Implementation of a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical inpatients for opioid withdrawal.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-27 DOI:10.1177/26334895221096290
Kimberly D Williams, Beverly L Wilson, Claudine T Jurkovitz, Jo A Melson, Jeffrey A Reitz, Carmen K Pal, Sherry P Hausman, Erin Booker, Linda J Lang, Terry L Horton
{"title":"Implementation of a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical inpatients for opioid withdrawal.","authors":"Kimberly D Williams, Beverly L Wilson, Claudine T Jurkovitz, Jo A Melson, Jeffrey A Reitz, Carmen K Pal, Sherry P Hausman, Erin Booker, Linda J Lang, Terry L Horton","doi":"10.1177/26334895221096290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Opioid-related inpatient hospital stays are increasing at alarming rates. Unidentified and poorly treated opioid withdrawal may be associated with inpatients leaving against medical advice and increased health care utilization. To address these concerns, we developed and implemented a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The pathway process included a two-item universal screening instrument to identify opioid withdrawal risk (Opioid Withdrawal Risk Assessment [OWRA]), use of the validated Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) to monitor opioid withdrawal symptoms and severity, and a 72-h buprenorphine/naloxone-based treatment protocol. Implementation outcomes including adoption, fidelity, and sustainability of this new pathway model were measured. To assess if there were changes in nursing staff acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption of the new pathway process, a cross-sectional survey was administered to pilot four hospital medical units before and after pathway implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2016 and 2018, 72.4% (77,483/107,071) of admitted patients received the OWRA screening tool. Of those, 3.0% (2,347/77,483) were identified at risk for opioid withdrawal. Of those 2,347 patients, 2,178 (92.8%) were assessed with the COWS and 29.6% (645/2,178) were found to be in active withdrawal. A total of 49.5% (319/645) patients were treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. Fifty-seven percent (83/145) of nurses completed both the pre- and post-pathway implementation surveys. Analysis of the pre/post survey data revealed that nurse respondents were more confident in their ability to determine which patients were at risk for withdrawal (<i>p</i> = .01) and identify patients currently experiencing withdrawal (<i>p</i> < .01). However, they cited difficulty working with the patient population and coordinating care with physicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study demonstrates a process for successfully implementing and sustaining a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal. Standardizing care delivery for patients in opioid withdrawal can also improve nursing confidence when working with this complex population.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"3 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/19/40/10.1177_26334895221096290.PMC9281054.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221096290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Opioid-related inpatient hospital stays are increasing at alarming rates. Unidentified and poorly treated opioid withdrawal may be associated with inpatients leaving against medical advice and increased health care utilization. To address these concerns, we developed and implemented a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal.

Methods: The pathway process included a two-item universal screening instrument to identify opioid withdrawal risk (Opioid Withdrawal Risk Assessment [OWRA]), use of the validated Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) to monitor opioid withdrawal symptoms and severity, and a 72-h buprenorphine/naloxone-based treatment protocol. Implementation outcomes including adoption, fidelity, and sustainability of this new pathway model were measured. To assess if there were changes in nursing staff acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption of the new pathway process, a cross-sectional survey was administered to pilot four hospital medical units before and after pathway implementation.

Results: Between 2016 and 2018, 72.4% (77,483/107,071) of admitted patients received the OWRA screening tool. Of those, 3.0% (2,347/77,483) were identified at risk for opioid withdrawal. Of those 2,347 patients, 2,178 (92.8%) were assessed with the COWS and 29.6% (645/2,178) were found to be in active withdrawal. A total of 49.5% (319/645) patients were treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. Fifty-seven percent (83/145) of nurses completed both the pre- and post-pathway implementation surveys. Analysis of the pre/post survey data revealed that nurse respondents were more confident in their ability to determine which patients were at risk for withdrawal (p = .01) and identify patients currently experiencing withdrawal (p < .01). However, they cited difficulty working with the patient population and coordinating care with physicians.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a process for successfully implementing and sustaining a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal. Standardizing care delivery for patients in opioid withdrawal can also improve nursing confidence when working with this complex population.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施临床路径,筛查和治疗阿片类药物戒断的住院病人。
背景:与阿片类药物相关的住院病人正在以惊人的速度增加。阿片类药物戒断未被发现和治疗不当可能与住院病人不听医嘱擅自离院和医疗服务使用率增加有关。为了解决这些问题,我们开发并实施了一种临床路径,用于筛查和治疗阿片类药物戒断的医疗服务住院患者:方法:临床路径流程包括一个用于识别阿片类药物戒断风险的两项目通用筛查工具(阿片类药物戒断风险评估[OWRA]),使用经过验证的临床阿片类药物戒断量表(COWS)监测阿片类药物戒断症状和严重程度,以及基于丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮的 72 小时治疗方案。对这一新路径模式的实施结果(包括采用率、忠实度和可持续性)进行了测量。为评估护理人员对新路径流程的接受度、适当性和采用情况是否发生变化,在路径实施前后对试点的四个医院医疗单位进行了横断面调查:2016 年至 2018 年间,72.4%(77483/107071)的入院患者接受了 OWRA 筛查工具。其中,3.0%(2347 人/77483 人)被确定有阿片类药物戒断风险。在这 2347 名患者中,2178 人(92.8%)接受了 COWS 评估,29.6%(645/2178)的患者被发现处于主动戒断状态。共有 49.5%(319/645)的患者接受了丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮治疗。57%(83/145)的护士完成了路径实施前后的调查。对前后调查数据的分析表明,受访护士对自己判断哪些患者有戒断风险(p = .01)和识别目前正在经历戒断的患者(p < .01)的能力更有信心。然而,她们表示在与患者群体合作以及与医生协调护理方面存在困难:我们的研究展示了成功实施和维持临床路径的过程,以筛查和治疗阿片类药物戒断的医疗服务住院患者。为阿片类药物戒断患者提供标准化护理服务还能提高护理人员在处理这一复杂人群时的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
A conceptual framework for assessing implementation strategy integrity. Scaling up mental health service provision through multisectoral integration: A qualitative analysis of factors shaping delivery and uptake among South Sudanese refugees and healthcare workers in Uganda. Evaluation of a pilot implementation of a digital cognitive behavioral therapy platform for isolated older adults in county mental health services. Calculating power for multilevel implementation trials in mental health: Meaningful effect sizes, intraclass correlation coefficients, and proportions of variance explained by covariates. Preparation for implementation of evidence-based practices in urban schools: A shared process with implementing partners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1