Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Medical marijuana (MMJ) is available in Pennsylvania, and participation in the state-regulated program requires patient registration and receiving certification by an approved physician. Currently, no integration of MMJ certification data with health records exists in Pennsylvania that would allow clinicians to rapidly identify patients using MMJ, as exists with other scheduled drugs. This absence of a formal data sharing structure necessitates tools aiding in consistent documentation practices to enable comprehensive patient care. Customized smart data elements (SDEs) were made available to clinicians at an integrated health system, Geisinger, following MMJ legalization in Pennsylvania. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to examine and contextualize the use of MMJ SDEs in the Geisinger population. We accomplished this goal by developing a systematic protocol for review of medical records and creating a tool that resulted in consistent human data extraction. METHODS: We developed a protocol for reviewing medical records for extracting MMJ-related information. The protocol was developed between August and December of 2022 and focused on a patient group that received one of several MMJ SDEs between January 25, 2019, and May 26, 2022. Characteristics were first identified on a pilot sample (n=5), which were then iteratively reviewed to optimize for consistency. Following the pilot, 2 reviewers were assigned 200 randomly selected patients' medical records, with a third reviewer examining a subsample (n=30) to determine reliability. We then summarized the clinician- and patient-level features from 156 medical records with a table-format SDE that best captured MMJ information. RESULTS: We found the review protocol for medical records was feasible for those with minimal medical background to complete, with high interrater reliability (κ=0.966; P<.001; odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.954-0.978). MMJ certification was largely documented by nurses and medical assistants (n=138, 88.5%) and typically within primary care settings (n=107, 68.6%). The SDE has 6 preset field prompts with heterogeneous documentation completion rates, including certifying conditions (n=146, 93.6%), product (n=145, 92.9%), authorized dispensary (n=137, 87.8%), active ingredient (n=130, 83.3%), certifying provider (n=96, 61.5%), and dosage (n=48, 30.8%). We found preset fields were overall well-recorded (mean 76.6%, SD 23.7% across all fields). Primary diagnostic codes recorded at documentation encounters varied, with the most frequent being routine examinations and testing (n=34, 21.8%), musculoskeletal or nervous conditions, and signs and symptoms not classified elsewhere (n=21, 13.5%). CONCLUSIONS: This method of reviewing medical records yields high-quality data extraction that can serve as a model for other health record inquiries. Our evaluation showed relatively high completeness of SDE fields, primarily by clinical staff responsible for rooming patients, with an overview of conditions under which MMJ is documented. Improving the adoption and fidelity of SDE data collection may present a valuable data source for future research on patient MMJ use, treatment efficacy, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Overdose from opioids is a serious public health and clinical concern. Veterans are at increased risk for opioid overdose compared with the civilian population, suggesting the need for enhanced efforts to address overdose prevention in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care settings, such as primary care clinics. METHODS: Prescribing providers (N = 45) completed surveys on baseline knowledge and concerns about the VA Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) initiative prior to attending an OEND educational training. RESULTS: Survey items were grouped into 4 OEND-related categories, reflecting (1) lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort; (2) concerns about iatrogenic effects; (3) concerns about impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing; and (4) concerns about risks of naloxone prescribing. Although certain OEND-related categories were associated with each other, concerns related to iatrogenic effects of OEND (e.g., patients will use more opioids and/or be less likely to see treatment) and lack of knowledge/familiarity/comfort with OEND were endorsed more than concerns related to giving impressions of unsafe opioid prescribing. The majority of providers endorsed the belief that those prescribing opioids to patients should be responsible for providing overdose education to those patients. System-wide naloxone prescription rates and sources increased over 320% following initiation of OEND expansion efforts, although these increases cannot be viewed as a direct result of the in-service trainings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that some providers believe they lack knowledge of opioid overdose prevention techniques and hold concerns about OEND implementation. More training of medical providers outside substance use treatment settings is needed, with particular attention to concerns about harmful consequences resulting from the receipt of naloxone.