Quality of care measures for the management of unhealthy alcohol use

COVID-19-Associated Mortality in US Veterans with and without SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background: We performed an observational Veterans Health Administration cohort analysis to assess how risk factors affect 30-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects relative to those uninfected. While the risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been extensively studied, these have been seldom compared with uninfected referents. Methods: We analyzed 341,166 White/Black male veterans tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1 to September 10, 2020. The relative risk of 30-day mortality was computed for age, race, ethnicity, BMI, smoking status, and alcohol use disorder in infected and uninfected subjects separately. The difference in relative risk was then evaluated between infected and uninfected subjects. All the analyses were performed considering clinical confounders. Results: In this cohort, 7% were SARS-CoV-2-positive. Age >60 and overweight/obesity were associated with a dose-related increased mortality risk among infected patients relative to those uninfected. In contrast, relative to never smoking, current smoking was associated with a decreased mortality among infected and an increased mortality in uninfected, yielding a reduced mortality risk among infected relative to uninfected. Alcohol use disorder was also associated with decreased mortality risk in infected relative to the uninfected. Conclusions: Age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol use disorder affect 30-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects differently from uninfected referents. Advanced age and overweight/obesity were associated with increased mortality risk among infected men, while current smoking and alcohol use disorder were associated with lower mortality risk among infected men, when compared with those uninfected.

Rates and Impact of Adherence to Recommended Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use is a major worldwide health problem. Yet few studies have assessed provider adherence to the alcohol-related care recommended in clinical practice guidelines, nor links between adherence to recommended care and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To describe quality of care for unhealthy alcohol use and its impacts on drinking behavior RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of quality of alcohol care for the population of patients screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use in a large Veterans Affairs health system.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 719 patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at one of 11 primary care practices and who completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews.

MAIN MEASURES

Using administrative encounter and medical record data, we assessed three composite and 21 individual process-based measures of care delivered across primary and specialty care settings. We assessed self-reported daily alcohol use using telephone interviews at baseline and 6-month follow-up.

KEY RESULTS

The median proportion of patients who received recommended care across measures was 32.8% (range < 1% for initiating pharmacotherapy to 93% for depression screening). There was negligible change in drinking for the study population between baseline and 6 months. In covariate-adjusted analyses, no composites were significantly associated with changes in heavy drinking days or drinks per week, and just one of nine individual measures tested was significantly associated. In a subsample of patients drinking above recommended weekly limits prior to screening, two of nine individual measures were significantly associated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows wide variability in receipt of recommended care for unhealthy alcohol use. Receipt of recommended interventions for reducing drinking was frequently not associated with decreased drinking. Results suggest deficits in provision of comprehensive alcohol care and in understanding how to improve population-based drinking outcomes.

Does Documented Brief Intervention Predict Decreases in Alcohol Use in Primary Care?

BACKGROUND

Brief intervention (BI) is recommended for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but the effectiveness of BI in usual care settings remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether BI predicts decreases in drinking 6 months after a positive screen for unhealthy alcohol use.

METHOD

We enrolled patients who recently screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use during a routine screen in Veterans Health Administration primary care. We conducted medical record review to assess whether providers documented advice to reduce or abstain, feedback about risks to health, feedback about how patient drinking compares to norms or recommended limits, and discussion of drinking-related goals. BI elements were coded from 7 days before the date of the positive screen to 60 days after. We conducted baseline and 6-month follow-up telephone interviews to assess change in past 30-day drinking. We fit regression models examining each BI element and another model for the total count of instances of any combination of elements.

RESULTS

Of the 327 patients included, 86% had at least one documented instance of receiving advice, 86% had risk feedback, 55% had normative feedback, 38% had goal discussion, and 75% had three or more instances of any combination of elements of BI. None of the individual BI elements, nor the total number of instances, were significantly associated with decreased drinking.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that provider documentation of elements of BI and increasing numbers of instances of BI elements were not associated with decreased heavy drinking at 6-month follow-up among patients identified with unhealthy alcohol use.

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

All healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.

DESIGN

Systematic review without meta-analysis.

SETTING

All care settings.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included.

ANALYSIS

Several multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian's framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).

RESULTS

2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian's framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to 'drug selection', followed by 'monitoring' and 'drug use process'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.

Alcohol-Related Nurse Care Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men).

INTERVENTIONS

Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems.

RESULTS

Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.

Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective

Mental disorders are common worldwide, yet the quality of care for these disorders has not increased to the same extent as that for physical conditions. In this paper, we present a framework for promoting quality measurement as a tool for improving quality of mental health care. We identify key barriers to this effort, including lack of standardized information technology-based data sources, limited scientific evidence for mental health quality measures, lack of provider training and support, and cultural barriers to integrating mental health care within general health environments. We describe several innovations that are underway worldwide which can mitigate these barriers. Based on these experiences, we offer several recommendations for improving quality of mental health care. Health care payers and providers will need a portfolio of validated measures of patient-centered outcomes across a spectrum of conditions. Common data elements will have to be developed and embedded within existing electronic health records and other information technology tools. Mental health outcomes will need to be assessed more routinely, and measurement-based care should become part of the overall culture of the mental health care system. Health care systems will need a valid way to stratify quality measures, in order to address potential gaps among subpopulations and identify groups in most need of quality improvement. Much more attention should be devoted to workforce training in and capacity for quality improvement. The field of mental health quality improvement is a team sport, requiring coordination across different providers, involvement of consumer advocates, and leveraging of resources and incentives from health care payers and systems.