Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32576214›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2020

Tracking implementation strategies in the randomized rollout of a Veterans Affairs national opioid risk management initiative.

Shari S Rogal, Matthew Chinman, Walid F Gellad, Maria K Mor, Hongwei Zhang, Sharon A McCarthy, Genna T Mauro, Jennifer A Hale, Eleanor T Lewis, Elizabeth M Oliva and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A call for better validation of opioid overdose risk algorithms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Shari S RogalCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. shari.rogal@va.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-8184-1546
Matthew ChinmanCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Walid F GelladCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Maria K MorCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Hongwei ZhangCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Sharon A McCarthyCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Genna T MauroCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jennifer A HaleCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Eleanor T LewisVA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Elizabeth M OlivaVA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Jodie A TraftonVA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Vera YakovchenkoCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Adam J GordonProgram for Addiction Research, Clinical Care, Knowledge, and Advocacy, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Leslie R M HausmannCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USVA Pittsburgh Healthcare System · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · USEdith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital · USRAND Corporation · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

STORM Implementation Program EvaluationI01HX002389 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI GELLAD, WALID F., HAUSMANN, LESLIE R · 2017 to 2020
–
HSRD VA I01 HX002389HSRD VA SDR 16-193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete "case reviews" for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates.

methodsFacility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility's use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews.

resultsContacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.59).

conclusionsIn this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not.

trial registrationThis project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111. The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceAdultAge FactorsAnalgesics, OpioidEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainProfessional RoleRegression AnalysisRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementSocioeconomic FactorsUnited StatesAnalgesics, OpioidAdaptationEvaluationMonitoringTailoring

Identifiers

PMID32576214
PMCPMC7313133
OpenAlexW3036310632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.