selected buildings to facilitate rapid recruitment into the longitudinal study and assess smoking prevalence, behaviors, and attitudes regarding the SFH policy prior to implementation. Data collection began in early 2018 and will continue through 2021. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The baseline survey was completed by 559 NYCHA residents and 471 comparison building residents (response rates, 35, and 32%, respectively). Smoking prevalence was comparable between study arms (15.7% among NYCHA residents and 15.2% among comparison residents). The majority of residents reported supporting a building-wide smoke-free policy (63.0 and 59.9%, respectively). We enrolled 157 NYCHA and 118 comparison non-smoking households into the longitudinal air monitoring study and performed air monitoring in common areas. Follow up surveys and air monitoring in participant households occur every 6 months for 2.5 years. Capitalizing on the opportunity of this federal policy rollout, the large and diverse public housing population in NYC, and robust municipal data sources, this study offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the policy's direct impacts on SHS exposure. Methods in this protocol can inform similar SFH policy evaluations elsewhere.

Community health workers (in Vietnam referred to as village health workers) have the potential to play a key role in expanding access to evidence-based tobacco use treatment. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in community health centers in Vietnam that compared the effect of provider advice and cessation assistance (i.e. brief counseling and patient education materials) (BC) vs. BC + three sessions of in-person counseling delivered by a village health worker (BC+R) on providers' and village health workers' adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines. All village health workers and health care providers received training. This paper presents data on the effect of the intervention on village health workers' adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines, including asking about tobacco use, advising smokers to quit, offering assistance and their attitude, norms, and self-efficacy related to tobacco use treatment. We examined changes in adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines before and 12 months after the intervention among 89 village health workers working in the 13 community health centers enrolled in the BC+R study condition. Village health workers' adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines increased significantly. Village health workers were more likely to ask about tobacco use (3.4% at baseline, 32.6% at 12 months), offer advice to quit (4.5% to 48.3%) and offer assistance (1.1% to 38.2%). Perceived barriers to treating tobacco use decreased significantly. Self-efficacy and attitudes towards treating tobacco use improved significantly. Increased adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines was associated with positive attitudes towards their role in delivering tobacco use treatment and increasing awareness of the community health center smoke-free policy. The findings suggest that, with training and support systems, village health workers can extend their role to include smoking cessation services. This workforce could represent a sustainable resource for supporting smokers who wish to quit.

BACKGROUND:Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue, but there has been little assessment of its usability. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to study the usability of interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. METHODS:We conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed 2 versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a noninterruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive alert followed by the noninterruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to "think aloud" while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semistructured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the CDS Five Rights framework to analyze usability testing. RESULTS:A total of 12 providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The noninterruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility, which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the noninterruptive alert, whereas more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert. CONCLUSIONS:Providers expressed trade-offs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. In addition, 2 potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a noninterruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert.

BACKGROUND:Treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly effective, yet it remains dramatically underutilized. Individuals with OUD have disproportionately high rates of hospitalization and low rates of addiction treatment. Hospital-based addiction consult services offer a potential solution by using multidisciplinary teams to evaluate patients, initiate medication for addiction treatment (MAT) in the hospital, and connect patients to post-discharge care. We are studying the effectiveness of an addiction consult model [Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH)] as a strategy for engaging patients with OUD in treatment as the program rolls out in the largest municipal hospital system in the US. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of CATCH in increasing post-discharge initiation and engagement in MAT. Secondary aims are to assess treatment retention, frequency of acute care utilization and overdose deaths and their associated costs, and implementation outcomes. METHODS:A pragmatic trial at six hospitals, conducted in collaboration with the municipal hospital system and department of health, will be implemented to study the CATCH intervention. Guided by the RE-AIM evaluation framework, this hybrid effectiveness-implementation study (Type 1) focuses primarily on effectiveness and also measures implementation outcomes to inform the intervention's adoption and sustainability. A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design will determine the impact of CATCH on treatment outcomes in comparison to usual care for a control period, followed by a 12-month intervention period and a 6- to 18-month maintenance period at each hospital. A mixed methods approach will primarily utilize administrative data to measure outcomes, while interviews and focus groups with staff and patients will provide additional information on implementation fidelity and barriers to delivering MAT to patients with OUD. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Because of their great potential to reduce the negative health and economic consequences of untreated OUD, addiction consult models are proliferating in response to the opioid epidemic, despite the absence of a strong evidence base. This study will provide the first known rigorous evaluation of an addiction consult model in a large multi-site trial and promises to generate knowledge that can rapidly transform practice and inform the potential for widespread dissemination of these services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:NCT03611335.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:Smoking prevalence is high in Viet Nam, yet tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) is not widely available. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a quasi-experimental study that compared the effectiveness of health care provider advice and assistance (ARM 1) vs. ARM 1 plus village health worker (VHW) counseling (ARM 2) on abstinence at 6-month follow-up. This study was embedded in a larger two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in 26 community health centers (CHCs) in Viet Nam. Subjects (N=1,318) were adult patients who visited any participating CHC during the parent RCT intervention period and were self-identified as current tobacco users (cigarettes and/or waterpipe). Results/UNASSIGNED:At 6-month follow-up, abstinences rates in ARM 2 were significantly higher than ARM 1 (25.7% vs. 10.5%; p<.001). In multivariate analyses smokers in ARM 2 were almost three times more likely to quit compared with those in ARM 1 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.78-4.92). Compared to cigarette-only smokers, waterpipe-only smokers (AOR=0.4, 95% CI=0.26-0.62) and dual users (AOR=0.62, 95% CI=0.45-0.86) were less likely to achieve abstinence, however the addition of VHW counseling (ARM 2) was associated with higher quit rates compared with ARM 1 alone for all smoker types. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:A team approach in TDT programs that offers a referral system for health care providers to refer smokers to VHW-led cessation counseling is a promising and potentially scalable model for increasing access to evidence-based TDT and increasing quit rates in LMICs. TDT programs may need to adapt interventions to improve outcomes for waterpipe users.

Background: To assess residents' attitudes towards the United States (U.S.) Department of Housing and Urban Development's new smoke-free public housing policy, perceptions about barriers to policy implementation, and suggestions for optimizing implementation. Methods: In 2017, we conducted 10 focus groups among 91 residents (smokers and nonsmokers) living in New York City public housing. Results: Smokers and nonsmokers expressed skepticism about the public housing authority's capacity to enforce the policy due to widespread violations of the current smoke-free policy in common areas and pervasive use of marijuana in buildings. Most believed that resident engagement in the roll-out and providing smoking cessation services was important for compliance. Resident expressed concerns about evictions and worried that other building priorities (i.e., repairs, drug use) would be ignored with the focus now on smoke-free housing. Conclusions: Resident-endorsed strategies to optimize implementation effectiveness include improving the access to cessation services, ongoing resident engagement, education and communication to address misconceptions and concerns about enforcement, and placing smoke-free homes in a larger public housing authority healthy housing agenda.