Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

 

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

 

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

 

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

 

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

 

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

 

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

 

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

 

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

 

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

 

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

 

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

 

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

 

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

 

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

 

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

 

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

 

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

 

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the University of California San Francisco (Dr. Treadwell, Dr. Hessler, Yumei Chen, Swapandeep Mushiana, Dr. Potter, and Dr. Vichinsky), the University of California Los Angeles (Dr. Jacob), and the University of California Berkeley (Alex Chen).

Abstract

• Objective: Adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) face pervasive disparities in health resources and outcomes. We explored barriers to and facilitators of care to identify opportunities to support implementation of evidence-based interventions aimed at improving care quality for patients with SCD.
• Methods: We engaged a representative sample of adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 58), health care providers (n = 51), and community stakeholders (health care administrators and community-based organization leads (n = 5) in Northern California in a community-based needs assessment. We conducted group interviews separately with participant groups to obtain in-depth perspectives. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed validated measures of pain interference, quality of care, self-efficacy, and barriers to care. Providers and community stakeholders completed surveys about barriers to SCD care.
• Results: We triangulated qualitative and quantitative data and found that participants with SCD (mean age, 31 ± 8.6 years), providers, and community stakeholders emphasized the social and emotional burden of SCD as barriers. Concrete barriers agreed upon included insurance and lack of resources for addressing pain impact. Adolescents and adults with SCD identified provider issues (lack of knowledge, implicit bias), transportation, and limited social support as barriers. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to 84% of adolescents and adults with SCD reporting they chose to manage severe pain at home. Providers focused on structural barriers: lack of access to care guidelines, comfort level with and knowledge of SCD management, and poor care coordination.
• Conclusion: Strategies for improving access to compassionate, evidence-based quality care, as well as strategies for minimizing the burden of having SCD, are warranted for this medically complex population.

Keywords: barriers to care; quality of care; care access; care coordination.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), an inherited chronic medical condition, affects about 100,000 individuals in the United States, a population that is predominantly African American.¹ These individuals experience multiple serious and life-threatening complications, most frequently recurrent vaso-occlusive pain episodes,² and they require interactions with multidisciplinary specialists from childhood. Because of advances in treatments, the majority are reaching adulthood; however, there is a dearth of adult health care providers with the training and expertise to manage their complex medical needs.³ Other concrete barriers to adequate SCD care include insurance and distance to comprehensive SCD centers.^4,5

Social, behavioral, and emotional factors may also contribute to challenges with SCD management. SCD may limit daily functional abilities and lead to diminished overall quality of life.^6,7 Some adolescents and adults may require high doses of opioids, which contributes to health care providers’ perceptions that there is a high prevalence of drug addiction in the population.^8,9 These providers express negative attitudes towards adults with SCD, and, consequently, delay medication administration when it is acutely needed and provide otherwise suboptimal treatment.^8,10,11 Adult care providers may also be uncomfortable with prescribing and managing disease-modifying therapies (blood transfusion, hydroxyurea) that have established efficacy.^12-17

As 1 of 8 programs funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC), we are using implementation science to reduce barriers to care and improve quality of care and health care outcomes in SCD.^18,19 Given that adolescents and adults with SCD experience high mortality, severe pain, and progressive decline in their ability to function day to day, and also face lack of access to knowledgeable, compassionate providers in primary and emergency settings, the SCDIC focuses on individuals aged 15 to 45 years.^6,8,9,11,12

Our regional SCDIC program, the Sickle Cell Care Coordination Initiative (SCCCI), brings together researchers, clinicians, adolescents, and adults with SCD and their families, dedicated community members, policy makers, and administrators to identify and address barriers to health care within 5 counties in Northern California. One of our first steps was to conduct a community-based needs assessment, designed to inform implementation of evidence-based interventions, accounting for unique contextual factors in our region.

 

Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice

Our needs assessment is guided by Solberg’s Conceptual Framework for Improving Medical Practice (Figure 1).²⁰ Consistent with the overarching principles of the SCDIC, this conceptual framework focuses on the inadequate implementation of evidence-based guidelines, and on the need to first understand multifactorial facilitators and barriers to guideline implementation in order to effect change. The framework identifies 3 main elements that must be present to ensure improvements in quality-of-care processes and patient outcomes: priority, change process capability, and care process content. Priority refers to ample resource allocation for the specific change, as well as freedom from competing priorities for those implementing the change. Change process capability includes strong, effective leadership, adequate infrastructure for managing change (including resources and time), change management skills at all levels, and an established clinical information system. Care process content refers to context and systems-level changes, such as delivery system redesign as needed, support for self-management to lessen the impact of the disease, and decision support.^21-23

The purpose of our community-based needs assessment was to evaluate barriers to care and quality of care in SCD, within Solberg’s conceptual model for improving medical practice. The specific aims were to evaluate access and barriers to care (eg, lack of provider expertise and training, health care system barriers such as poor care coordination and provider communication); evaluate quality of care; and assess patient needs related to pain, pain interference, self-efficacy, and self-management for adolescents and adults with SCD. We gathered the perspectives of a representative community of adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders in order to examine barriers, quality of life and care, and patient experiences in our region.

Methods

Design

In this cross-sectional study, adolescents and adults with SCD, their providers, and community stakeholders participated in group or individual qualitative interviews and completed surveys between October 2017 and March 2018.

Setting and Sample

Recruitment flyers were posted on a regional SCD-focused website, and clinical providers or a study coordinator introduced information about the needs assessment to potential participants with SCD during clinic visits at the participating centers. Participants with SCD were eligible if they had any diagnosis of SCD, were aged 15 to 48 years, and received health services within 5 Northern California counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Solano). They were excluded if they did not have a SCD diagnosis or had not received health services within the catchment area. As the project proceeded, participants were asked to refer other adolescents and adults with SCD for the interviews and surveys (snowball sampling). Our goal was to recruit 50 adolescents and adults with SCD into the study, aiming for 10 representatives from each county.

Providers and community stakeholders were recruited via emails, letters and informational flyers. We engaged our partner, the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program,² to generate a list of providers and institutions that had seen patients with SCD in primary, emergency, or inpatient settings in the region. We contacted these institutions to describe the SCCCI and invite participation in the needs assessment. We also invited community-based organization leads and health care administrators who worked with SCD to participate. Providers accessed confidential surveys via a secure link on the study website or completed paper versions. Common data collected across providers included demographics and descriptions of practice settings.

Participants were eligible to be part of the study if they were health care providers (physicians and nurses) representing hematology, primary care, family medicine, internal medicine, or emergency medicine; ancillary staff (social work, psychology, child life); or leaders or administrators of clinical or sickle cell community-based organizations in Northern California (recruitment goal of n = 50). Providers were excluded if they practiced in specialties other than those noted or did not practice within the region.

 

Data Collection Procedures

After providing assent/consent, participating adolescents and adults with SCD took part in individual and group interviews and completed survey questionnaires. All procedures were conducted in a private space in the sickle cell center or community. Adolescents and adults with SCD completed the survey questionnaire on a tablet, with responses recorded directly in a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database,²⁴ or on a paper version. Interviews lasted 60 (individual) to 90 (group) minutes, while survey completion time was 20 to 25 minutes. Each participant received a gift card upon completion as an expression of appreciation. All procedures were approved by the institutional review boards of the participating health care facilities.

Group and Individual Interviews

Participants with SCD and providers were invited to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview prior to being presented with the surveys. Adolescents and adults with SCD were interviewed about barriers to care, quality of care, and pain-related experiences. Providers were asked about barriers to care and treatments. Interview guides were modified for community-based organization leaders and health care administrators who did not provide clinical services. Interview guides can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted by research coordinators trained in qualitative research methods by the first author (MT). As appropriate with semi-structured interviews, the interviewers could word questions spontaneously, change the order of questions for ease of flow of conversation, and inform simultaneous coding of interviews with new themes as those might arise, as long as they touched on all topics within the interview guide.²⁵ The interview guides were written, per qualitative research standards, based on the aims and purpose of the research,²⁶ and were informed by existing literature on access and barriers to care in SCD, quality of care, and the needs of individuals with SCD, including in relation to impact of the disease, self-efficacy, and self-management.

Interviewees participated in either individual or group interviews, but not both. The decision for which type of interview an individual participated in was based on 2 factors: if there were not comparable participants for group interviews (eg, health care administrator and community-based organization lead), these interviews were done individually; and given that we were drawing participants from a 5-county area in Northern California, scheduling was challenging for individuals with SCD with regard to aligning schedules and traveling to a central location where the group interviews were conducted. Provider group interviews were easier to arrange because we could schedule them at the same time as regularly scheduled meetings at the participants’ health care institutions.

Interview Data Gathering and Analysis

Digital recordings of the interviews were cleaned of any participant identifying data and sent for transcription to an outside service. Transcripts were reviewed for completeness and imported into NVivo (www.qsrinternational.com), a qualitative data management program.

A thematic content analysis and deductive and inductive approaches were used to analyze the verbatim transcripts generated from the interviews. The research team was trained in the use of NVivo software to facilitate the coding process. A deductive coding scheme was initially used based on existing concepts in the literature regarding challenges to optimal SCD care, with new codes added as the thematic content analyses progressed. The initial coding, pattern coding, and use of displays to examine the relationships between different categories were conducted simultaneously.^27,28 Using the constant comparative method, new concepts from participants with SCD and providers could be incorporated into subsequent interviews with other participants. For this study, the only additional concepts added were in relation to participant recruitment and retention in the SCDIC Registry. Research team members coded transcripts separately and came together weekly, constantly comparing codes and developing the consensus coding scheme. Where differences between coders existed, code meanings were discussed and clarified until consensus was reached.²⁹

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (v. 25, Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize demographics (eg, age, gender, and race), economic status, and type of SCD. No systematic differences were detected from cases with missing values. Scale reliabilities (ie, Cronbach α) were evaluated for self-report measures.

 

Measurement

Adolescents and adults with SCD completed items from the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), assessing sociodemographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, occupation, marital status, annual income, insurance), and clinical characteristics (sickle cell diagnosis and emergency department [ED] and hospital utilization for pain).³⁰

Pain Interference Short Form (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]). The Pain Interference Form consists of 8 items that assess the degree to which pain interfered with day-to-day activities in the previous 7 days at home, including impacts on social, cognitive, emotional, and physical functioning; household chores and recreational activities; sleep; and enjoyment in life. Reliability and validity of the PROMIS Pain Interference Scale has been demonstrated, with strong negative correlations with Physical Function Scales (r = 0.717, P < 0.01), indicating that higher scores are associated with lower function (β = 0.707, P < 0.001).³¹ The Cronbach α estimate for the other items on the pain interference scale was 0.99. Validity analysis indicated strong correlations with pain-related domains: BPI Interference Subscale (rho = 0.90), SF-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (rho = –0.84), and 0–10 Numerical Rating of Pain Intensity (rho = 0.48).³²

Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement Information System (ASCQ-Me) Quality of Care (QOC). ASCQ-Me QOC consists of 27 items that measure the quality of care that adults with SCD have received from health care providers.³³ There are 3 composites: provider communication (quality of patient and provider communication), ED care (quality of care in the ED), and access (to routine and emergency care). Internal consistency reliability for all 3 composites is greater than 0.70. Strong correlations of the provider communication composite with overall ratings of routine care (r = 0.65) and overall provider ratings (r = 0.83) provided evidence of construct validity. Similarly, the ED care composite was strongly correlated with overall ratings of QOC in the ED, and the access composite was highly correlated with overall evaluations of ED care (r = 0.70). Access, provider interaction, and ED care composites were reliable (Cronbach α, 0.70–0.83) and correlated with ratings of global care (r = 0.32–0.83), further indicating construct validity.³³

Sickle Cell Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES). The SCSES is a 9-item, self-administered questionnaire measuring perceptions of the ability to manage day-to-day issues resulting from SCD. SCSES items are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from Not sure at all (1) to Very sure (5). Individual item responses are summed to give an overall score, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy. The SCSES has acceptable reliability (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and validity (α = 0.89).^34,35

Sickle Cell Disease Barriers Checklist. This checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories: insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers (fear, anger), and disease-related barriers. Participants check applicable barriers, with a total score range of 0 to 53 and higher scores indicating more barriers to care. The SCD Barriers Checklist has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.74, P < 0.05).⁵

ED Provider Checklist. The ED provider survey is a checklist of 14 statements pertaining to issues regarding patient care, with which the provider rates level of agreement. Items representing the attitudes and beliefs of providers towards patients with SCD are rated on a Likert-type scale, with level of agreement indicated as 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The positive attitudes subscale consists of 4 items (Cronbach α= 0.85), and the negative attitudes subscale consists of 6 items (Cronbach α = 0.89). The Red-Flag Behaviors subscale includes 4 items that indicate behavior concerns about drug-seeking, such as requesting specific narcotics and changing behavior when the provider walks in.^8,36,37

Sickle cell and primary care providers also completed a survey consisting of sets of items compiled from existing provider surveys; this survey consisted of a list of 16 barriers to using opioids, which the providers rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, not a barrier; 5, complete barrier).^13,16,38 Providers indicated their level of experience with caring for patients with SCD; care provided, such as routine health screenings; and comfort level with providing preventive care, managing comorbidities, and managing acute and chronic pain. Providers were asked what potential facilitators might improve care for patients with SCD, including higher reimbursement, case management services, access to pain management specialists, and access to clinical decision-support tools. Providers responded to specific questions about management with hydroxyurea (eg, criteria for, barriers to, and comfort level with prescribing).³⁹ The surveys are included in the Appendix.

Triangulation

Data from the interviews and surveys were triangulated to enhance understanding of results generated from the different data sources.⁴⁰ Convergence of findings, different facets of the same phenomenon, or new perspectives were examined.

 

 

Results

Qualitative Data

Adolescents and adults with SCD (n = 55) and health care providers and community stakeholders (n = 56) participated in group or individual interviews to help us gain an in-depth understanding of the needs and barriers related to SCD care in our 5-county region. Participants with SCD described their experiences, which included stigma, racism, labeling, and, consequently, stress. They also identified barriers such as lack of transportation, challenges with insurance, and lack of access to providers who were competent with pain management. They reported that having SCD in a health care system that was unable to meet their needs was burdensome.

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Adolescents and adults indicated that SCD and its sequelae posed significant barriers to health care. Feelings of tiredness and pain make it more difficult for them to seek care. The emotional burden of SCD (fear and anger) was a frequently cited barrier, which was fueled by previous negative encounters with the health care system. All adolescents and adults with SCD reported that they knew of stigma in relation to seeking pain management that was pervasive and long-standing, and the majority reported they had directly experienced stigma. They reported that being labeled as “drug-seekers” was typical when in the ED for pain management. Participants articulated unconscious bias or overt racism among providers: “people with sickle cell are Black ... and Black pain is never as valuable as White pain” (25-year-old male). Respondents with SCD described challenges to the credibility of their pain reports in the ED. They reported that ED providers expressed doubts regarding the existence and/or severity of their pain, consequently creating a feeling of disrespect for patients seeking pain relief. The issue of stigma was mentioned by only 2 of 56 providers during their interviews.

Lack of Access to Knowledgeable, Compassionate Providers. Lack of access to knowledgeable care providers was another prevalent theme expressed by adolescents and adults with SCD. Frustration occurred when providers did not have knowledge of SCD and its management, particularly pain assessment. Adolescents and adults with SCD noted the lack of compassion among providers: “I’ve been kicked out of the hospital because they felt like okay, well we gave you enough medication, you should be all right” (29-year-old female). Providers specifically mentioned lack of compassion and knowledge as barriers to SCD care much less often during their interviews compared with the adolescents and adults with SCD.

Health Care System Barriers. Patient participants often expressed concerns about concrete and structural aspects of care. Getting to their appointments was a challenge for half of the interviewees, as they either did not have access to a vehicle or could not afford to travel the needed distance to obtain quality care. Even when hospitals were accessible by public transportation, those with excruciating pain understandably preferred a more comfortable and private way to travel: “I would like to change that, something that will be much easier, convenient for sickle cell patients that do suffer with pain, that they don’t have to travel always to see the doctor” (30-year-old male).

Insurance and other financial barriers also played an important role in influencing decisions to seek health care services. Medical expenses were not covered, or co-pays were too high. The Medicaid managed care system could prevent access to knowledgeable providers who were not within network. Such a lack of access discouraged some adolescents and adults with SCD from seeking acute and preventive care.

Transition From Pediatric to Adult Care. Interviewees with SCD expressed distress about the gap between pediatric and adult care. They described how they had a long-standing relationship with their medical providers, who were familiar with their medical background and history from childhood. Adolescent interviewees reported an understanding of their own pain management as well as adherence to and satisfaction with their individualized pain plans. However, adults noted that satisfaction plummeted with increasing age due to the limited number of experienced adult SCD providers, which was compounded by negative experiences (stigma, racism, drug-seeking label).

One interviewee emphasized the difficulty of finding knowledgeable providers after transition: “When you’re a pediatric sickle cell [patient], you have the doctors there every step of the way, but not with adult sickle cell… I know when I first transitioned I never felt more alone in my life… you look at that ER doctor kind of with the same mindset as you would your hematologist who just hand walked you through everything. And adult care providers were a lot more blunt and cold and they’re like… ‘I don’t know; I’m not really educated in sickle cell.’” A sickle cell provider shared his insight about the problem of transitioning: “I think it’s particularly challenging because we, as a community, don’t really set them up for success. It’s different from other chronic conditions [in that] it’s much harder to find an adult sickle cell provider. There’s not a lot of adult hematologists that will take care of our adult patients, and so I know statistically, there’s like a drop-down in the overall outcomes of our kids after they age out of our pediatric program.”

 

Self-Management, Supporting Hydroxyurea Use. Interview participants with SCD reported using a variety of methods to manage pain at home and chose to go to the ED only when the pain became intolerable. Patients and providers expressed awareness of different resources for managing pain at home, yet they also indicated that these resources have not been consolidated in an accessible way for patients and families. Some resources cited included heat therapy, acupuncture, meditation, medical marijuana, virtual reality devices, and pain medications other than opioids.

Patients and providers expressed the need for increasing awareness and education about hydroxyurea. Many interview participants with SCD were concerned about side effects, multiple visits with a provider during dose titration, and ongoing laboratory monitoring. They also expressed difficulties with scheduling multiple appointments, depending on access to transportation and limited provider clinic hours. They were aware of strategies for improving adherence with hydroxyurea, including setting phone alarms, educating family members about hydroxyurea, and eliciting family support, but expressed needing help to consistently implement these strategies.

Safe Opioid Prescribing. Adult care providers expressed concerns about safe opioid prescribing for patients with SCD. They were reluctant to prescribe opioid doses needed to adequately control SCD pain. Providers expressed uncertainty and fear or concern about medical/legal liability or about their judgment about what’s safe and not safe for patients with chronic use/very high doses of opioids. “I know we’re in like this opiate epidemic here in this country but I feel like these patients don’t really fit under that umbrella that the problem is coming from so [I am] just trying to learn more about how to take care of them.”

Care Coordination and Provider Communication. Adolescents and adults with SCD reported having positive experiences—good communication, established trust, and compassionate care—with their usual providers. However, they perceived that ED physicians and nurses did not really care about them. Both interviewees with SCD and providers recognized the importance of good communication in all settings as the key to overcoming barriers to receiving quality care. All agreed on the importance of using individual pain plans so that all providers, especially ED providers, can be more at ease with treating adolescents and adults with SCD.

 

Quantitative Data: Adolescents and Adults With SCD

Fifty-eight adolescents and adults with SCD (aged 15 to 48 years) completed the survey. Three additional individuals who did not complete the interview completed the survey. Reasons for not completing the interview included scheduling challenges (n = 2) or a sickle cell pain episode (n = 1). The average age of participants was 31 years ± 8.6, more than half (57%) were female, and the majority (93%) were African American (Table 1). Most (71%) had never been married. Half (50%) had some college or an associate degree, and 40% were employed and reported an annual household income of less than $30,000. Insurance coverage was predominantly Medi-Cal (Medicaid, 69%). The majority of participants resided in Alameda (34.5%) or Contra Costa (21%) counties. The majority of sickle cell care was received in Alameda County, whether outpatient (52%), inpatient (40%), or ED care (41%). The majority (71%) had a diagnosis of SCD hemoglobin SS.

Pain. More than one-third of individuals with SCD reported 1 or 2 ED visits for pain in the previous 6 months (34%), and more than 3 hospitalizations (36%) related to pain in the previous year (Table 2). The majority (85%) reported having severe pain at home in the previous 6 months that they did not seek health care for, consistent with their reports in the qualitative interviews. More than half (59%) reported 4 or more of these severe pain episodes that led to inability to perform daily activities for 1 week or more. While pain interference on the PROMIS Pain Interference Short Form on average (T-score, 59.6 ± 8.6) was similar to that of the general population (T-score, 50 ± 10), a higher proportion of patients with SCD reported pain interference compared with the general population. The mean self-efficacy (confidence in ability to manage complications of SCD) score on the SCSES of 30.0 ± 7.3 (range, 9–45) was similar to that of other adults with SCD (mean, 32.2 ± 7.0). Twenty-five percent of the present sample had a low self-efficacy score (< 25).

Barriers to Care and Treatments. Consistent with the qualitative data, SCD-related symptoms such as tiredness (64%) and pain (62%) were reported most often as barriers to care (Table 3). Emotions (> 25%) such as worry/fear, frustration/anger, and lack of confidence were other important barriers to care. Provider knowledge and attitudes were cited next most often, with 38% of the sample indicating “Providers accuse me of drug-seeking” and “It is hard for me to find a provider who has enough experiences with or knowledge about SCD.” Participants expressed that they were not believed when in pain and “I am treated differently from other patients.” Almost half of respondents cited “I am not seen quickly enough when I am in pain” as a barrier to their care.

Consistent with the qualitative data, transportation barriers (not having a vehicle, costs of transportation, public transit not easy to get to) were cited by 55% of participants. About half of participants reported that insurance was an important barrier, with high co-pays and medications and other services not covered. In addition, gathering approvals was a long and fragmented process, particularly for consultations among providers (hematology, primary care provider, pain specialist). Furthermore, insurance provided limited choices about location for services.

Participants reported social support system burnout (22%), help needed with daily activities (21%), and social isolation or generally not having enough support (33%) as ongoing barriers. Difficulties were encountered with self-management (eg, taking medications on time or making follow-up appointments, 19%), with 22% of participants finding the health care system confusing or hard to understand. Thirty percent reported “Places for me to go to learn how to stay well are not close by or easy to get to.” ”Worry about side effects” (33%) was a common barrier to hydroxyurea use. Participants described “forgetting to take the medicine,” “tried before but it did not work,” “heard scary things” about hydroxyurea, and “not interested in taking another medicine” as barriers.

 

Quality of Care. More than half (51%) of the 53 participants who had accessed health care in the previous year rated their overall health care as poor on the ASCQ-Me QOC measure. This was significantly higher compared to the reports from more than 47,000 adults with Medicaid in 2017 (16%),⁴¹ and to the 2008-2009 report from 556 adults with SCD from across the United States (37%, Figure 2).³³ The major contributor to these poor ratings for participants in our sample was low satisfaction with ED care.

Sixty percent of the 42 participants who had accessed ED care in the past year indicated “never” or “sometimes” to the question “When you went to the ED for care, how often did you get it as soon as you wanted?” compared with only 16% of the 2017 adult Medicaid population responding (n = 25,789) (Figure 3). Forty-seven percent of those with an ED visit indicated that, in the previous 12 months, they had been made to wait “more than 2 hours before receiving treatment for acute pain in the ED.” However, in the previous 12 months, 39% reported that their wait time in the ED had been only “between five minutes and one hour.”

On the ASCQ-Me QOC Access to Care composite measure, 33% of 42 participants responding reported they were seen at a routine appointment as soon as they would have liked. This is significantly lower compared to 56% of the adult Medicaid population responding to the same question. Reports of provider communication (Provider Communication composite) for adolescents and adults with SCD were comparable to reports of adults with SCD from the ASCQ-Me field test,³³ but adults with Medicaid reported higher ratings of quality communication behaviors (Figure 4).^33,41 Nearly 60% of both groups with SCD reported that providers “always” performed quality communication behaviors—listened carefully, spent enough time, treated them with respect, and explained things well—compared with more than 70% of adults with Medicaid.

Participants from all counties reported the same number of barriers to care on average (3.3 ± 2.1). Adolescents and adults who reported more barriers to care also reported lower satisfaction with care (r = –0.47, P < 0.01) and less confidence in their ability to manage their SCD (self-efficacy, r = – 0.36, P < 0.05). Female participants reported more barriers to care on average compared with male participants (2.6 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.05). Participants with higher self-efficacy reported lower pain ratings (r = –0.47, P < 0.001).

 

Quantitative Data: Health Care Providers

Providers (n = 56) and community stakeholders (2 leaders of community-based organizations and 3 health care administrators) were interviewed, with 29 also completing the survey. The reason for not completing (n = 22) was not having the time once the interview was complete. A link to the survey was sent to any provider not completing at the time of the interview, with 2 follow-up reminders. The majority of providers were between the ages of 31 and 50 years (46.4%), female (71.4%), and white (66.1%) (Table 4). None were of Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin. Thirty-six were physicians (64.3%), and 16 were allied health professionals (28.6%). Of the 56 providers, 32 indicated they had expertise caring for patients with SCD (57.1%), 14 were ED providers (25%), and 5 were primary care providers. Most of the providers practiced in an urban setting (91.1%).

Barriers to Care: ED Provider Perspectives. Nine of 14 ED providers interviewed completed the survey on their perspectives regarding barriers to care in the ED, difficulty with follow-ups, ED training resources, and pain control for patients with SCD. ED providers (n = 8) indicated that “provider attitudes” were a barrier to care delivery in the ED for patients with SCD. Some providers (n = 7) indicated that “implicit bias,” “opioid epidemic,” “concern about addiction,” and “patient behavior” were barriers. Respondents indicated that “overcrowding” (n = 6) and “lack of care pathway/protocol” (n = 5) were barriers. When asked to express their level of agreement with statements about SCD care in the ED, respondents disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 5) that they were “able to make a follow-up appointment” with a sickle cell specialist or primary care provider upon discharge from the ED, and others disagreed/strongly disagreed (n = 4) that they were able to make a “referral to a case management program.”

ED training and resources. Providers agreed/strongly agreed (n = 8) that they had the knowledge and training to care for patients with SCD, that they had access to needed medications, and that they had access to knowledgeable nursing staff with expertise in SCD care. All 9 ED providers indicated that they had sufficient physician/provider staffing to provide good pain management to persons with SCD in the ED.

Pain control in the ED. Seven ED providers indicated that their ED used individualized dosing protocols to treat sickle cell pain, and 5 respondents indicated their ED had a protocol for treating sickle cell pain. Surprisingly, only 3 indicated that they were aware of the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Barriers to Care: Primary Care Provider Perspectives. Twenty providers completed the SCD provider section of the survey, including 17 multidisciplinary SCD providers from 4 sickle cell special care centers and 3 community primary care providers. Of the 20, 12 were primary care providers for patients with SCD (Table 4).

Patient needs. Six primary care providers indicated that the medical needs of patients with SCD were being met, but none indicated that the behavioral health or mental health needs were being met.

Managing SCD comorbidities. Five primary care providers indicated they were very comfortable providing preventive ambulatory care to patients with SCD. Six indicated they were very comfortable managing acute pain episodes, but none were very comfortable managing comorbidities such as pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, or chronic pain.

Barriers to opioid use. Only 3 of 12 providers reviewing a list of 15 potential barriers to the use of opioids for SCD pain management indicated a perceived lack of efficacy of opioids, development of tolerance and dependence, and concerns about community perceptions as barriers. Two providers selected potential for diversion as a moderate barrier to opioid use.

Barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of 12 providers indicated that the common reasons that patients/families refuse hydroxyurea were “worry about side effects”; 7 chose “don’t want to take another medicine,” and 6 chose “worry about carcinogenic potential.” Others (n = 10) indicated that “patient/family adherence with hydroxyurea” and “patient/family adherence with required blood tests” were important barriers to hydroxyurea use. Eight of the 12 providers indicated that they were comfortable with managing hydroxyurea in patients with SCD.

Care redesign. Twenty SCD and primary care providers completed the Care Redesign section of the survey. Respondents (n = 11) indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had accessible case management services available without charge or if patient access to transportation to clinic was also available. Ten indicated that they would see more patients with SCD if they had an accessible community health worker (who understands patient’s/family’s social situation) and access to a pain management specialist on call to answer questions and who would manage chronic pain. All (n = 20) were willing to see more patients with SCD in their practices. Most reported that a clinical decision-support tool for SCD treatment (n = 13) and avoidance of complications (n = 12) would be useful.

 

Discussion

We evaluated access and barriers to care, quality of care, care coordination, and provider communication from the perspectives of adolescents and adults with SCD, their care providers, and community stakeholders, within the Solberg conceptual model for quality improvement. We found that barriers within the care process content domain (context and systems) were most salient for this population of adolescents and adults with SCD, with lack of provider knowledge and poor attitudes toward adolescents and adults with SCD, particularly in the ED, cited consistently by participant groups. Stigmatization and lack of provider compassion that affected the quality of care were particularly problematic. These findings are consistent with previous reports.^42,43 Adult health care (particularly ED) provider biases and negative attitudes have been recognized as major barriers to optimal pain management in SCD.^8,11,44,45 Interestingly, ED providers in our needs assessment indicated that they felt they had the training and resources to manage patients with SCD. However, only a few actually reported knowing about the NHLBI recommendations for the treatment of vaso-occlusive pain.

Within the care process content domain, we also found that SCD-related complications and associated emotions (fear, worry, anxiety), compounded by lack of access to knowledgeable and compassionate providers, pose a significant burden. Negative encounters with the health care system contributed to a striking 84% of patient participants choosing to manage severe pain at home, with pain seriously interfering with their ability to function on a daily basis. ED providers agreed that provider attitudes and implicit bias pose important barriers to care for adolescents and adults with SCD. Adolescents and adults with SCD wanted, and understood the need, to enhance self-management skills. Both they and their providers agreed that barriers to hydroxyurea uptake included worries about potential side effects, challenges with adherence to repeated laboratory testing, and support with remembering to take the medicine. However, providers uniformly expressed that access to behavioral and mental health services were, if not nonexistent, impossible to access.

Participants with SCD and their providers reported infrastructural challenges (change process capability), as manifested in limitations with accessing acute and preventive care due to transportation- and insurance- related issues. There were health system barriers that were particularly encountered during the transition from pediatric to adult care. These findings are consistent with previous reports that have found fewer interdisciplinary services available in the adult care settings compared with pediatrics.^46,47 Furthermore, adult care providers were less willing to accept adults with SCD because of the complexity of their management, for which the providers did not have the necessary expertise.^3,48-50 In addition, both adolescents and adults with SCD and primary care providers highlighted the inadequacies of the current system in addressing the chronic pain needs of this population. Linking back to the Solberg conceptual framework, our needs assessment results confirm the important role of establishing SCD care as a priority within a health care system—this requires leadership and vision. The vision and priorities must be implemented by effective health care teams. Multilevel approaches or interventions, when implemented, will lead to the desired outcomes.

Findings from our needs assessment within our 5-county region mirror needs assessment results from the broader consortium.⁵¹ The SCDIC has prioritized developing an intervention that addresses the challenges identified within the care process domain by directly enhancing provider access to patient individualized care plans in the electronic health record in the ED. Importantly, ED providers will be asked to view a short video that directly challenges bias and stigma in the ED. Previous studies have indeed found that attitudes can be improved by providers viewing short video segments of adults with SCD discussing their experiences.^36,52 This ED protocol will be one of the interventions that we will roll out in Northern California, given the significance of negative ED encounters reported by needs assessment participants. An additional feature of the intervention is a script for adults with SCD that guides them through introducing their individualized pain plan to their ED providers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in a situation that has been so overwhelmingly challenging.

We will implement a second SCDIC intervention that utilizes a mobile app to support self-management on the part of the patient, by supporting motivation and adherence with hydroxyurea.⁵³ A companion app supports hydroxyurea guideline adherence on the part of the provider, in keeping with one of our findings that providers are in need of decision-support tools. Elements of the intervention also align with our findings related to the importance of a support system in managing SCD, in that participants will identify a supportive partner who will play a specific role in supporting their adherence with hydroxyurea.

 

On our local level, we have, by necessity, partnered with leaders and community stakeholders throughout the region to ensure that these interventions to improve SCD care are prioritized. Grant funds provide initial resources for the SCDIC interventions, but our partnering health care administrators and medical directors must ensure that participating ED and hematology providers are free from competing priorities in order to implement the changes. We have partnered with a SCD community-based organization that is designing additional educational presentations for local emergency medicine providers, with the goal to bring to life very personal stories of bias and stigma within the EDs that directly contribute to decisions to avoid ED care despite severe symptoms.

Although we attempted to obtain samples of adolescents and adults with SCD and their providers that were representative across the 5-county region, the larger proportion of respondents were from 1 county. We did not assess concerns of age- and race-matched adults in our catchment area, so we cannot definitively say that our findings are unique to SCD. However, our results are consistent with findings from the national sample of adults with SCD who participated in the ASCQ-Me field test, and with results from the SCDIC needs assessment.^33,51 Interviews and surveys are subject to self-report bias and, therefore, may or may not reflect the actual behaviors or thoughts of participants. Confidence is increased in our results given the triangulation of expressed concerns across participant groups and across data collection strategies. The majority of adolescents and adults with SCD (95%) completed both the interview and survey, while 64% of ED providers interviewed completed the survey, compared with 54% of SCD specialists and primary care providers. These response rates are more than acceptable within the realm of survey response rates.^54,55

Although we encourage examining issues with care delivery within the conceptual framework for quality improvement presented, we recognize that grant funding allowed us to conduct an in-depth needs assessment that might not be feasible in other settings. Still, we would like readers to understand the importance of gathering data for improvement in a systematic manner across a range of participant groups, to ultimately inform the development of interventions and provide for evaluation of outcomes as a result of the interventions. This is particularly important for a disease, such as SCD, that is both medically and sociopolitically complex.

Conclusion

Our needs assessment brought into focus the multiple factors contributing to the disparities in health care experienced by adolescents and adults with SCD on our local level, and within the context of inequities in health resources and outcomes on the national level. We propose solutions that include specific interventions developed by a consortium of SCD and implementation science experts. We utilize a quality improvement framework to ensure that the elements of the interventions also address the barriers identified by our local providers and patients that are unique to our community. The pervasive challenges in SCD care, coupled with its medical complexities, may seem insurmountable, but our survey and qualitative results provide us with a road map for the way forward.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the adolescents and adults with sickle cell disease, the providers, and the community stakeholders who completed the interviews and surveys. The authors also acknowledge the SCCCI co-investigators for their contributions to this project, including Michael Bell, MD, Ward Hagar, MD, Christine Hoehner, FNP, Kimberly Major, MSW, Anne Marsh, MD, Lynne Neumayr, MD, and Ted Wun, MD. We also thank Kamilah Bailey, Jameelah Hodge, Jennifer Kim, Michael Rowland, Adria Stauber, Amber Fearon, and Shanda Robertson, and the Sickle Cell Data Collection Program for their contributions.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609; marsha.treadwell@ucsf.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding/support: This work was supported by grant # 1U01HL134007 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to the University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland.

From the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Oakland, CA

 

Abstract

• Objective: Emotional distress may adversely affect the course and complicate treatment for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). We evaluated variables associated with physical and mental components of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in SCD in the context of a biobehavioral model.
• Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional cohort study of 77 adults with SCD (18–69 years; 60% female; 73% Hgb SS) attending an urban, academic medical center.  We measured emotional distress (Patient Health Questionnaire–9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale), clinical complications and utilization, barriers to health care, sociodemo-graphics and HRQL (SF-36 Health Survey). We developed models predictive of physical and mental HRQL by conducting stepwise regression analyses.
• Results: Sample prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms was 33% and 36%, respectively; prevalence of impaired physical and mental HRQL was 17% and 16%, respectively. Increased symptoms of depression, older age, and ≥ 3 emergency department visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex.  Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.
• Conclusion: Emotional distress is an important contributor to both physical and mental HRQL for adults with SCD, although sociodemographic variables and barriers to care must also be considered. Innovative approaches that integrate mental health interventions with SCD clinical care are needed.

 

Emotional distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, may adversely affect the course and complicate the treatment of chronic physical conditions [1]. For patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), a group of inherited red blood cell conditions, symptoms of depression and anxiety are more prevalent compared with rates found in the general population [2–8]. The most common symptom of SCD is acute pain events, and other complications range from mild to life-threatening, including anemia, increased risk of infection, acute chest syndrome, stroke, skin ulcers, and pulmonary hypertension [9]. Depression in adults with SCD has been associated with increased sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain events, poor pain control, multiple blood transfusions, and prescription of the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea [4]. Adults with SCD and comorbid depression and anxiety had more daily pain and greater distress and interference from pain compared with those who did not have comorbid depression or anxiety [10]. Patients have linked emotional distress and episodes of illness [11], and research has found a relation between pain episodes and depression [12]. In a diary study, negative mood was significantly higher on pain days compared with non-pain days [13].

Studies examining the consequences of emotional distress on health-related quality of life (HRQL) for patients with SCD are emerging. Depressed adults with SCD rated their quality of life on the SF-36 Health Survey [14] as significantly poorer in all areas compared with non-depressed adults with SCD [15].  In regression models, depression was a stronger predictor of SF-36 scores than demographics, hemoglobin type, and pain measures. In a multi-site study [16], 1046 adults with SCD completed the SF-36. Increasing age was associated with significantly lower scores on all subscales except mental health, while female sex additionally contributed to diminished physical function and vitality scale scores in multivariate models [16]. The presence of a mood disorder was associated with bodily pain, and diminished vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and the mental component of HRQL. Medical complications other than pain were not associated with impaired HRQL. Anie and colleagues [17,18] have highlighted the contributions of sickle cell–related pain to diminished mood and HRQL, both in the acute hospital phase and 1 week post discharge.

A comprehensive literature review of patient-reported outcomes for adults with SCD revealed broad categories of the impact of SCD and its treatment on the lives of adults [19]. Categories included pain and pain management, emotional distress, poor social role functioning, diminished overall quality of life, and poor quality of care. Follow-up individual and group interviews with adults with SCD (n = 122) as well as individual interviews with their providers (n = 15) revealed findings consistent with the literature review on the major effects of pain on the lives of adults with SCD, interwoven with emotional distress, poor quality of care, and stigmatization [19].

In the present study, our goal was to describe variables associated with physical and mental HRQL in SCD within the context of the recently published comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD [19]. The present analysis uses an existing clinical database and evaluates the effects of the relations between clinical complications of SCD, emotional distress, health care utilization, and HRQL. Our model includes barriers to health care that might prevent vulnerable patients from accessing needed health care services. Sociodemographic variables including ethnic and racial minority status and lower socioeconomic status and educational attainment may create barriers to health care for patients with SCD, as they do for individuals with other chronic conditions [20–23]. Over 60% of patients with SCD are on public insurance [24] and can have difficulties with accessing quality health care [25]. Negative provider attitudes and stigmatization when patients are seeking care for acute pain episodes have been highlighted by patients as major barriers to seeking health care [19,26–28]. In a qualitative study, 45 youth with SCD reported that competing school or peer-group activities, “feeling good,” poor patient-provider relationships, adverse clinic experiences, and forgetting were barriers to clinic attendance [29]. Limited research suggests that barriers to accessing health care are associated with poorer HRQL [30,31]; however no studies were identified that directly evaluated the relation between barriers to care and HRQL for populations with SCD.

We hypothesized that clinical complications of SCD, including pain, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the physical component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables. Further, we hypothesized that emotional distress, clinical complications of SCD, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the mental component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables.

 

Methods

Patient Recruitment

Participants were 18 years and older and were a subgroup selected from a larger prospective cohort enrolled in the Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Program (SCDTDP) funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). As 1 of 7 SCDTDP grantees, our network collected common demographic, disease-related, and HRQL data as the other grantees to examine sickle cell health and health care [32]. Enrollment at our site was n = 115 from birth through adult, with data collection occurring at baseline in 2010 and annually through 2014. Participants were eligible for enrollment if they had any confirmed diagnosis of SCD and if they were seen at any facility treating SCD in the San Francisco Bay Area region. Interpreter services were available where English was a second language; however, no participant requested those services. The data collection site was an urban comprehensive sickle cell center. Participants were recruited through mailings, posted flyers, or were introduced to the project by their clinical providers. The institutional review boards of the sponsoring hospitals approved all procedures. This report describes analyses from the baseline data collected in 2010 and excludes pediatric patients under the age of 18 years, as we developed our conceptual model based on the adult SCD literature.

Procedures

Patients directly contacted the project coordinator or were introduced by their health care provider. The project coordinator explained the study in more detail, and if the patient agreed to participate, the project coordinator obtained thier informed consent. Participants completed the study materials in a private space in the clinic immediately after or were scheduled for a separate visit at a convenient time and location. Participants with known or observed difficulties with reading completed the questionnaires as an interview. We allowed participants who were unable to complete the forms in one visit to take them home or schedule a follow-up visit to complete them. We asked participants who took the questionnaires home to return them within 2 business days and provided them with a stamped addressed envelope. Participants were compensated with gift cards for their involvement.

Measures

Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Participants completed an Individual Utilization Questionnaire created for the SCDTDP grantees [32], either as an interview or in paper and pencil format. Participants indicated their age, race and ethnicity, education level, type of insurance, and annual household income. They indicated the type of SCD, number of hospital days and emergency department (ED) visits in the previous 12 months, disease-modifying therapies including hydroxyurea or transfusions, and lifetime incidence of sickle cell–related complications. Complications included pain, acute chest syndrome, fever, severe infection, stroke, kidney damage, gallbladder attack, spleen problems and priapism. Medical data was verified by reviewing medical records when possible; the clinical databases in the hematology/oncology department at the sponsoring hospital are maintained using Microsoft SQL Server, a relational database management system designed for the enterprise environment. However, not all of the participating institutions were linked via this common clinical database or by an electronic health record at the time the study was conducted.

Barriers to Care

We modified a checklist of barriers to accessing health care for patients with a range of chronic conditions [33] to create a SCD-specific checklist [34]. The final checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories including insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers such as fear or anger, and barriers posed by SCD itself (eg, pain, fatigue). Participants check off any applicable barrier, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 53. The checklist overall has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson  r = 0.74, P < 0.05).

Depressive Symptoms

Adults with SCD completed the PHQ-9, the 9-item depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire [35]. The PHQ-9 is a tool for assisting primary care clinicians in assessing symptoms of depression, based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV [36]). The PHQ-9 asks about such symptoms as sleep disturbance and difficulty concentrating over the past 2 weeks with scores ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Every day). The total symptom count is based on the number of items in which the respondent answered as “more than half of days” or greater, and scores are categorized as reflecting no (< 10), mild (10–14), moderate (15–19) or severe (≥ 20) symptoms of depression. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The sensitivity and diagnostic and criterion validity of the PHQ-9 have been established [37]. The internal consistency of the PHQ-9 is high, with α > 0.85 in several studies and 48-hour test-retest reliability of 0.84. The PHQ has been used widely, including with African-American and Hispanic populations, and with individuals with chronic conditions [38].

 

Symptoms of Anxiety

Participants completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaire for screening and measuring severity of generalized anxiety disorder [39]. The GAD-7 asks about such symptoms as feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge over the past two weeks. Scores from all 7 items are added to obtain a total score [40]. Cut-points of 5, 10, and 15 represent mild, moderate, and severe levels of anxiety symptoms. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The internal consistency of the GAD-7 is excellent (α = 0.92). Test-retest reliability is also good (Pearson r = 0.83) as is procedural validity (intraclass correlation = 0.83). The GAD-7 has excellent sensitivity and specificity to identify generalized anxiety disorder [41].

Health-Related Quality of Life

Participants completed the SF-36, which asks about the patient’s health status in the past week [14]. Eight subscales include physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. Two summary measures, the Physical Component Summary and the Mental Component Summary, are calculated from 4 scales each. Use of the summary measures has been shown to increase the reliability of scores and improve the validity of scores in discriminating between physical and psychosocial outcomes [14]. Higher scores represent better HRQL, with a mean score of 50 (SD = 50) for the general population. Internal consistency estimates for the component summary scores are α > 0.89, item discriminant validity estimates are greater than 92.5% and 2-week test-retest reliability was excellent. Scores on the SF-36 have been divided into categories of HRQL functioning [42,43]. Participants in the impaired to very impaired category have scores ≤ mean – 1 SD while participants with average to above average functioning have scores > mean – 1 SD.

The SF-36 has been used extensively in observational and randomized studies for a range of illness conditions. In SCD, some aspects of HRQL as measured by the SF-36 improved for adult patients who responded to hydroxyurea [44]. Participants in the Pain in Sickle Cell Epidemiology Study scored lower than national norms on all SF-36 subscales except psychosocial functioning [45]. HRQL decreased significantly as daily pain intensity increased [45]. Further, women reported worse bodily pain compared with men [46].

Data Analyses

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 13 [47]. Continuous variables were examined for normality with measures of skewness and peakedness. All variables satisfied the assumptions of normality with the exception of barriers to health care and ED utilization. The variable barriers to health care was transformed using a square root transformation, resulting in a more normally distributed variable. ED utilization was dichotomized as 0–2 versus 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months, based on the distribution of utilization in the sample. The cutpoint of ≥ 3 annual ED visits is consistent with other literature on SCD clinical severity [48].

Descriptive statistics were computed to include means, standard deviations and frequencies. Sociodemographic variables (age, sex, insurance status [public or private] and income) were examined as potential covariates using Pearson correlations and t tests. Associations among emotional distress (anxiety and depression symptoms), clinical complications and ED utilization, barriers to health care, and the outcomes of the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from the SF-36 were examined using Pearson correlations. We conducted stepwise regression with forward selection to determine models predictive of physical and mental HRQL. We tested the addition of each chosen variable (anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, clinical complications, ED utilization, barriers to health care, age, sex, insurance status, and income), adding the variables (if any) that were most correlated with the outcome, and repeated the process until the model was not improved. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.

Results

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the 77 participating adults with SCD. Sixty percent were female. Patients ranged in age from 18 to 69 years, with a mean age of 31.6 (SD = 13.1) years. Consistent with the general SCD population, participants were predominantly black/African American. Over 66% of families reporting had a median household income of less than $30,000 annually, although the mean household size was 3 to 4 persons. The majority of the participants (57%) had some college and beyond, although 14% had not completed high school. Over 80% of participants were on public insurance.

The majority of patients (73%) were diagnosed with Hgb SS disease and the most common lifetime complication was pain, reported by almost all of participants (Table 1). The next most common complication was fever, followed by acute chest syndrome. Twenty-seven percent of participants were currently on the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea, while 61% had a lifetime history of transfusion therapy. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 73 participants (95%).

The median number of ED visits in the previous year was 1 (range, 0–50), with 19 patients (25%) with zero visits. The median number of hospital days in the previous year was 13 (range, 0–81). Twenty-nine patients (38%) had no hospital days in the previous year. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 53 participants (69%), since hospital and ED visits occurred at institutions not always linked with the clinical databases at the sponsoring hospitals.

Emotional Distress, Barriers to Care, and Health-Related Quality of Life

The mean score for the sample on the PHQ-9 was 7.2 (SD = 5.6, α = 0.86, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of depression (ie, scores ≥ 10) was 33% (n = 25). Twelve patients with moderate to severe symptoms (48%) reported that symptoms of depression created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships, while 10 patients (40%) reported very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships due to depression symptoms.

The mean score on the GAD-7 was 7.9 (SD = 6.0, α = 0.90, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety (scores ≥ 10) was 36.4% (n = 28). Fourteen patients with moderate to severe symptoms (50%) reported that anxiety symptoms created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Twelve patients (43%) reported that symptoms created very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Fifteen patients (29%) with moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression exhibited comorbid anxiety and depression.

The mean Physical Component Summary score on the SF-36 was 53.6 (SD = 24.1, α = 0.94, Table 2). The prevalence of impaired to very impaired HRQL in the physical domain was 17% (n = 13). The mean Mental Component Summary score on the SF-36 for the sample was 50.1 (SD = 23.7, α = 0.93), with a prevalence of 16% (n = 12) in the impaired to very impaired range for HRQL in the mental domain.

The mean number of barriers from the barriers checklist was 9.2 (SD = 10.1) out of 53 possible. Sixty-five participants (86%) reported at least 1 barrier to accessing health care (Table 2). The most frequently cited barriers to care were provider knowledge and attitudes, followed by transportation, insurance, and access to services (eg, hours and location of services). Less frequently cited barriers to care were individual barriers, including memory, health literacy and motivation, as well as those related to SCD itself, ie, fatigue and pain.

Sociodemographic Variables, Emotional Distress, and Health-Related Quality of Life

Symptoms of anxiety and depression were highly correlated with one another, as would be expected (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Physical and mental HRQL were significantly correlated with symptoms of depression (r = –0.67, P < 0.001 for physical HRQL component and r = –0.70 for mental HRQL component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of depression. Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were significantly correlated with symptoms of anxiety (r = –0.58, P < 0.001 for the physical component and r = –0.62 for the mental component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of anxiety. Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from depressive symptoms were correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.46, P < 0.01) and mental domains (r = –0.52, P < 0.001). Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from anxiety symptoms were also correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.58, P < 0.001) and mental domains (r = –0.63, P < 0.001). Reports of more barriers to health care were significantly correlated with reports of more depressive and anxiety symptoms (r = 0.53, P < 0.001 and r = 0.48, P < 0.001), with lower Mental Component Summary scores (r = –0.43, P < 0.05), and with more ED visits in the past year (r = 0.43, P < 0.05).

Relations Between Independent Variables and Outcomes

Results of regression analyses (Table 3) indicated that a model including depression symptoms, age, ED utilization, anxiety symptoms and sex predicted the physical component of HRQL (R² = 0.55, F(5, 66) = 15.8, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression, older age and 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex. A model including depression symptoms, barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD and sex predicted the mental component of HRQL (R2 = 0.56, F(5, 66) = 16.7, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.

 

Discussion

Results of this study showed that as expected, symptoms of depression were independently associated with the mental component of HRQL, controlling for other variables. Symptoms of depression were also independently associated with the physical component of HRQL. The effect size for both models was moderate but comparable to effect sizes of other studies of predictive models of physical and mental HRQL in SCD [49]. Our findings were consistent with previous literature, with older age and increased ED utilization independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, with sex and anxiety symptoms entering into the predictive model [15–18,44,45]. Contrary to our hypotheses, barriers to accessing health care were not independently associated with physical or mental HRQL but did contribute to the model for mental HRQL, as did clinical complications and private insurance status.

While our sample was similar to previous samples in mean age and percentage of women participants, our patients reported significantly higher physical HRQL scores, and a wider range of HRQL scores (eg, 53.6,
SD = 24.1 compared with 39.6, SD = 10.0 [16]). The mean Physical Component Summary score was in fact similar to the general population mean of 50. This may reflect improvements in quality of care and subsequent overall improved patient health and HRQL given that these data were collected in year 2 of the HRSA SCDTDP. As an SCDTDP grantee, we implemented goals to improve coordination of service delivery and to increase access to care. However, it should also be considered that there was a selection bias in our study, in favor of those with better HRQL. Nevertheless, as already noted, our findings are consistent with previous literature with regard to inter-relations between variables, ie, associations between lower physical HRQL ratings and symptoms of depression, older age, and increased ED utilization [15]. Future studies in SCD that directly evaluate reported access to a medical home in relation to HRQL are needed to assess the impact of access to care and care coordination on HRQL ratings.

Our use of a data collection tool that focused on lifetime rather than acute history of complications may have contributed to our failure to find a relation between clinical manifestations and physical HRQL. Further, we were not able to assess the effects of pain separately from other complications, since almost every participant reported a lifetime history of pain. However, our findings were consistent with those of researchers who have found psychosocial and sociodemographic factors, versus clinical manifestations, to be major influences on both physical and mental HRQL for individuals with SCD and other chronic and life-threatening conditions [15, 16, 50]. Our confidence is increased in this finding, given that we were able to verify self-reports of clinical manifestations with our clinical database. Our results contribute to the developing body of knowledge that emphasizes the importance of understanding the broad impact on the lives of adults of living with SCD, not just the physical symptomatology.

There has been limited research on barriers to accessing health care as associated with HRQL for SCD populations. Health care barriers have been identified for ethnic minorities, even within patient-centered medical homes, with minority status moderating the effect of barriers to care on HRQL [30]. Our findings that barriers to health care were correlated with depression and anxiety symptoms, mental HRQL, and greater ED utilization support the need to view SCD care within a biobehavioral framework. Health care provider negative attitudes and lack of knowledge were the most frequently cited barriers for adults in our study, particularly in the context of ED and inpatient care. These findings are similar to other studies that have highlighted the impact of these provider variables on quality of care [26,51]. We were not able to separate out effects of ethnic minority status, given that our patients were predominantly African American.

Contributors to poor HRQL that have been identified in SCD are poverty [42] and public insurance status [49]. While over half of our participants had family incomes of less than $30,000, despite a mean household size of 3 members, we did not find that income contributed to either of our models predicting physical or mental HRQL. Over half of our patients were well educated, which could have moderated the effect of their low incomes, but we did not measure other potential moderators such as active coping and supportive relationships [19]. These analyses were beyond the scope of our existing database, but future studies are needed on such resilience factors and processes. Our adults were predominantly on public insurance and we did find that private insurance status was positively associated with higher ratings of mental HRQL, consistent with other SCD research [49]. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of considering the interplay between emotional distress, sociodemographic and clinical factors and quality of care in order to address risk factors for poor patient-reported outcomes [52,53].

 

There have not been previous reports of symptoms of emotional distress in SCD using the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, but both measures have been used widely for depression and anxiety screening, including with African-American populations. We selected these over other measures for their brevity, free availability, and psychometric properties. Our prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms in the present study was similar to what has been found using other tools [2–8]. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 also provide ratings of symptom interference on daily functioning, and we found that these ratings were associated with impaired physical and mental HRQL. Given that there generally are limited mental health resources in the communities where individuals with SCD reside and are treated, ratings of emotional distress and HRQL can be taken together to stratify those patients with the most immediate need for interventions. Further, screening can be used for early detection with the goal to intervene and prevent the progression of symptoms of emotional distress to long-term, disabling mental health disorders [54]. There is a need for innovative and cost-effective strategies for assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms and disorders for patients with SCD. One model for evidence-based practice in the management of emotional distress for patients with in SCD is the collaborative care model.

The collaborative care model integrates physical and mental health care in the patient-centered medical home and focuses on treating the whole person and family [55]. In this model, a care management staff (eg, nurse, social worker, psychologist) is integrated with the primary care team. The care management staff, in consultation with a psychiatrist, provides evidence-based care coordination, brief behavioral interventions, and support for other treatments, including medications. The effectiveness of collaborative care programs has been demonstrated for ethnic minority and safety net populations such as the SCD population, which is disproportionately low-income and on public insurance [56, 57]. Future research with SCD populations should investigate such interventions as the collaborative care model that addresses both emotional distress and barriers to care.

Limitations

Our results need to be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and the potential bias introduced by  non-random sampling. In addition, as our patients are from an urban setting, findings might not generalize to rural populations. This study was cross sectional so no inferences can be made with regard to causality and temporal relations between anxiety symptoms, barriers to care, and HRQL. Our strategy for measuring total clinical complications and barriers to care conserved power but it was not possible to evaluate if specific complications or barriers may have exerted a greater impact on HRQL compared with others. Similarly, other studies have examined specific domains of HRQL, while we limited our analysis to the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores. The utilization questionnaire was designed to assess only lifetime complications, not complications more proximal to the HRQL ratings.

Patient-reported outcomes, now widely accepted as outcome measures, elicit patients’ descriptions of the impact of their condition on their day-to-day lives [34, 58–60]. However, measures of mental health symptoms and HRQL may be subject to recall bias, measurement error, and confounding [61,62]. Nevertheless, a range of studies support the idea that mental health symptoms and  HRQL are distinct constructs, and that patients with physical and mental health symptoms are vulnerable to lower ratings of HRQL [63,64]. Disease-modifying therapies such as hydroxyurea can contribute to improved ratings of HRQL [44,65], but we were not able to evaluate the contribution of hydroxyurea to HRQL as it appears to have been underutilized in our sample.

Conclusion

We evaluated emotional distress and other variables in the context of a biobehavioral model of HRQL outcomes for adults with SCD. Integrating the patient's perspective of the impact of the disease and its treatment with assessment of clinical indications is critical to implementing and evaluating effective therapies [25]. However, there are conceptual challenges in determining what actually contributes to HRQL from the patient’s perspective in the context of genetic disorders such as SCD [50]. Our findings highlight the importance of incorporating comprehensive psychosocial screening in order to support optimal HRQL in SCD. Providers may be reluctant to include such screening if, as is often the case, mental health services are difficult to access. Models such as the collaborative care model, which include mental health interventions within the sickle cell center or primary care provider’s office, should be implented. Barriers to care and HRQL should also be routinely evaluated for patients with SCD. Use of disease-specific tools, such as the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life measurement system [66], may increase the specificity needed to detect differences within adults with SCD and improvements related to interventions, whether medical or psychosocial. Contributors to HRQL in SCD go beyond clinical manifestations to include psychological and social factors, as well as provider and health system variables. Research conducted within the framework of a comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD can inform clinical applications that ultimately enhance HRQL for patients with SCD.

 

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank San Keller, PhD, for her helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, Hematology/Oncology Dept., UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, HRSA or NIH.

Financial disclosures: None.

Author contributions: conception and design, MJT; analysis and interpretation of data, MJT, GG; drafting of article, MJT, GG; critical revision of the article, MJT, KK, FB; statistical expertise, GG; obtaining of funding, MJT; administrative or technical support, KK, FB; collection and assembly of data, KK, FB.

From the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Oakland, CA

 

Abstract

• Objective: Emotional distress may adversely affect the course and complicate treatment for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). We evaluated variables associated with physical and mental components of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in SCD in the context of a biobehavioral model.
• Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional cohort study of 77 adults with SCD (18–69 years; 60% female; 73% Hgb SS) attending an urban, academic medical center.  We measured emotional distress (Patient Health Questionnaire–9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale), clinical complications and utilization, barriers to health care, sociodemo-graphics and HRQL (SF-36 Health Survey). We developed models predictive of physical and mental HRQL by conducting stepwise regression analyses.
• Results: Sample prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms was 33% and 36%, respectively; prevalence of impaired physical and mental HRQL was 17% and 16%, respectively. Increased symptoms of depression, older age, and ≥ 3 emergency department visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex.  Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.
• Conclusion: Emotional distress is an important contributor to both physical and mental HRQL for adults with SCD, although sociodemographic variables and barriers to care must also be considered. Innovative approaches that integrate mental health interventions with SCD clinical care are needed.

 

Emotional distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, may adversely affect the course and complicate the treatment of chronic physical conditions [1]. For patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), a group of inherited red blood cell conditions, symptoms of depression and anxiety are more prevalent compared with rates found in the general population [2–8]. The most common symptom of SCD is acute pain events, and other complications range from mild to life-threatening, including anemia, increased risk of infection, acute chest syndrome, stroke, skin ulcers, and pulmonary hypertension [9]. Depression in adults with SCD has been associated with increased sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain events, poor pain control, multiple blood transfusions, and prescription of the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea [4]. Adults with SCD and comorbid depression and anxiety had more daily pain and greater distress and interference from pain compared with those who did not have comorbid depression or anxiety [10]. Patients have linked emotional distress and episodes of illness [11], and research has found a relation between pain episodes and depression [12]. In a diary study, negative mood was significantly higher on pain days compared with non-pain days [13].

Studies examining the consequences of emotional distress on health-related quality of life (HRQL) for patients with SCD are emerging. Depressed adults with SCD rated their quality of life on the SF-36 Health Survey [14] as significantly poorer in all areas compared with non-depressed adults with SCD [15].  In regression models, depression was a stronger predictor of SF-36 scores than demographics, hemoglobin type, and pain measures. In a multi-site study [16], 1046 adults with SCD completed the SF-36. Increasing age was associated with significantly lower scores on all subscales except mental health, while female sex additionally contributed to diminished physical function and vitality scale scores in multivariate models [16]. The presence of a mood disorder was associated with bodily pain, and diminished vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and the mental component of HRQL. Medical complications other than pain were not associated with impaired HRQL. Anie and colleagues [17,18] have highlighted the contributions of sickle cell–related pain to diminished mood and HRQL, both in the acute hospital phase and 1 week post discharge.

A comprehensive literature review of patient-reported outcomes for adults with SCD revealed broad categories of the impact of SCD and its treatment on the lives of adults [19]. Categories included pain and pain management, emotional distress, poor social role functioning, diminished overall quality of life, and poor quality of care. Follow-up individual and group interviews with adults with SCD (n = 122) as well as individual interviews with their providers (n = 15) revealed findings consistent with the literature review on the major effects of pain on the lives of adults with SCD, interwoven with emotional distress, poor quality of care, and stigmatization [19].

In the present study, our goal was to describe variables associated with physical and mental HRQL in SCD within the context of the recently published comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD [19]. The present analysis uses an existing clinical database and evaluates the effects of the relations between clinical complications of SCD, emotional distress, health care utilization, and HRQL. Our model includes barriers to health care that might prevent vulnerable patients from accessing needed health care services. Sociodemographic variables including ethnic and racial minority status and lower socioeconomic status and educational attainment may create barriers to health care for patients with SCD, as they do for individuals with other chronic conditions [20–23]. Over 60% of patients with SCD are on public insurance [24] and can have difficulties with accessing quality health care [25]. Negative provider attitudes and stigmatization when patients are seeking care for acute pain episodes have been highlighted by patients as major barriers to seeking health care [19,26–28]. In a qualitative study, 45 youth with SCD reported that competing school or peer-group activities, “feeling good,” poor patient-provider relationships, adverse clinic experiences, and forgetting were barriers to clinic attendance [29]. Limited research suggests that barriers to accessing health care are associated with poorer HRQL [30,31]; however no studies were identified that directly evaluated the relation between barriers to care and HRQL for populations with SCD.

We hypothesized that clinical complications of SCD, including pain, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the physical component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables. Further, we hypothesized that emotional distress, clinical complications of SCD, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the mental component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables.

 

Methods

Patient Recruitment

Participants were 18 years and older and were a subgroup selected from a larger prospective cohort enrolled in the Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Program (SCDTDP) funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). As 1 of 7 SCDTDP grantees, our network collected common demographic, disease-related, and HRQL data as the other grantees to examine sickle cell health and health care [32]. Enrollment at our site was n = 115 from birth through adult, with data collection occurring at baseline in 2010 and annually through 2014. Participants were eligible for enrollment if they had any confirmed diagnosis of SCD and if they were seen at any facility treating SCD in the San Francisco Bay Area region. Interpreter services were available where English was a second language; however, no participant requested those services. The data collection site was an urban comprehensive sickle cell center. Participants were recruited through mailings, posted flyers, or were introduced to the project by their clinical providers. The institutional review boards of the sponsoring hospitals approved all procedures. This report describes analyses from the baseline data collected in 2010 and excludes pediatric patients under the age of 18 years, as we developed our conceptual model based on the adult SCD literature.

Procedures

Patients directly contacted the project coordinator or were introduced by their health care provider. The project coordinator explained the study in more detail, and if the patient agreed to participate, the project coordinator obtained thier informed consent. Participants completed the study materials in a private space in the clinic immediately after or were scheduled for a separate visit at a convenient time and location. Participants with known or observed difficulties with reading completed the questionnaires as an interview. We allowed participants who were unable to complete the forms in one visit to take them home or schedule a follow-up visit to complete them. We asked participants who took the questionnaires home to return them within 2 business days and provided them with a stamped addressed envelope. Participants were compensated with gift cards for their involvement.

Measures

Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Participants completed an Individual Utilization Questionnaire created for the SCDTDP grantees [32], either as an interview or in paper and pencil format. Participants indicated their age, race and ethnicity, education level, type of insurance, and annual household income. They indicated the type of SCD, number of hospital days and emergency department (ED) visits in the previous 12 months, disease-modifying therapies including hydroxyurea or transfusions, and lifetime incidence of sickle cell–related complications. Complications included pain, acute chest syndrome, fever, severe infection, stroke, kidney damage, gallbladder attack, spleen problems and priapism. Medical data was verified by reviewing medical records when possible; the clinical databases in the hematology/oncology department at the sponsoring hospital are maintained using Microsoft SQL Server, a relational database management system designed for the enterprise environment. However, not all of the participating institutions were linked via this common clinical database or by an electronic health record at the time the study was conducted.

Barriers to Care

We modified a checklist of barriers to accessing health care for patients with a range of chronic conditions [33] to create a SCD-specific checklist [34]. The final checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories including insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers such as fear or anger, and barriers posed by SCD itself (eg, pain, fatigue). Participants check off any applicable barrier, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 53. The checklist overall has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson  r = 0.74, P < 0.05).

Depressive Symptoms

Adults with SCD completed the PHQ-9, the 9-item depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire [35]. The PHQ-9 is a tool for assisting primary care clinicians in assessing symptoms of depression, based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV [36]). The PHQ-9 asks about such symptoms as sleep disturbance and difficulty concentrating over the past 2 weeks with scores ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Every day). The total symptom count is based on the number of items in which the respondent answered as “more than half of days” or greater, and scores are categorized as reflecting no (< 10), mild (10–14), moderate (15–19) or severe (≥ 20) symptoms of depression. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The sensitivity and diagnostic and criterion validity of the PHQ-9 have been established [37]. The internal consistency of the PHQ-9 is high, with α > 0.85 in several studies and 48-hour test-retest reliability of 0.84. The PHQ has been used widely, including with African-American and Hispanic populations, and with individuals with chronic conditions [38].

 

Symptoms of Anxiety

Participants completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaire for screening and measuring severity of generalized anxiety disorder [39]. The GAD-7 asks about such symptoms as feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge over the past two weeks. Scores from all 7 items are added to obtain a total score [40]. Cut-points of 5, 10, and 15 represent mild, moderate, and severe levels of anxiety symptoms. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The internal consistency of the GAD-7 is excellent (α = 0.92). Test-retest reliability is also good (Pearson r = 0.83) as is procedural validity (intraclass correlation = 0.83). The GAD-7 has excellent sensitivity and specificity to identify generalized anxiety disorder [41].

Health-Related Quality of Life

Participants completed the SF-36, which asks about the patient’s health status in the past week [14]. Eight subscales include physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. Two summary measures, the Physical Component Summary and the Mental Component Summary, are calculated from 4 scales each. Use of the summary measures has been shown to increase the reliability of scores and improve the validity of scores in discriminating between physical and psychosocial outcomes [14]. Higher scores represent better HRQL, with a mean score of 50 (SD = 50) for the general population. Internal consistency estimates for the component summary scores are α > 0.89, item discriminant validity estimates are greater than 92.5% and 2-week test-retest reliability was excellent. Scores on the SF-36 have been divided into categories of HRQL functioning [42,43]. Participants in the impaired to very impaired category have scores ≤ mean – 1 SD while participants with average to above average functioning have scores > mean – 1 SD.

The SF-36 has been used extensively in observational and randomized studies for a range of illness conditions. In SCD, some aspects of HRQL as measured by the SF-36 improved for adult patients who responded to hydroxyurea [44]. Participants in the Pain in Sickle Cell Epidemiology Study scored lower than national norms on all SF-36 subscales except psychosocial functioning [45]. HRQL decreased significantly as daily pain intensity increased [45]. Further, women reported worse bodily pain compared with men [46].

Data Analyses

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 13 [47]. Continuous variables were examined for normality with measures of skewness and peakedness. All variables satisfied the assumptions of normality with the exception of barriers to health care and ED utilization. The variable barriers to health care was transformed using a square root transformation, resulting in a more normally distributed variable. ED utilization was dichotomized as 0–2 versus 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months, based on the distribution of utilization in the sample. The cutpoint of ≥ 3 annual ED visits is consistent with other literature on SCD clinical severity [48].

Descriptive statistics were computed to include means, standard deviations and frequencies. Sociodemographic variables (age, sex, insurance status [public or private] and income) were examined as potential covariates using Pearson correlations and t tests. Associations among emotional distress (anxiety and depression symptoms), clinical complications and ED utilization, barriers to health care, and the outcomes of the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from the SF-36 were examined using Pearson correlations. We conducted stepwise regression with forward selection to determine models predictive of physical and mental HRQL. We tested the addition of each chosen variable (anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, clinical complications, ED utilization, barriers to health care, age, sex, insurance status, and income), adding the variables (if any) that were most correlated with the outcome, and repeated the process until the model was not improved. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.

Results

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the 77 participating adults with SCD. Sixty percent were female. Patients ranged in age from 18 to 69 years, with a mean age of 31.6 (SD = 13.1) years. Consistent with the general SCD population, participants were predominantly black/African American. Over 66% of families reporting had a median household income of less than $30,000 annually, although the mean household size was 3 to 4 persons. The majority of the participants (57%) had some college and beyond, although 14% had not completed high school. Over 80% of participants were on public insurance.

The majority of patients (73%) were diagnosed with Hgb SS disease and the most common lifetime complication was pain, reported by almost all of participants (Table 1). The next most common complication was fever, followed by acute chest syndrome. Twenty-seven percent of participants were currently on the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea, while 61% had a lifetime history of transfusion therapy. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 73 participants (95%).

The median number of ED visits in the previous year was 1 (range, 0–50), with 19 patients (25%) with zero visits. The median number of hospital days in the previous year was 13 (range, 0–81). Twenty-nine patients (38%) had no hospital days in the previous year. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 53 participants (69%), since hospital and ED visits occurred at institutions not always linked with the clinical databases at the sponsoring hospitals.

Emotional Distress, Barriers to Care, and Health-Related Quality of Life

The mean score for the sample on the PHQ-9 was 7.2 (SD = 5.6, α = 0.86, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of depression (ie, scores ≥ 10) was 33% (n = 25). Twelve patients with moderate to severe symptoms (48%) reported that symptoms of depression created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships, while 10 patients (40%) reported very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships due to depression symptoms.

The mean score on the GAD-7 was 7.9 (SD = 6.0, α = 0.90, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety (scores ≥ 10) was 36.4% (n = 28). Fourteen patients with moderate to severe symptoms (50%) reported that anxiety symptoms created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Twelve patients (43%) reported that symptoms created very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Fifteen patients (29%) with moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression exhibited comorbid anxiety and depression.

The mean Physical Component Summary score on the SF-36 was 53.6 (SD = 24.1, α = 0.94, Table 2). The prevalence of impaired to very impaired HRQL in the physical domain was 17% (n = 13). The mean Mental Component Summary score on the SF-36 for the sample was 50.1 (SD = 23.7, α = 0.93), with a prevalence of 16% (n = 12) in the impaired to very impaired range for HRQL in the mental domain.

The mean number of barriers from the barriers checklist was 9.2 (SD = 10.1) out of 53 possible. Sixty-five participants (86%) reported at least 1 barrier to accessing health care (Table 2). The most frequently cited barriers to care were provider knowledge and attitudes, followed by transportation, insurance, and access to services (eg, hours and location of services). Less frequently cited barriers to care were individual barriers, including memory, health literacy and motivation, as well as those related to SCD itself, ie, fatigue and pain.

Sociodemographic Variables, Emotional Distress, and Health-Related Quality of Life

Symptoms of anxiety and depression were highly correlated with one another, as would be expected (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Physical and mental HRQL were significantly correlated with symptoms of depression (r = –0.67, P < 0.001 for physical HRQL component and r = –0.70 for mental HRQL component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of depression. Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were significantly correlated with symptoms of anxiety (r = –0.58, P < 0.001 for the physical component and r = –0.62 for the mental component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of anxiety. Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from depressive symptoms were correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.46, P < 0.01) and mental domains (r = –0.52, P < 0.001). Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from anxiety symptoms were also correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.58, P < 0.001) and mental domains (r = –0.63, P < 0.001). Reports of more barriers to health care were significantly correlated with reports of more depressive and anxiety symptoms (r = 0.53, P < 0.001 and r = 0.48, P < 0.001), with lower Mental Component Summary scores (r = –0.43, P < 0.05), and with more ED visits in the past year (r = 0.43, P < 0.05).

Relations Between Independent Variables and Outcomes

Results of regression analyses (Table 3) indicated that a model including depression symptoms, age, ED utilization, anxiety symptoms and sex predicted the physical component of HRQL (R² = 0.55, F(5, 66) = 15.8, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression, older age and 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex. A model including depression symptoms, barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD and sex predicted the mental component of HRQL (R2 = 0.56, F(5, 66) = 16.7, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.

 

Discussion

Results of this study showed that as expected, symptoms of depression were independently associated with the mental component of HRQL, controlling for other variables. Symptoms of depression were also independently associated with the physical component of HRQL. The effect size for both models was moderate but comparable to effect sizes of other studies of predictive models of physical and mental HRQL in SCD [49]. Our findings were consistent with previous literature, with older age and increased ED utilization independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, with sex and anxiety symptoms entering into the predictive model [15–18,44,45]. Contrary to our hypotheses, barriers to accessing health care were not independently associated with physical or mental HRQL but did contribute to the model for mental HRQL, as did clinical complications and private insurance status.

While our sample was similar to previous samples in mean age and percentage of women participants, our patients reported significantly higher physical HRQL scores, and a wider range of HRQL scores (eg, 53.6,
SD = 24.1 compared with 39.6, SD = 10.0 [16]). The mean Physical Component Summary score was in fact similar to the general population mean of 50. This may reflect improvements in quality of care and subsequent overall improved patient health and HRQL given that these data were collected in year 2 of the HRSA SCDTDP. As an SCDTDP grantee, we implemented goals to improve coordination of service delivery and to increase access to care. However, it should also be considered that there was a selection bias in our study, in favor of those with better HRQL. Nevertheless, as already noted, our findings are consistent with previous literature with regard to inter-relations between variables, ie, associations between lower physical HRQL ratings and symptoms of depression, older age, and increased ED utilization [15]. Future studies in SCD that directly evaluate reported access to a medical home in relation to HRQL are needed to assess the impact of access to care and care coordination on HRQL ratings.

Our use of a data collection tool that focused on lifetime rather than acute history of complications may have contributed to our failure to find a relation between clinical manifestations and physical HRQL. Further, we were not able to assess the effects of pain separately from other complications, since almost every participant reported a lifetime history of pain. However, our findings were consistent with those of researchers who have found psychosocial and sociodemographic factors, versus clinical manifestations, to be major influences on both physical and mental HRQL for individuals with SCD and other chronic and life-threatening conditions [15, 16, 50]. Our confidence is increased in this finding, given that we were able to verify self-reports of clinical manifestations with our clinical database. Our results contribute to the developing body of knowledge that emphasizes the importance of understanding the broad impact on the lives of adults of living with SCD, not just the physical symptomatology.

There has been limited research on barriers to accessing health care as associated with HRQL for SCD populations. Health care barriers have been identified for ethnic minorities, even within patient-centered medical homes, with minority status moderating the effect of barriers to care on HRQL [30]. Our findings that barriers to health care were correlated with depression and anxiety symptoms, mental HRQL, and greater ED utilization support the need to view SCD care within a biobehavioral framework. Health care provider negative attitudes and lack of knowledge were the most frequently cited barriers for adults in our study, particularly in the context of ED and inpatient care. These findings are similar to other studies that have highlighted the impact of these provider variables on quality of care [26,51]. We were not able to separate out effects of ethnic minority status, given that our patients were predominantly African American.

Contributors to poor HRQL that have been identified in SCD are poverty [42] and public insurance status [49]. While over half of our participants had family incomes of less than $30,000, despite a mean household size of 3 members, we did not find that income contributed to either of our models predicting physical or mental HRQL. Over half of our patients were well educated, which could have moderated the effect of their low incomes, but we did not measure other potential moderators such as active coping and supportive relationships [19]. These analyses were beyond the scope of our existing database, but future studies are needed on such resilience factors and processes. Our adults were predominantly on public insurance and we did find that private insurance status was positively associated with higher ratings of mental HRQL, consistent with other SCD research [49]. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of considering the interplay between emotional distress, sociodemographic and clinical factors and quality of care in order to address risk factors for poor patient-reported outcomes [52,53].

 

There have not been previous reports of symptoms of emotional distress in SCD using the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, but both measures have been used widely for depression and anxiety screening, including with African-American populations. We selected these over other measures for their brevity, free availability, and psychometric properties. Our prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms in the present study was similar to what has been found using other tools [2–8]. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 also provide ratings of symptom interference on daily functioning, and we found that these ratings were associated with impaired physical and mental HRQL. Given that there generally are limited mental health resources in the communities where individuals with SCD reside and are treated, ratings of emotional distress and HRQL can be taken together to stratify those patients with the most immediate need for interventions. Further, screening can be used for early detection with the goal to intervene and prevent the progression of symptoms of emotional distress to long-term, disabling mental health disorders [54]. There is a need for innovative and cost-effective strategies for assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms and disorders for patients with SCD. One model for evidence-based practice in the management of emotional distress for patients with in SCD is the collaborative care model.

The collaborative care model integrates physical and mental health care in the patient-centered medical home and focuses on treating the whole person and family [55]. In this model, a care management staff (eg, nurse, social worker, psychologist) is integrated with the primary care team. The care management staff, in consultation with a psychiatrist, provides evidence-based care coordination, brief behavioral interventions, and support for other treatments, including medications. The effectiveness of collaborative care programs has been demonstrated for ethnic minority and safety net populations such as the SCD population, which is disproportionately low-income and on public insurance [56, 57]. Future research with SCD populations should investigate such interventions as the collaborative care model that addresses both emotional distress and barriers to care.

Limitations

Our results need to be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and the potential bias introduced by  non-random sampling. In addition, as our patients are from an urban setting, findings might not generalize to rural populations. This study was cross sectional so no inferences can be made with regard to causality and temporal relations between anxiety symptoms, barriers to care, and HRQL. Our strategy for measuring total clinical complications and barriers to care conserved power but it was not possible to evaluate if specific complications or barriers may have exerted a greater impact on HRQL compared with others. Similarly, other studies have examined specific domains of HRQL, while we limited our analysis to the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores. The utilization questionnaire was designed to assess only lifetime complications, not complications more proximal to the HRQL ratings.

Patient-reported outcomes, now widely accepted as outcome measures, elicit patients’ descriptions of the impact of their condition on their day-to-day lives [34, 58–60]. However, measures of mental health symptoms and HRQL may be subject to recall bias, measurement error, and confounding [61,62]. Nevertheless, a range of studies support the idea that mental health symptoms and  HRQL are distinct constructs, and that patients with physical and mental health symptoms are vulnerable to lower ratings of HRQL [63,64]. Disease-modifying therapies such as hydroxyurea can contribute to improved ratings of HRQL [44,65], but we were not able to evaluate the contribution of hydroxyurea to HRQL as it appears to have been underutilized in our sample.

Conclusion

We evaluated emotional distress and other variables in the context of a biobehavioral model of HRQL outcomes for adults with SCD. Integrating the patient's perspective of the impact of the disease and its treatment with assessment of clinical indications is critical to implementing and evaluating effective therapies [25]. However, there are conceptual challenges in determining what actually contributes to HRQL from the patient’s perspective in the context of genetic disorders such as SCD [50]. Our findings highlight the importance of incorporating comprehensive psychosocial screening in order to support optimal HRQL in SCD. Providers may be reluctant to include such screening if, as is often the case, mental health services are difficult to access. Models such as the collaborative care model, which include mental health interventions within the sickle cell center or primary care provider’s office, should be implented. Barriers to care and HRQL should also be routinely evaluated for patients with SCD. Use of disease-specific tools, such as the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life measurement system [66], may increase the specificity needed to detect differences within adults with SCD and improvements related to interventions, whether medical or psychosocial. Contributors to HRQL in SCD go beyond clinical manifestations to include psychological and social factors, as well as provider and health system variables. Research conducted within the framework of a comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD can inform clinical applications that ultimately enhance HRQL for patients with SCD.

 

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank San Keller, PhD, for her helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, Hematology/Oncology Dept., UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, HRSA or NIH.

Financial disclosures: None.

Author contributions: conception and design, MJT; analysis and interpretation of data, MJT, GG; drafting of article, MJT, GG; critical revision of the article, MJT, KK, FB; statistical expertise, GG; obtaining of funding, MJT; administrative or technical support, KK, FB; collection and assembly of data, KK, FB.

From the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Oakland, CA

 

Abstract

• Objective: Emotional distress may adversely affect the course and complicate treatment for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). We evaluated variables associated with physical and mental components of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in SCD in the context of a biobehavioral model.
• Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional cohort study of 77 adults with SCD (18–69 years; 60% female; 73% Hgb SS) attending an urban, academic medical center.  We measured emotional distress (Patient Health Questionnaire–9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale), clinical complications and utilization, barriers to health care, sociodemo-graphics and HRQL (SF-36 Health Survey). We developed models predictive of physical and mental HRQL by conducting stepwise regression analyses.
• Results: Sample prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms was 33% and 36%, respectively; prevalence of impaired physical and mental HRQL was 17% and 16%, respectively. Increased symptoms of depression, older age, and ≥ 3 emergency department visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex.  Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.
• Conclusion: Emotional distress is an important contributor to both physical and mental HRQL for adults with SCD, although sociodemographic variables and barriers to care must also be considered. Innovative approaches that integrate mental health interventions with SCD clinical care are needed.

 

Emotional distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, may adversely affect the course and complicate the treatment of chronic physical conditions [1]. For patients with sickle cell disease (SCD), a group of inherited red blood cell conditions, symptoms of depression and anxiety are more prevalent compared with rates found in the general population [2–8]. The most common symptom of SCD is acute pain events, and other complications range from mild to life-threatening, including anemia, increased risk of infection, acute chest syndrome, stroke, skin ulcers, and pulmonary hypertension [9]. Depression in adults with SCD has been associated with increased sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain events, poor pain control, multiple blood transfusions, and prescription of the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea [4]. Adults with SCD and comorbid depression and anxiety had more daily pain and greater distress and interference from pain compared with those who did not have comorbid depression or anxiety [10]. Patients have linked emotional distress and episodes of illness [11], and research has found a relation between pain episodes and depression [12]. In a diary study, negative mood was significantly higher on pain days compared with non-pain days [13].

Studies examining the consequences of emotional distress on health-related quality of life (HRQL) for patients with SCD are emerging. Depressed adults with SCD rated their quality of life on the SF-36 Health Survey [14] as significantly poorer in all areas compared with non-depressed adults with SCD [15].  In regression models, depression was a stronger predictor of SF-36 scores than demographics, hemoglobin type, and pain measures. In a multi-site study [16], 1046 adults with SCD completed the SF-36. Increasing age was associated with significantly lower scores on all subscales except mental health, while female sex additionally contributed to diminished physical function and vitality scale scores in multivariate models [16]. The presence of a mood disorder was associated with bodily pain, and diminished vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and the mental component of HRQL. Medical complications other than pain were not associated with impaired HRQL. Anie and colleagues [17,18] have highlighted the contributions of sickle cell–related pain to diminished mood and HRQL, both in the acute hospital phase and 1 week post discharge.

A comprehensive literature review of patient-reported outcomes for adults with SCD revealed broad categories of the impact of SCD and its treatment on the lives of adults [19]. Categories included pain and pain management, emotional distress, poor social role functioning, diminished overall quality of life, and poor quality of care. Follow-up individual and group interviews with adults with SCD (n = 122) as well as individual interviews with their providers (n = 15) revealed findings consistent with the literature review on the major effects of pain on the lives of adults with SCD, interwoven with emotional distress, poor quality of care, and stigmatization [19].

In the present study, our goal was to describe variables associated with physical and mental HRQL in SCD within the context of the recently published comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD [19]. The present analysis uses an existing clinical database and evaluates the effects of the relations between clinical complications of SCD, emotional distress, health care utilization, and HRQL. Our model includes barriers to health care that might prevent vulnerable patients from accessing needed health care services. Sociodemographic variables including ethnic and racial minority status and lower socioeconomic status and educational attainment may create barriers to health care for patients with SCD, as they do for individuals with other chronic conditions [20–23]. Over 60% of patients with SCD are on public insurance [24] and can have difficulties with accessing quality health care [25]. Negative provider attitudes and stigmatization when patients are seeking care for acute pain episodes have been highlighted by patients as major barriers to seeking health care [19,26–28]. In a qualitative study, 45 youth with SCD reported that competing school or peer-group activities, “feeling good,” poor patient-provider relationships, adverse clinic experiences, and forgetting were barriers to clinic attendance [29]. Limited research suggests that barriers to accessing health care are associated with poorer HRQL [30,31]; however no studies were identified that directly evaluated the relation between barriers to care and HRQL for populations with SCD.

We hypothesized that clinical complications of SCD, including pain, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the physical component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables. Further, we hypothesized that emotional distress, clinical complications of SCD, and barriers to accessing health care would be independently associated with the mental component of HRQL for adult patients with SCD, controlling for demographic variables.

 

Methods

Patient Recruitment

Participants were 18 years and older and were a subgroup selected from a larger prospective cohort enrolled in the Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Program (SCDTDP) funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). As 1 of 7 SCDTDP grantees, our network collected common demographic, disease-related, and HRQL data as the other grantees to examine sickle cell health and health care [32]. Enrollment at our site was n = 115 from birth through adult, with data collection occurring at baseline in 2010 and annually through 2014. Participants were eligible for enrollment if they had any confirmed diagnosis of SCD and if they were seen at any facility treating SCD in the San Francisco Bay Area region. Interpreter services were available where English was a second language; however, no participant requested those services. The data collection site was an urban comprehensive sickle cell center. Participants were recruited through mailings, posted flyers, or were introduced to the project by their clinical providers. The institutional review boards of the sponsoring hospitals approved all procedures. This report describes analyses from the baseline data collected in 2010 and excludes pediatric patients under the age of 18 years, as we developed our conceptual model based on the adult SCD literature.

Procedures

Patients directly contacted the project coordinator or were introduced by their health care provider. The project coordinator explained the study in more detail, and if the patient agreed to participate, the project coordinator obtained thier informed consent. Participants completed the study materials in a private space in the clinic immediately after or were scheduled for a separate visit at a convenient time and location. Participants with known or observed difficulties with reading completed the questionnaires as an interview. We allowed participants who were unable to complete the forms in one visit to take them home or schedule a follow-up visit to complete them. We asked participants who took the questionnaires home to return them within 2 business days and provided them with a stamped addressed envelope. Participants were compensated with gift cards for their involvement.

Measures

Demographics and Clinical Characteristics

Participants completed an Individual Utilization Questionnaire created for the SCDTDP grantees [32], either as an interview or in paper and pencil format. Participants indicated their age, race and ethnicity, education level, type of insurance, and annual household income. They indicated the type of SCD, number of hospital days and emergency department (ED) visits in the previous 12 months, disease-modifying therapies including hydroxyurea or transfusions, and lifetime incidence of sickle cell–related complications. Complications included pain, acute chest syndrome, fever, severe infection, stroke, kidney damage, gallbladder attack, spleen problems and priapism. Medical data was verified by reviewing medical records when possible; the clinical databases in the hematology/oncology department at the sponsoring hospital are maintained using Microsoft SQL Server, a relational database management system designed for the enterprise environment. However, not all of the participating institutions were linked via this common clinical database or by an electronic health record at the time the study was conducted.

Barriers to Care

We modified a checklist of barriers to accessing health care for patients with a range of chronic conditions [33] to create a SCD-specific checklist [34]. The final checklist consists of 53 items organized into 8 categories including insurance, transportation, accommodations and accessibility, provider knowledge and attitudes, social support, individual barriers such as forgetting or difficulties understanding instructions, emotional barriers such as fear or anger, and barriers posed by SCD itself (eg, pain, fatigue). Participants check off any applicable barrier, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 53. The checklist overall has demonstrated face validity and test-retest reliability (Pearson  r = 0.74, P < 0.05).

Depressive Symptoms

Adults with SCD completed the PHQ-9, the 9-item depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire [35]. The PHQ-9 is a tool for assisting primary care clinicians in assessing symptoms of depression, based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV [36]). The PHQ-9 asks about such symptoms as sleep disturbance and difficulty concentrating over the past 2 weeks with scores ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Every day). The total symptom count is based on the number of items in which the respondent answered as “more than half of days” or greater, and scores are categorized as reflecting no (< 10), mild (10–14), moderate (15–19) or severe (≥ 20) symptoms of depression. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The sensitivity and diagnostic and criterion validity of the PHQ-9 have been established [37]. The internal consistency of the PHQ-9 is high, with α > 0.85 in several studies and 48-hour test-retest reliability of 0.84. The PHQ has been used widely, including with African-American and Hispanic populations, and with individuals with chronic conditions [38].

 

Symptoms of Anxiety

Participants completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) questionnaire for screening and measuring severity of generalized anxiety disorder [39]. The GAD-7 asks about such symptoms as feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge over the past two weeks. Scores from all 7 items are added to obtain a total score [40]. Cut-points of 5, 10, and 15 represent mild, moderate, and severe levels of anxiety symptoms. Respondents indicate how difficult the symptoms make it for them to engage in daily activities from 0 (Not difficult at all) to 3 (Extremely difficult). The internal consistency of the GAD-7 is excellent (α = 0.92). Test-retest reliability is also good (Pearson r = 0.83) as is procedural validity (intraclass correlation = 0.83). The GAD-7 has excellent sensitivity and specificity to identify generalized anxiety disorder [41].

Health-Related Quality of Life

Participants completed the SF-36, which asks about the patient’s health status in the past week [14]. Eight subscales include physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. Two summary measures, the Physical Component Summary and the Mental Component Summary, are calculated from 4 scales each. Use of the summary measures has been shown to increase the reliability of scores and improve the validity of scores in discriminating between physical and psychosocial outcomes [14]. Higher scores represent better HRQL, with a mean score of 50 (SD = 50) for the general population. Internal consistency estimates for the component summary scores are α > 0.89, item discriminant validity estimates are greater than 92.5% and 2-week test-retest reliability was excellent. Scores on the SF-36 have been divided into categories of HRQL functioning [42,43]. Participants in the impaired to very impaired category have scores ≤ mean – 1 SD while participants with average to above average functioning have scores > mean – 1 SD.

The SF-36 has been used extensively in observational and randomized studies for a range of illness conditions. In SCD, some aspects of HRQL as measured by the SF-36 improved for adult patients who responded to hydroxyurea [44]. Participants in the Pain in Sickle Cell Epidemiology Study scored lower than national norms on all SF-36 subscales except psychosocial functioning [45]. HRQL decreased significantly as daily pain intensity increased [45]. Further, women reported worse bodily pain compared with men [46].

Data Analyses

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 13 [47]. Continuous variables were examined for normality with measures of skewness and peakedness. All variables satisfied the assumptions of normality with the exception of barriers to health care and ED utilization. The variable barriers to health care was transformed using a square root transformation, resulting in a more normally distributed variable. ED utilization was dichotomized as 0–2 versus 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months, based on the distribution of utilization in the sample. The cutpoint of ≥ 3 annual ED visits is consistent with other literature on SCD clinical severity [48].

Descriptive statistics were computed to include means, standard deviations and frequencies. Sociodemographic variables (age, sex, insurance status [public or private] and income) were examined as potential covariates using Pearson correlations and t tests. Associations among emotional distress (anxiety and depression symptoms), clinical complications and ED utilization, barriers to health care, and the outcomes of the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from the SF-36 were examined using Pearson correlations. We conducted stepwise regression with forward selection to determine models predictive of physical and mental HRQL. We tested the addition of each chosen variable (anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, clinical complications, ED utilization, barriers to health care, age, sex, insurance status, and income), adding the variables (if any) that were most correlated with the outcome, and repeated the process until the model was not improved. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.

Results

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the 77 participating adults with SCD. Sixty percent were female. Patients ranged in age from 18 to 69 years, with a mean age of 31.6 (SD = 13.1) years. Consistent with the general SCD population, participants were predominantly black/African American. Over 66% of families reporting had a median household income of less than $30,000 annually, although the mean household size was 3 to 4 persons. The majority of the participants (57%) had some college and beyond, although 14% had not completed high school. Over 80% of participants were on public insurance.

The majority of patients (73%) were diagnosed with Hgb SS disease and the most common lifetime complication was pain, reported by almost all of participants (Table 1). The next most common complication was fever, followed by acute chest syndrome. Twenty-seven percent of participants were currently on the disease-modifying therapy hydroxyurea, while 61% had a lifetime history of transfusion therapy. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 73 participants (95%).

The median number of ED visits in the previous year was 1 (range, 0–50), with 19 patients (25%) with zero visits. The median number of hospital days in the previous year was 13 (range, 0–81). Twenty-nine patients (38%) had no hospital days in the previous year. These data were verified with information from the clinical database for 53 participants (69%), since hospital and ED visits occurred at institutions not always linked with the clinical databases at the sponsoring hospitals.

Emotional Distress, Barriers to Care, and Health-Related Quality of Life

The mean score for the sample on the PHQ-9 was 7.2 (SD = 5.6, α = 0.86, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of depression (ie, scores ≥ 10) was 33% (n = 25). Twelve patients with moderate to severe symptoms (48%) reported that symptoms of depression created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships, while 10 patients (40%) reported very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships due to depression symptoms.

The mean score on the GAD-7 was 7.9 (SD = 6.0, α = 0.90, Table 2). The prevalence of moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety (scores ≥ 10) was 36.4% (n = 28). Fourteen patients with moderate to severe symptoms (50%) reported that anxiety symptoms created some difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Twelve patients (43%) reported that symptoms created very much to extreme difficulty in work, daily activities, or relationships. Fifteen patients (29%) with moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety or depression exhibited comorbid anxiety and depression.

The mean Physical Component Summary score on the SF-36 was 53.6 (SD = 24.1, α = 0.94, Table 2). The prevalence of impaired to very impaired HRQL in the physical domain was 17% (n = 13). The mean Mental Component Summary score on the SF-36 for the sample was 50.1 (SD = 23.7, α = 0.93), with a prevalence of 16% (n = 12) in the impaired to very impaired range for HRQL in the mental domain.

The mean number of barriers from the barriers checklist was 9.2 (SD = 10.1) out of 53 possible. Sixty-five participants (86%) reported at least 1 barrier to accessing health care (Table 2). The most frequently cited barriers to care were provider knowledge and attitudes, followed by transportation, insurance, and access to services (eg, hours and location of services). Less frequently cited barriers to care were individual barriers, including memory, health literacy and motivation, as well as those related to SCD itself, ie, fatigue and pain.

Sociodemographic Variables, Emotional Distress, and Health-Related Quality of Life

Symptoms of anxiety and depression were highly correlated with one another, as would be expected (r = 0.75, P < 0.001). Physical and mental HRQL were significantly correlated with symptoms of depression (r = –0.67, P < 0.001 for physical HRQL component and r = –0.70 for mental HRQL component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of depression. Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were significantly correlated with symptoms of anxiety (r = –0.58, P < 0.001 for the physical component and r = –0.62 for the mental component, P < 0.001), with impaired HRQL in both domains correlated with greater symptoms of anxiety. Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from depressive symptoms were correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.46, P < 0.01) and mental domains (r = –0.52, P < 0.001). Ratings of difficulty with daily functioning from anxiety symptoms were also correlated with impaired HRQL in the physical (r = –0.58, P < 0.001) and mental domains (r = –0.63, P < 0.001). Reports of more barriers to health care were significantly correlated with reports of more depressive and anxiety symptoms (r = 0.53, P < 0.001 and r = 0.48, P < 0.001), with lower Mental Component Summary scores (r = –0.43, P < 0.05), and with more ED visits in the past year (r = 0.43, P < 0.05).

Relations Between Independent Variables and Outcomes

Results of regression analyses (Table 3) indicated that a model including depression symptoms, age, ED utilization, anxiety symptoms and sex predicted the physical component of HRQL (R² = 0.55, F(5, 66) = 15.8, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression, older age and 3 or more ED visits in the previous 12 months were independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, controlling for anxiety and sex. A model including depression symptoms, barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD and sex predicted the mental component of HRQL (R2 = 0.56, F(5, 66) = 16.7, P < 0.001). Increased symptoms of depression were independently associated with lower ratings of mental HRQL, controlling for barriers to care, insurance status, lifetime complications of SCD, and sex.

 

Discussion

Results of this study showed that as expected, symptoms of depression were independently associated with the mental component of HRQL, controlling for other variables. Symptoms of depression were also independently associated with the physical component of HRQL. The effect size for both models was moderate but comparable to effect sizes of other studies of predictive models of physical and mental HRQL in SCD [49]. Our findings were consistent with previous literature, with older age and increased ED utilization independently associated with lower ratings of physical HRQL, with sex and anxiety symptoms entering into the predictive model [15–18,44,45]. Contrary to our hypotheses, barriers to accessing health care were not independently associated with physical or mental HRQL but did contribute to the model for mental HRQL, as did clinical complications and private insurance status.

While our sample was similar to previous samples in mean age and percentage of women participants, our patients reported significantly higher physical HRQL scores, and a wider range of HRQL scores (eg, 53.6,
SD = 24.1 compared with 39.6, SD = 10.0 [16]). The mean Physical Component Summary score was in fact similar to the general population mean of 50. This may reflect improvements in quality of care and subsequent overall improved patient health and HRQL given that these data were collected in year 2 of the HRSA SCDTDP. As an SCDTDP grantee, we implemented goals to improve coordination of service delivery and to increase access to care. However, it should also be considered that there was a selection bias in our study, in favor of those with better HRQL. Nevertheless, as already noted, our findings are consistent with previous literature with regard to inter-relations between variables, ie, associations between lower physical HRQL ratings and symptoms of depression, older age, and increased ED utilization [15]. Future studies in SCD that directly evaluate reported access to a medical home in relation to HRQL are needed to assess the impact of access to care and care coordination on HRQL ratings.

Our use of a data collection tool that focused on lifetime rather than acute history of complications may have contributed to our failure to find a relation between clinical manifestations and physical HRQL. Further, we were not able to assess the effects of pain separately from other complications, since almost every participant reported a lifetime history of pain. However, our findings were consistent with those of researchers who have found psychosocial and sociodemographic factors, versus clinical manifestations, to be major influences on both physical and mental HRQL for individuals with SCD and other chronic and life-threatening conditions [15, 16, 50]. Our confidence is increased in this finding, given that we were able to verify self-reports of clinical manifestations with our clinical database. Our results contribute to the developing body of knowledge that emphasizes the importance of understanding the broad impact on the lives of adults of living with SCD, not just the physical symptomatology.

There has been limited research on barriers to accessing health care as associated with HRQL for SCD populations. Health care barriers have been identified for ethnic minorities, even within patient-centered medical homes, with minority status moderating the effect of barriers to care on HRQL [30]. Our findings that barriers to health care were correlated with depression and anxiety symptoms, mental HRQL, and greater ED utilization support the need to view SCD care within a biobehavioral framework. Health care provider negative attitudes and lack of knowledge were the most frequently cited barriers for adults in our study, particularly in the context of ED and inpatient care. These findings are similar to other studies that have highlighted the impact of these provider variables on quality of care [26,51]. We were not able to separate out effects of ethnic minority status, given that our patients were predominantly African American.

Contributors to poor HRQL that have been identified in SCD are poverty [42] and public insurance status [49]. While over half of our participants had family incomes of less than $30,000, despite a mean household size of 3 members, we did not find that income contributed to either of our models predicting physical or mental HRQL. Over half of our patients were well educated, which could have moderated the effect of their low incomes, but we did not measure other potential moderators such as active coping and supportive relationships [19]. These analyses were beyond the scope of our existing database, but future studies are needed on such resilience factors and processes. Our adults were predominantly on public insurance and we did find that private insurance status was positively associated with higher ratings of mental HRQL, consistent with other SCD research [49]. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of considering the interplay between emotional distress, sociodemographic and clinical factors and quality of care in order to address risk factors for poor patient-reported outcomes [52,53].

 

There have not been previous reports of symptoms of emotional distress in SCD using the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, but both measures have been used widely for depression and anxiety screening, including with African-American populations. We selected these over other measures for their brevity, free availability, and psychometric properties. Our prevalence of moderate to severe depression and anxiety symptoms in the present study was similar to what has been found using other tools [2–8]. The PHQ-9 and GAD-7 also provide ratings of symptom interference on daily functioning, and we found that these ratings were associated with impaired physical and mental HRQL. Given that there generally are limited mental health resources in the communities where individuals with SCD reside and are treated, ratings of emotional distress and HRQL can be taken together to stratify those patients with the most immediate need for interventions. Further, screening can be used for early detection with the goal to intervene and prevent the progression of symptoms of emotional distress to long-term, disabling mental health disorders [54]. There is a need for innovative and cost-effective strategies for assessment and treatment of mental health symptoms and disorders for patients with SCD. One model for evidence-based practice in the management of emotional distress for patients with in SCD is the collaborative care model.

The collaborative care model integrates physical and mental health care in the patient-centered medical home and focuses on treating the whole person and family [55]. In this model, a care management staff (eg, nurse, social worker, psychologist) is integrated with the primary care team. The care management staff, in consultation with a psychiatrist, provides evidence-based care coordination, brief behavioral interventions, and support for other treatments, including medications. The effectiveness of collaborative care programs has been demonstrated for ethnic minority and safety net populations such as the SCD population, which is disproportionately low-income and on public insurance [56, 57]. Future research with SCD populations should investigate such interventions as the collaborative care model that addresses both emotional distress and barriers to care.

Limitations

Our results need to be interpreted with caution given the small sample size and the potential bias introduced by  non-random sampling. In addition, as our patients are from an urban setting, findings might not generalize to rural populations. This study was cross sectional so no inferences can be made with regard to causality and temporal relations between anxiety symptoms, barriers to care, and HRQL. Our strategy for measuring total clinical complications and barriers to care conserved power but it was not possible to evaluate if specific complications or barriers may have exerted a greater impact on HRQL compared with others. Similarly, other studies have examined specific domains of HRQL, while we limited our analysis to the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores. The utilization questionnaire was designed to assess only lifetime complications, not complications more proximal to the HRQL ratings.

Patient-reported outcomes, now widely accepted as outcome measures, elicit patients’ descriptions of the impact of their condition on their day-to-day lives [34, 58–60]. However, measures of mental health symptoms and HRQL may be subject to recall bias, measurement error, and confounding [61,62]. Nevertheless, a range of studies support the idea that mental health symptoms and  HRQL are distinct constructs, and that patients with physical and mental health symptoms are vulnerable to lower ratings of HRQL [63,64]. Disease-modifying therapies such as hydroxyurea can contribute to improved ratings of HRQL [44,65], but we were not able to evaluate the contribution of hydroxyurea to HRQL as it appears to have been underutilized in our sample.

Conclusion

We evaluated emotional distress and other variables in the context of a biobehavioral model of HRQL outcomes for adults with SCD. Integrating the patient's perspective of the impact of the disease and its treatment with assessment of clinical indications is critical to implementing and evaluating effective therapies [25]. However, there are conceptual challenges in determining what actually contributes to HRQL from the patient’s perspective in the context of genetic disorders such as SCD [50]. Our findings highlight the importance of incorporating comprehensive psychosocial screening in order to support optimal HRQL in SCD. Providers may be reluctant to include such screening if, as is often the case, mental health services are difficult to access. Models such as the collaborative care model, which include mental health interventions within the sickle cell center or primary care provider’s office, should be implented. Barriers to care and HRQL should also be routinely evaluated for patients with SCD. Use of disease-specific tools, such as the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life measurement system [66], may increase the specificity needed to detect differences within adults with SCD and improvements related to interventions, whether medical or psychosocial. Contributors to HRQL in SCD go beyond clinical manifestations to include psychological and social factors, as well as provider and health system variables. Research conducted within the framework of a comprehensive conceptual model of broad clinical and life effects associated with SCD can inform clinical applications that ultimately enhance HRQL for patients with SCD.

 

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to thank San Keller, PhD, for her helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author: Marsha J. Treadwell, PhD, Hematology/Oncology Dept., UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, 747 52nd St., Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Award UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, HRSA or NIH.

Financial disclosures: None.

Author contributions: conception and design, MJT; analysis and interpretation of data, MJT, GG; drafting of article, MJT, GG; critical revision of the article, MJT, KK, FB; statistical expertise, GG; obtaining of funding, MJT; administrative or technical support, KK, FB; collection and assembly of data, KK, FB.

From the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Oakland, CA.

 

Abstract

• Objective: To determine whether a quality improvement (QI) initiative would result in more timely assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell–related pain for pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) treated in the emergency department (ED).
• Methods: We created and implemented a protocol for SCD pain management in the ED with the goals of improving (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose; (2) percentage of patients that received their first analgesic dose within 30 minutes of triage, and (3) percentage of patients who had pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage and who were re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first analgesic dose.
• Results: Significant improvements were achieved between baseline (55 patient visits) and post order set implementation (165 visits) in time from triage to administration of first analgesic (decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits receiving pain medications within 30 minutes of triage (from 7% to 53%, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits assessed within 30 minutes of triage (from 64% to 99.4%, P < 0.001); and percentage of patient visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of initial analgesic (from 54% to 86%, P < 0.001).
• Conclusions: Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with pain. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we address our objective of decreasing the quality gap in SCD medical care.

 

Pain is the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) [1]. In the United States, 78% of the nearly 200,000 annual ED visits for SCD are for a complaint of pain [1]. Guidelines for the management of sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain episodes (VOE) suggest prompt initiation of parenteral opioids, use of effective opioid doses, and repeat opioid doses at frequent intervals [2–4]. Adherence to guidelines is poor. Both pediatric and adult patients with SCD experience delays in the initiation of analgesics and are routinely undertreated with respect to opioid dosing [5–8]. Even after controlling for race, the delays in time to analgesic administration experienced by patients with SCD exceed the delays encountered by patients who present to the ED with other types of pain [5,9]. These disparities warrant efforts designed to improve the delivery of quality care to patients with SCD.

Barriers to rapid and appropriate care of VOE in the ED are multifactorial and include systems-based limitations, such as acuity of the ED census, staffing limitations (eg, nurse-to-patient ratios), and facility limitations (eg, room availability) [6]. Provider-based limitations may include lack of awareness of available guidelines [10]. Biases and misunderstandings amongst providers about sickle cell pain and adequate medication dosing may also play a role [11–13]. These provider biases often lead to undertreatment of the pain, which in turn can lead to pseudoaddiction (drug-seeking behavior due to inadequate treatment) and a cycle of increased ED and inpatient utilization [14,15].

Patient-specific barriers to effective ED management of pain are equally complex. Previous negative experiences in the ED can lead patients and families to delay seeking care or avoid the ED altogether despite severe VOE pain [16]. Patients report frustration with the lack of consideration that they receive for their reports of pain, perceived insensitivity of hospital staff, inadequate analgesic administration, staff preoccupation with concerns of drug addiction, and an overall lack of respect and trust [17–19]. Patients also perceive a lack of knowledge of SCD and its treatments on the part of ED staff [7]. Other barriers to effective management are technical in nature, such as difficulty in establishing timely intravenous (IV) access.

Gaps and variations in quality of care contribute to poor outcomes for patients with SCD [20,21]. To help address these inequities, the Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project began in 2010 to improve care and outcomes for patients with SCD. WISCH is a collaborative quality improvement (QI) project funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that has the goal to use improvement science to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course (Ed note: see Editorial by Oyeku et al in this issue). As one of the HRSA-WISCH grantee networks, we undertook a QI project designed to decrease the quality gap in SCD medical care by creating and implementing a protocol for ED pain management for pediatric patients. Goals of the project were to improve the timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute VOE in the ED.

Methods

Setting

This ED QI initiative was implemented at Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, an urban free-standing pediatric hospital that serves a demographically diverse population. The hospital ED sees over 45,000 visits per year, with 250 visits per year for VOE. Residents in pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine staff the ED. All attending physicians are subspecialists in pediatric emergency medicine. Study procedures were approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Intervention

A multidisciplinary team consisting of ED staff and sickle cell center staff drafted a nursing-driven protocol for the assessment and management of acute pain associated with VOE, incorporating elements from a protocol in use by another WISCH collaborative member. The protocol called for the immediate triage and assessment of all patients with SCD who presented with moderate to severe pain suggestive of VOE. Moderate to severe pain was defined as a pain score of ≥ 5 on a numeric scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. Exclusion criteria included a chief complaint of pain not considered secondary to VOE (eg, trauma, fracture). Patients were also excluded if they had been transferred from another facility. The protocol called for IV pain medication to be administered within 10 minutes of the patient being roomed, with re-evaluation at 20-minute intervals and re-dosing of pain medication based on the patient’s subsequent pain rating.

We performed a number of PDSA cycles to test the use of the order set in the ED. Providers gave input into the flow of the order set and wording, for example, clarifying language around when to draw a blood culture and how to re-dose the second and third analgesic doses. The protocol was edited into a single-page order set (Figure 1). Prior to implementation of the order set, over 90% of ED staff (nurses, residents and attendings), hematology attendings, and fellows participated in in-service training on the new protocol, its rationale, and expectations for the intervention. Nursing staff were empowered to initiate the protocol upon triage and asked to alert a physician immediately to the presence of a patient requiring management on the protocol. Physicians were asked to make the immediate pain relief of patients with VOE a top priority. Staff were notified that charts would be audited at regular intervals. Completed order sets were reviewed daily during the week, and whenever there was a deviation from the order set or another question, the ED nurse and/or MD champions contacted staff involved as quickly as possible to discuss what had occurred and to refresh staff on the appropriate implementation of the protocol if needed. The multidisciplinary QI team had regular email contact and monthly meetings to review progress and concerns.

Measures

We selected performance measures from the bank developed by the WISCH team to track improvement and evaluate progress. These performance measures included (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, (2) percentage of patients that received their first dose of analgesic within 30 minutes of triage, (3) percentage of patients who had a pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage, and (4) percentage of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first dose of analgesic had been administered. Our aims were to have 80% of patients assessed and given pain medications within 30 minutes of triage, and to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, within 12 months of implementing our intervention.

Data Collection and Analysis

The WISCH project coordinator reviewed records of visits to the ED for a baseline period of 6 months and post-order set implementaton. Demographic data (age, gender), clinical data (hemoglobin type), pain scores, utilization data (number of ED visits during the study period), and data pertaining to the metrics chosen from the WISCH measurement bank were extracted from each eligible patient’s ED chart after the visit was completed. If patients were admitted, their length of hospitalization was extracted from their inpatient medical record.

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 9.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics computed at 2 time-points (pre and post order set implementation) were utilized to examine means, standard deviations and percentages. The 2 time-points were initially compared at the visit level of measurement, using Student’s t tests corrected for unequal variances where necessary for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables, to evaluate if there was an improvement in timely triage, assessment, and treatment of acute VOE pain for all ED visits pre and post order set implementation. To account for trends and possible correlations across the months post order set implementation, we ran a mixed linear model with repeated measures over time to compare visits during all months post order set implementation with the baseline months, for metric 1, time from triage to first pain medication. If significant differences were found, we used Dunnett’s method of multiple comparisons to determine which months differed from baseline. For metrics 2 through 4, we ran linear models with a binary outcome, a logit link function and using general estimating equations to determine trends and to account for correlations over time.

Secondary analyses were conducted to evaluate whether mean pain scores were significantly different over the course of the ED visit for the 78 unique patients seen post order set implementation. A multivariable mixed linear model, for the outcome of the third pain score, was used to assess the associations with prior scores and to control for potential covariates (age, gender, number of ED visits, hemoglobin type) that were determined in advance. A statistical significance level of 0.05 was used for all tests.

Results

Baseline data were collected from December 2011 to May 2012. The protocol was implemented in July 2012 and was utilized during 165 ED visits (91% of eligible visits) through April 2013. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the 55 patients whose charts were reviewed prior to implementing the order set and the 78 unique patients treated thereafter. Pre order set implementation, the mean age was 14.6 ± 6.4 years; 60% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.8% of diagnoses). Post order set implementation, the mean age was 16.0 ± 8.0 years; 51.3% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.5% of diagnoses). The mean number of visits was 1.5 visits per patient with a range of 1–8 visits, both pre and post order set implementation. Thirty-one patients had ED visits at both time periods.

Statistically significant improvements were seen for all targeted metrics (Table). Time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 minutes to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes (P < 0.001) and showed sustained improvement through the duration of the project (Figure 2). Results of Dunnett’s test for multiple comparisons showed that time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose differed significantly for visits during all months post order set implementation compared with baseline (β = –6.0 ± 0.7, P < 0.01). For metric 2, percentage of visits with initial pain medication administered within 30 minutes of triage, we found that all months post order set implementation were significantly different from baseline (P < 0.001, Figure 2). At 53% of patient visits initial pain medication was received within 30 minutes of triage compared with only 7% of patient visits at baseline (P < 0.001, Table).

For metric 3, percentage of visits with initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, a model was not developed to assess the changes over time given that 100% of visits post order set implementation had the initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, with the exception of one visit in September 2012 (Figure 2). Only 64% of patient visits at baseline were assessed within 30 minutes of triage (P < 0.001, Table). For metric 4, 3 of the months post order set implementation had 100% of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (Figure 2). For the remaining months, there was a significant increase from baseline to post order set implementation in percentage of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (mean of 54% of visits at baseline overall compared with mean of 86% of visits overall post order set implementation, P < 0.001, Table).

It can be seen in Figure 2 that staff performance on 3 of the 4 metrics (with the exception of initial analgesic within 30 minutes of triage) began to improve prior to implementing the order set. The mean length of ED stays decreased by 30 minutes, from a mean of 5.2 hours down to 4.7 hours (P < 0.05, Table). There was no significant change in the percentage of patients admitted to the inpatient unit.

We performed secondary analyses to determine if performance on our first metric, mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, was associated with any improvement on the third pain assessment for the patients enrolled post order set implementation. Looking at the first ED visit during the study period for the 78 unique patients, we found significant decreases in mean pain scores from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and from the first to the third assessment (P < 0.01). The mean pain scores were 8.3 ± 1.8, 5.9 ± 2.8, and 5.1 ± 3.0 on initial, second and third assessments, respectively. A multivariable model controlling for gender, hemoglobin type, number of ED visits and time to first pain medication showed that only the score at the second pain assessment (β = 0.88 ± 0.08, P < 0.001) was a significant predictor of the score at the third pain assessment.

Discussion

We demonstrated that a QI initiative to improve acute pain management resulted in more timely assessment and treatment of pain in pediatric patients with SCD. Significant improvements from baseline were achieved and sustained over a 10-month period in all 4 targeted metrics. We consistently exceeded our goal of having 80% of patients assessed within 30 minutes of triage, and our mean time to first pain medication (35.2 ± 22.8 minutes) came close to our goal of 30 minutes from triage. While we also achieved our goal to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, we fell short in the percent who received their initial pain medication within 30 minutes of triage (52.7% versus goal of 80%). Although the length of stay in the ED decreased, no change was observed in the percentage of patients who required admission to the inpatient unit. A secondary analysis showed that mean pain scores significantly decreased over the course of the ED visit, from severe to moderate intensity.

The improvements that we observed began prior to implementation of the order set. We recognize that simply raising awareness and educating staff about the importance of timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell related pain in the ED might be a potential confounder of our results. However, changes were sustained for 10 months post order set implementation and beyond, with no evidence that the performance on the target metrics is drifting back to baseline levels. Education and awareness-raising alone rarely result in sustained application of clinical practice guidelines [22]. We collaborated with NICHQ and other HRSA-WISCH grantees to systematically implement improvement science to ensure that the changes that we observed were indeed improvements and would be sustained [23] by first changing the system of care in the ED by introducing a standard order set [24,25]. We put a system into place to track use of the order set and to work with providers almost immediately if deviations were observed, to understand and overcome any barriers to the order set implementation. Systems in the ED and in the sickle cell center were aligned with the hospital’s QI initiatives [23].

Another strategy that we used to insure that the changes we observed would be sustained was to create a multidisciplinary team to build knowledge, skills, and new practices, including learning from other WISCH grantees and the NICHQ coordinating center [23]. We modified and adapted the intervention to our specific context [25]; although the outline of the order set was influenced by our WISCH colleagues, the final order set was structured to be consistent with other protocols within our institution. Finally, we included consumer input in the design of the project from the outset.

A previous study of a multi-institutional QI initiative aimed at improving acute SCD pain management for adult patients in the ED was unable to demonstrate an improvement in time to administration of initial analgesic [26]. Our study with pediatric patients was able to demonstrate a clinically meaningful decrease in the time to administration of first parenteral analgesic. The factors that account for the discrepant findings between these studies are likely multifactorial. Age (ie, pediatric vs. adult patients) may have played a role given that IV access may become increasingly difficult as patients with SCD age [26]. Education for providers should include the importance of alternative methods of administration of opioids, including subcutaneous and intranasal routes, to avoid delays when IV access is difficult. It is possible that negative provider attitudes converge with the documented increase in patient visits during the young adult years [27]. This may set up a challenging feedback loop wherein these vulnerable young adults are faced with greater stigma and consequently receive lower quality care, even when there is an attempt to carry out a standardized protocol.

We did not find that the QI intervention resulted in decreased admissions to the inpatient unit, with 68% of visits resulting in admission. In a recent pediatric SCD study, hospital admissions for pain control accounted for 78% of all admissions and 70% of readmissions within 30 days [28]. The investigators found that use of a SCD analgesic protocol including patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) improved quality of care as well as hospital readmission rates within 30 days (from 28% to 11%). Our ED QI protocol focused on only the first 90 minutes of the visit for pain. Our team has discussed the potential for starting the PCA in the ED and we should build on our success to focus on specific care that patients receive beyond their initial presentation. Further, we introduced pain action planning into outpatient care and need to continue to improve positive patient self-management strategies to ensure more seamless transition of pain management between home, ED, and inpatient settings.

Several valuable lessons were learned over the course of the ED QI initiative. Previous researchers [28] have emphasized the importance of coupling provider education with standardized order sets in efforts to improve the care of patients with SCD. Although we did not offer monthly formal education to our providers, the immediate follow-up when there were protocol deviations most likely served as teaching moments. These teaching moments also surfaced when some ED and hematology providers expressed concerns about the risk for oversedation with the rapid reassessment of pain and re-dosing of pain medications. Although rare, some parents also expressed that their child was being treated too vigorously with opioids. Our project highlighted the element of stigma that still accompanies the use of opioids for SCD pain management.

The project could not have been undertaken were it not for a small but determined multidisciplinary team of individuals who were personally invested in seeing the project come to fruition. The identification of physician and nurse champions who were enthusiastic about the project, invested in its conduct, and committed to its success was a cornerstone of the project’s success. These champions played an essential role in engaging staff interest in the project and oversaw the practicalities of implementing a new protocol in the ED. A spirit of collaboration, teamwork, and good communication between all involved parties was also critical. At the same time, we incorporated input from the treating ED and hematology clinicians using PDSA cycles as we were refining our protocol. We believe that our process enhanced buy-in from participating providers and clarified any issues that needed to be addressed in our setting, resulting in accelerated and sustained quality improvement.

Limitations

Although protocol-driven interventions are designed to provide a certain degree of uniformity of care, the protocol was not designed nor utilized in such a way that it superseded the best medical judgment of the treating clinicians. Deviations from the protocol were permissible when they were felt to be in the patient’s best interest. The study did not control for confounding variables such as disease severity, how long the patient had been in pain prior to coming to the ED, nor did we assess therapeutic interventions the patient had utilized at home prior to seeking out care in the ED. All of these factors could affect how well a patient might respond to treatment. We believe that sharing baseline data and monthly progress via run charts (graphs of data over time) with ED and sickle cell center staff and with consumer representatives enhanced the pace and focus of the project [23]. We had a dedicated person managing our data in real time through our HRSA funding, thus the project might not be generalizable to other institutions that do not have such staffing or access to the technology to allow project progress to be closely monitored by stakeholders.

Future Directions

With the goal of further reducing the time to administration of first analgesic dose in the ED setting, intranasal fentanyl will be utilized in our ED as the initial drug of choice for patients who do not object to or have a contraindication to its use. Collection of data from patients and family members is being undertaken to assess consumer satisfaction with the ED QI initiative. Recognizing that the ED management of acute pain addresses only one aspect of sickle cell pain, we are looking at ways to more comprehensively address pain. Individualized outpatient pain management plans are being created and patients and families are being encouraged and empowered to become active partners with their sickle cell providers in their own care. Although our initial efforts have focused on our pediatric patients, an additional aim of our project is to broaden the scope of our ED QI initiative to include community hospitals in the region that serve adult patients with SCD.

Conclusion

Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED has led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with VOE. A multidisciplinary approach, ongoing staff education, and commitment to the initiative have been necessary to sustain the improvements. Our success can provide a template for other QI initiatives in the ED that translate to improved patient care for other diseases. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we addressed our objective to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course.

 

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Theresa Freitas, RN, Lisa Hale, PNP, Carolyn Hoppe, MD, Ileana Mendez, RN, Helen Mitchell, Mary Rutherford, MD, Augusta Saulys, MD and the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland Emergency Medicine Department and Sickle Cell Center for their support.

Corresponding author: Marsha Treadwell, PhD, Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, 747 52nd St, Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from NIH CTSA grant UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, or HRSA.

From the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Oakland, CA.

 

Abstract

• Objective: To determine whether a quality improvement (QI) initiative would result in more timely assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell–related pain for pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) treated in the emergency department (ED).
• Methods: We created and implemented a protocol for SCD pain management in the ED with the goals of improving (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose; (2) percentage of patients that received their first analgesic dose within 30 minutes of triage, and (3) percentage of patients who had pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage and who were re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first analgesic dose.
• Results: Significant improvements were achieved between baseline (55 patient visits) and post order set implementation (165 visits) in time from triage to administration of first analgesic (decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits receiving pain medications within 30 minutes of triage (from 7% to 53%, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits assessed within 30 minutes of triage (from 64% to 99.4%, P < 0.001); and percentage of patient visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of initial analgesic (from 54% to 86%, P < 0.001).
• Conclusions: Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with pain. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we address our objective of decreasing the quality gap in SCD medical care.

 

Pain is the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) [1]. In the United States, 78% of the nearly 200,000 annual ED visits for SCD are for a complaint of pain [1]. Guidelines for the management of sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain episodes (VOE) suggest prompt initiation of parenteral opioids, use of effective opioid doses, and repeat opioid doses at frequent intervals [2–4]. Adherence to guidelines is poor. Both pediatric and adult patients with SCD experience delays in the initiation of analgesics and are routinely undertreated with respect to opioid dosing [5–8]. Even after controlling for race, the delays in time to analgesic administration experienced by patients with SCD exceed the delays encountered by patients who present to the ED with other types of pain [5,9]. These disparities warrant efforts designed to improve the delivery of quality care to patients with SCD.

Barriers to rapid and appropriate care of VOE in the ED are multifactorial and include systems-based limitations, such as acuity of the ED census, staffing limitations (eg, nurse-to-patient ratios), and facility limitations (eg, room availability) [6]. Provider-based limitations may include lack of awareness of available guidelines [10]. Biases and misunderstandings amongst providers about sickle cell pain and adequate medication dosing may also play a role [11–13]. These provider biases often lead to undertreatment of the pain, which in turn can lead to pseudoaddiction (drug-seeking behavior due to inadequate treatment) and a cycle of increased ED and inpatient utilization [14,15].

Patient-specific barriers to effective ED management of pain are equally complex. Previous negative experiences in the ED can lead patients and families to delay seeking care or avoid the ED altogether despite severe VOE pain [16]. Patients report frustration with the lack of consideration that they receive for their reports of pain, perceived insensitivity of hospital staff, inadequate analgesic administration, staff preoccupation with concerns of drug addiction, and an overall lack of respect and trust [17–19]. Patients also perceive a lack of knowledge of SCD and its treatments on the part of ED staff [7]. Other barriers to effective management are technical in nature, such as difficulty in establishing timely intravenous (IV) access.

Gaps and variations in quality of care contribute to poor outcomes for patients with SCD [20,21]. To help address these inequities, the Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project began in 2010 to improve care and outcomes for patients with SCD. WISCH is a collaborative quality improvement (QI) project funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that has the goal to use improvement science to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course (Ed note: see Editorial by Oyeku et al in this issue). As one of the HRSA-WISCH grantee networks, we undertook a QI project designed to decrease the quality gap in SCD medical care by creating and implementing a protocol for ED pain management for pediatric patients. Goals of the project were to improve the timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute VOE in the ED.

Methods

Setting

This ED QI initiative was implemented at Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, an urban free-standing pediatric hospital that serves a demographically diverse population. The hospital ED sees over 45,000 visits per year, with 250 visits per year for VOE. Residents in pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine staff the ED. All attending physicians are subspecialists in pediatric emergency medicine. Study procedures were approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Intervention

A multidisciplinary team consisting of ED staff and sickle cell center staff drafted a nursing-driven protocol for the assessment and management of acute pain associated with VOE, incorporating elements from a protocol in use by another WISCH collaborative member. The protocol called for the immediate triage and assessment of all patients with SCD who presented with moderate to severe pain suggestive of VOE. Moderate to severe pain was defined as a pain score of ≥ 5 on a numeric scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. Exclusion criteria included a chief complaint of pain not considered secondary to VOE (eg, trauma, fracture). Patients were also excluded if they had been transferred from another facility. The protocol called for IV pain medication to be administered within 10 minutes of the patient being roomed, with re-evaluation at 20-minute intervals and re-dosing of pain medication based on the patient’s subsequent pain rating.

We performed a number of PDSA cycles to test the use of the order set in the ED. Providers gave input into the flow of the order set and wording, for example, clarifying language around when to draw a blood culture and how to re-dose the second and third analgesic doses. The protocol was edited into a single-page order set (Figure 1). Prior to implementation of the order set, over 90% of ED staff (nurses, residents and attendings), hematology attendings, and fellows participated in in-service training on the new protocol, its rationale, and expectations for the intervention. Nursing staff were empowered to initiate the protocol upon triage and asked to alert a physician immediately to the presence of a patient requiring management on the protocol. Physicians were asked to make the immediate pain relief of patients with VOE a top priority. Staff were notified that charts would be audited at regular intervals. Completed order sets were reviewed daily during the week, and whenever there was a deviation from the order set or another question, the ED nurse and/or MD champions contacted staff involved as quickly as possible to discuss what had occurred and to refresh staff on the appropriate implementation of the protocol if needed. The multidisciplinary QI team had regular email contact and monthly meetings to review progress and concerns.

Measures

We selected performance measures from the bank developed by the WISCH team to track improvement and evaluate progress. These performance measures included (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, (2) percentage of patients that received their first dose of analgesic within 30 minutes of triage, (3) percentage of patients who had a pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage, and (4) percentage of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first dose of analgesic had been administered. Our aims were to have 80% of patients assessed and given pain medications within 30 minutes of triage, and to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, within 12 months of implementing our intervention.

Data Collection and Analysis

The WISCH project coordinator reviewed records of visits to the ED for a baseline period of 6 months and post-order set implementaton. Demographic data (age, gender), clinical data (hemoglobin type), pain scores, utilization data (number of ED visits during the study period), and data pertaining to the metrics chosen from the WISCH measurement bank were extracted from each eligible patient’s ED chart after the visit was completed. If patients were admitted, their length of hospitalization was extracted from their inpatient medical record.

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 9.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics computed at 2 time-points (pre and post order set implementation) were utilized to examine means, standard deviations and percentages. The 2 time-points were initially compared at the visit level of measurement, using Student’s t tests corrected for unequal variances where necessary for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables, to evaluate if there was an improvement in timely triage, assessment, and treatment of acute VOE pain for all ED visits pre and post order set implementation. To account for trends and possible correlations across the months post order set implementation, we ran a mixed linear model with repeated measures over time to compare visits during all months post order set implementation with the baseline months, for metric 1, time from triage to first pain medication. If significant differences were found, we used Dunnett’s method of multiple comparisons to determine which months differed from baseline. For metrics 2 through 4, we ran linear models with a binary outcome, a logit link function and using general estimating equations to determine trends and to account for correlations over time.

Secondary analyses were conducted to evaluate whether mean pain scores were significantly different over the course of the ED visit for the 78 unique patients seen post order set implementation. A multivariable mixed linear model, for the outcome of the third pain score, was used to assess the associations with prior scores and to control for potential covariates (age, gender, number of ED visits, hemoglobin type) that were determined in advance. A statistical significance level of 0.05 was used for all tests.

Results

Baseline data were collected from December 2011 to May 2012. The protocol was implemented in July 2012 and was utilized during 165 ED visits (91% of eligible visits) through April 2013. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the 55 patients whose charts were reviewed prior to implementing the order set and the 78 unique patients treated thereafter. Pre order set implementation, the mean age was 14.6 ± 6.4 years; 60% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.8% of diagnoses). Post order set implementation, the mean age was 16.0 ± 8.0 years; 51.3% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.5% of diagnoses). The mean number of visits was 1.5 visits per patient with a range of 1–8 visits, both pre and post order set implementation. Thirty-one patients had ED visits at both time periods.

Statistically significant improvements were seen for all targeted metrics (Table). Time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 minutes to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes (P < 0.001) and showed sustained improvement through the duration of the project (Figure 2). Results of Dunnett’s test for multiple comparisons showed that time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose differed significantly for visits during all months post order set implementation compared with baseline (β = –6.0 ± 0.7, P < 0.01). For metric 2, percentage of visits with initial pain medication administered within 30 minutes of triage, we found that all months post order set implementation were significantly different from baseline (P < 0.001, Figure 2). At 53% of patient visits initial pain medication was received within 30 minutes of triage compared with only 7% of patient visits at baseline (P < 0.001, Table).

For metric 3, percentage of visits with initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, a model was not developed to assess the changes over time given that 100% of visits post order set implementation had the initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, with the exception of one visit in September 2012 (Figure 2). Only 64% of patient visits at baseline were assessed within 30 minutes of triage (P < 0.001, Table). For metric 4, 3 of the months post order set implementation had 100% of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (Figure 2). For the remaining months, there was a significant increase from baseline to post order set implementation in percentage of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (mean of 54% of visits at baseline overall compared with mean of 86% of visits overall post order set implementation, P < 0.001, Table).

It can be seen in Figure 2 that staff performance on 3 of the 4 metrics (with the exception of initial analgesic within 30 minutes of triage) began to improve prior to implementing the order set. The mean length of ED stays decreased by 30 minutes, from a mean of 5.2 hours down to 4.7 hours (P < 0.05, Table). There was no significant change in the percentage of patients admitted to the inpatient unit.

We performed secondary analyses to determine if performance on our first metric, mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, was associated with any improvement on the third pain assessment for the patients enrolled post order set implementation. Looking at the first ED visit during the study period for the 78 unique patients, we found significant decreases in mean pain scores from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and from the first to the third assessment (P < 0.01). The mean pain scores were 8.3 ± 1.8, 5.9 ± 2.8, and 5.1 ± 3.0 on initial, second and third assessments, respectively. A multivariable model controlling for gender, hemoglobin type, number of ED visits and time to first pain medication showed that only the score at the second pain assessment (β = 0.88 ± 0.08, P < 0.001) was a significant predictor of the score at the third pain assessment.

Discussion

We demonstrated that a QI initiative to improve acute pain management resulted in more timely assessment and treatment of pain in pediatric patients with SCD. Significant improvements from baseline were achieved and sustained over a 10-month period in all 4 targeted metrics. We consistently exceeded our goal of having 80% of patients assessed within 30 minutes of triage, and our mean time to first pain medication (35.2 ± 22.8 minutes) came close to our goal of 30 minutes from triage. While we also achieved our goal to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, we fell short in the percent who received their initial pain medication within 30 minutes of triage (52.7% versus goal of 80%). Although the length of stay in the ED decreased, no change was observed in the percentage of patients who required admission to the inpatient unit. A secondary analysis showed that mean pain scores significantly decreased over the course of the ED visit, from severe to moderate intensity.

The improvements that we observed began prior to implementation of the order set. We recognize that simply raising awareness and educating staff about the importance of timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell related pain in the ED might be a potential confounder of our results. However, changes were sustained for 10 months post order set implementation and beyond, with no evidence that the performance on the target metrics is drifting back to baseline levels. Education and awareness-raising alone rarely result in sustained application of clinical practice guidelines [22]. We collaborated with NICHQ and other HRSA-WISCH grantees to systematically implement improvement science to ensure that the changes that we observed were indeed improvements and would be sustained [23] by first changing the system of care in the ED by introducing a standard order set [24,25]. We put a system into place to track use of the order set and to work with providers almost immediately if deviations were observed, to understand and overcome any barriers to the order set implementation. Systems in the ED and in the sickle cell center were aligned with the hospital’s QI initiatives [23].

Another strategy that we used to insure that the changes we observed would be sustained was to create a multidisciplinary team to build knowledge, skills, and new practices, including learning from other WISCH grantees and the NICHQ coordinating center [23]. We modified and adapted the intervention to our specific context [25]; although the outline of the order set was influenced by our WISCH colleagues, the final order set was structured to be consistent with other protocols within our institution. Finally, we included consumer input in the design of the project from the outset.

A previous study of a multi-institutional QI initiative aimed at improving acute SCD pain management for adult patients in the ED was unable to demonstrate an improvement in time to administration of initial analgesic [26]. Our study with pediatric patients was able to demonstrate a clinically meaningful decrease in the time to administration of first parenteral analgesic. The factors that account for the discrepant findings between these studies are likely multifactorial. Age (ie, pediatric vs. adult patients) may have played a role given that IV access may become increasingly difficult as patients with SCD age [26]. Education for providers should include the importance of alternative methods of administration of opioids, including subcutaneous and intranasal routes, to avoid delays when IV access is difficult. It is possible that negative provider attitudes converge with the documented increase in patient visits during the young adult years [27]. This may set up a challenging feedback loop wherein these vulnerable young adults are faced with greater stigma and consequently receive lower quality care, even when there is an attempt to carry out a standardized protocol.

We did not find that the QI intervention resulted in decreased admissions to the inpatient unit, with 68% of visits resulting in admission. In a recent pediatric SCD study, hospital admissions for pain control accounted for 78% of all admissions and 70% of readmissions within 30 days [28]. The investigators found that use of a SCD analgesic protocol including patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) improved quality of care as well as hospital readmission rates within 30 days (from 28% to 11%). Our ED QI protocol focused on only the first 90 minutes of the visit for pain. Our team has discussed the potential for starting the PCA in the ED and we should build on our success to focus on specific care that patients receive beyond their initial presentation. Further, we introduced pain action planning into outpatient care and need to continue to improve positive patient self-management strategies to ensure more seamless transition of pain management between home, ED, and inpatient settings.

Several valuable lessons were learned over the course of the ED QI initiative. Previous researchers [28] have emphasized the importance of coupling provider education with standardized order sets in efforts to improve the care of patients with SCD. Although we did not offer monthly formal education to our providers, the immediate follow-up when there were protocol deviations most likely served as teaching moments. These teaching moments also surfaced when some ED and hematology providers expressed concerns about the risk for oversedation with the rapid reassessment of pain and re-dosing of pain medications. Although rare, some parents also expressed that their child was being treated too vigorously with opioids. Our project highlighted the element of stigma that still accompanies the use of opioids for SCD pain management.

The project could not have been undertaken were it not for a small but determined multidisciplinary team of individuals who were personally invested in seeing the project come to fruition. The identification of physician and nurse champions who were enthusiastic about the project, invested in its conduct, and committed to its success was a cornerstone of the project’s success. These champions played an essential role in engaging staff interest in the project and oversaw the practicalities of implementing a new protocol in the ED. A spirit of collaboration, teamwork, and good communication between all involved parties was also critical. At the same time, we incorporated input from the treating ED and hematology clinicians using PDSA cycles as we were refining our protocol. We believe that our process enhanced buy-in from participating providers and clarified any issues that needed to be addressed in our setting, resulting in accelerated and sustained quality improvement.

Limitations

Although protocol-driven interventions are designed to provide a certain degree of uniformity of care, the protocol was not designed nor utilized in such a way that it superseded the best medical judgment of the treating clinicians. Deviations from the protocol were permissible when they were felt to be in the patient’s best interest. The study did not control for confounding variables such as disease severity, how long the patient had been in pain prior to coming to the ED, nor did we assess therapeutic interventions the patient had utilized at home prior to seeking out care in the ED. All of these factors could affect how well a patient might respond to treatment. We believe that sharing baseline data and monthly progress via run charts (graphs of data over time) with ED and sickle cell center staff and with consumer representatives enhanced the pace and focus of the project [23]. We had a dedicated person managing our data in real time through our HRSA funding, thus the project might not be generalizable to other institutions that do not have such staffing or access to the technology to allow project progress to be closely monitored by stakeholders.

Future Directions

With the goal of further reducing the time to administration of first analgesic dose in the ED setting, intranasal fentanyl will be utilized in our ED as the initial drug of choice for patients who do not object to or have a contraindication to its use. Collection of data from patients and family members is being undertaken to assess consumer satisfaction with the ED QI initiative. Recognizing that the ED management of acute pain addresses only one aspect of sickle cell pain, we are looking at ways to more comprehensively address pain. Individualized outpatient pain management plans are being created and patients and families are being encouraged and empowered to become active partners with their sickle cell providers in their own care. Although our initial efforts have focused on our pediatric patients, an additional aim of our project is to broaden the scope of our ED QI initiative to include community hospitals in the region that serve adult patients with SCD.

Conclusion

Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED has led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with VOE. A multidisciplinary approach, ongoing staff education, and commitment to the initiative have been necessary to sustain the improvements. Our success can provide a template for other QI initiatives in the ED that translate to improved patient care for other diseases. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we addressed our objective to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course.

 

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Theresa Freitas, RN, Lisa Hale, PNP, Carolyn Hoppe, MD, Ileana Mendez, RN, Helen Mitchell, Mary Rutherford, MD, Augusta Saulys, MD and the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland Emergency Medicine Department and Sickle Cell Center for their support.

Corresponding author: Marsha Treadwell, PhD, Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, 747 52nd St, Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from NIH CTSA grant UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, or HRSA.

From the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Oakland, CA.

 

Abstract

• Objective: To determine whether a quality improvement (QI) initiative would result in more timely assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell–related pain for pediatric patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) treated in the emergency department (ED).
• Methods: We created and implemented a protocol for SCD pain management in the ED with the goals of improving (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose; (2) percentage of patients that received their first analgesic dose within 30 minutes of triage, and (3) percentage of patients who had pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage and who were re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first analgesic dose.
• Results: Significant improvements were achieved between baseline (55 patient visits) and post order set implementation (165 visits) in time from triage to administration of first analgesic (decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits receiving pain medications within 30 minutes of triage (from 7% to 53%, P < 0.001); percentage of patient visits assessed within 30 minutes of triage (from 64% to 99.4%, P < 0.001); and percentage of patient visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of initial analgesic (from 54% to 86%, P < 0.001).
• Conclusions: Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with pain. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we address our objective of decreasing the quality gap in SCD medical care.

 

Pain is the leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) [1]. In the United States, 78% of the nearly 200,000 annual ED visits for SCD are for a complaint of pain [1]. Guidelines for the management of sickle cell vaso-occlusive pain episodes (VOE) suggest prompt initiation of parenteral opioids, use of effective opioid doses, and repeat opioid doses at frequent intervals [2–4]. Adherence to guidelines is poor. Both pediatric and adult patients with SCD experience delays in the initiation of analgesics and are routinely undertreated with respect to opioid dosing [5–8]. Even after controlling for race, the delays in time to analgesic administration experienced by patients with SCD exceed the delays encountered by patients who present to the ED with other types of pain [5,9]. These disparities warrant efforts designed to improve the delivery of quality care to patients with SCD.

Barriers to rapid and appropriate care of VOE in the ED are multifactorial and include systems-based limitations, such as acuity of the ED census, staffing limitations (eg, nurse-to-patient ratios), and facility limitations (eg, room availability) [6]. Provider-based limitations may include lack of awareness of available guidelines [10]. Biases and misunderstandings amongst providers about sickle cell pain and adequate medication dosing may also play a role [11–13]. These provider biases often lead to undertreatment of the pain, which in turn can lead to pseudoaddiction (drug-seeking behavior due to inadequate treatment) and a cycle of increased ED and inpatient utilization [14,15].

Patient-specific barriers to effective ED management of pain are equally complex. Previous negative experiences in the ED can lead patients and families to delay seeking care or avoid the ED altogether despite severe VOE pain [16]. Patients report frustration with the lack of consideration that they receive for their reports of pain, perceived insensitivity of hospital staff, inadequate analgesic administration, staff preoccupation with concerns of drug addiction, and an overall lack of respect and trust [17–19]. Patients also perceive a lack of knowledge of SCD and its treatments on the part of ED staff [7]. Other barriers to effective management are technical in nature, such as difficulty in establishing timely intravenous (IV) access.

Gaps and variations in quality of care contribute to poor outcomes for patients with SCD [20,21]. To help address these inequities, the Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project began in 2010 to improve care and outcomes for patients with SCD. WISCH is a collaborative quality improvement (QI) project funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) that has the goal to use improvement science to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course (Ed note: see Editorial by Oyeku et al in this issue). As one of the HRSA-WISCH grantee networks, we undertook a QI project designed to decrease the quality gap in SCD medical care by creating and implementing a protocol for ED pain management for pediatric patients. Goals of the project were to improve the timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute VOE in the ED.

Methods

Setting

This ED QI initiative was implemented at Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, an urban free-standing pediatric hospital that serves a demographically diverse population. The hospital ED sees over 45,000 visits per year, with 250 visits per year for VOE. Residents in pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine staff the ED. All attending physicians are subspecialists in pediatric emergency medicine. Study procedures were approved by the hospital’s institutional review board.

Intervention

A multidisciplinary team consisting of ED staff and sickle cell center staff drafted a nursing-driven protocol for the assessment and management of acute pain associated with VOE, incorporating elements from a protocol in use by another WISCH collaborative member. The protocol called for the immediate triage and assessment of all patients with SCD who presented with moderate to severe pain suggestive of VOE. Moderate to severe pain was defined as a pain score of ≥ 5 on a numeric scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = the worst pain imaginable. Exclusion criteria included a chief complaint of pain not considered secondary to VOE (eg, trauma, fracture). Patients were also excluded if they had been transferred from another facility. The protocol called for IV pain medication to be administered within 10 minutes of the patient being roomed, with re-evaluation at 20-minute intervals and re-dosing of pain medication based on the patient’s subsequent pain rating.

We performed a number of PDSA cycles to test the use of the order set in the ED. Providers gave input into the flow of the order set and wording, for example, clarifying language around when to draw a blood culture and how to re-dose the second and third analgesic doses. The protocol was edited into a single-page order set (Figure 1). Prior to implementation of the order set, over 90% of ED staff (nurses, residents and attendings), hematology attendings, and fellows participated in in-service training on the new protocol, its rationale, and expectations for the intervention. Nursing staff were empowered to initiate the protocol upon triage and asked to alert a physician immediately to the presence of a patient requiring management on the protocol. Physicians were asked to make the immediate pain relief of patients with VOE a top priority. Staff were notified that charts would be audited at regular intervals. Completed order sets were reviewed daily during the week, and whenever there was a deviation from the order set or another question, the ED nurse and/or MD champions contacted staff involved as quickly as possible to discuss what had occurred and to refresh staff on the appropriate implementation of the protocol if needed. The multidisciplinary QI team had regular email contact and monthly meetings to review progress and concerns.

Measures

We selected performance measures from the bank developed by the WISCH team to track improvement and evaluate progress. These performance measures included (1) mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, (2) percentage of patients that received their first dose of analgesic within 30 minutes of triage, (3) percentage of patients who had a pain assessment performed within 30 minutes of triage, and (4) percentage of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after the first dose of analgesic had been administered. Our aims were to have 80% of patients assessed and given pain medications within 30 minutes of triage, and to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, within 12 months of implementing our intervention.

Data Collection and Analysis

The WISCH project coordinator reviewed records of visits to the ED for a baseline period of 6 months and post-order set implementaton. Demographic data (age, gender), clinical data (hemoglobin type), pain scores, utilization data (number of ED visits during the study period), and data pertaining to the metrics chosen from the WISCH measurement bank were extracted from each eligible patient’s ED chart after the visit was completed. If patients were admitted, their length of hospitalization was extracted from their inpatient medical record.

All biostatistical analyses were conducted using Stata 9.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics computed at 2 time-points (pre and post order set implementation) were utilized to examine means, standard deviations and percentages. The 2 time-points were initially compared at the visit level of measurement, using Student’s t tests corrected for unequal variances where necessary for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables, to evaluate if there was an improvement in timely triage, assessment, and treatment of acute VOE pain for all ED visits pre and post order set implementation. To account for trends and possible correlations across the months post order set implementation, we ran a mixed linear model with repeated measures over time to compare visits during all months post order set implementation with the baseline months, for metric 1, time from triage to first pain medication. If significant differences were found, we used Dunnett’s method of multiple comparisons to determine which months differed from baseline. For metrics 2 through 4, we ran linear models with a binary outcome, a logit link function and using general estimating equations to determine trends and to account for correlations over time.

Secondary analyses were conducted to evaluate whether mean pain scores were significantly different over the course of the ED visit for the 78 unique patients seen post order set implementation. A multivariable mixed linear model, for the outcome of the third pain score, was used to assess the associations with prior scores and to control for potential covariates (age, gender, number of ED visits, hemoglobin type) that were determined in advance. A statistical significance level of 0.05 was used for all tests.

Results

Baseline data were collected from December 2011 to May 2012. The protocol was implemented in July 2012 and was utilized during 165 ED visits (91% of eligible visits) through April 2013. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the 55 patients whose charts were reviewed prior to implementing the order set and the 78 unique patients treated thereafter. Pre order set implementation, the mean age was 14.6 ± 6.4 years; 60% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.8% of diagnoses). Post order set implementation, the mean age was 16.0 ± 8.0 years; 51.3% were female and the primary diagnosis was HgbSS disease (61.5% of diagnoses). The mean number of visits was 1.5 visits per patient with a range of 1–8 visits, both pre and post order set implementation. Thirty-one patients had ED visits at both time periods.

Statistically significant improvements were seen for all targeted metrics (Table). Time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose decreased from 89.9 ± 50.5 minutes to 35.2 ± 22.8 minutes (P < 0.001) and showed sustained improvement through the duration of the project (Figure 2). Results of Dunnett’s test for multiple comparisons showed that time from triage to administration of first analgesic dose differed significantly for visits during all months post order set implementation compared with baseline (β = –6.0 ± 0.7, P < 0.01). For metric 2, percentage of visits with initial pain medication administered within 30 minutes of triage, we found that all months post order set implementation were significantly different from baseline (P < 0.001, Figure 2). At 53% of patient visits initial pain medication was received within 30 minutes of triage compared with only 7% of patient visits at baseline (P < 0.001, Table).

For metric 3, percentage of visits with initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, a model was not developed to assess the changes over time given that 100% of visits post order set implementation had the initial pain assessment within 30 minutes of triage, with the exception of one visit in September 2012 (Figure 2). Only 64% of patient visits at baseline were assessed within 30 minutes of triage (P < 0.001, Table). For metric 4, 3 of the months post order set implementation had 100% of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (Figure 2). For the remaining months, there was a significant increase from baseline to post order set implementation in percentage of visits re-assessed within 30 minutes of the first IV pain medication (mean of 54% of visits at baseline overall compared with mean of 86% of visits overall post order set implementation, P < 0.001, Table).

It can be seen in Figure 2 that staff performance on 3 of the 4 metrics (with the exception of initial analgesic within 30 minutes of triage) began to improve prior to implementing the order set. The mean length of ED stays decreased by 30 minutes, from a mean of 5.2 hours down to 4.7 hours (P < 0.05, Table). There was no significant change in the percentage of patients admitted to the inpatient unit.

We performed secondary analyses to determine if performance on our first metric, mean time from triage to first analgesic dose, was associated with any improvement on the third pain assessment for the patients enrolled post order set implementation. Looking at the first ED visit during the study period for the 78 unique patients, we found significant decreases in mean pain scores from the first to the second, from the second to the third, and from the first to the third assessment (P < 0.01). The mean pain scores were 8.3 ± 1.8, 5.9 ± 2.8, and 5.1 ± 3.0 on initial, second and third assessments, respectively. A multivariable model controlling for gender, hemoglobin type, number of ED visits and time to first pain medication showed that only the score at the second pain assessment (β = 0.88 ± 0.08, P < 0.001) was a significant predictor of the score at the third pain assessment.

Discussion

We demonstrated that a QI initiative to improve acute pain management resulted in more timely assessment and treatment of pain in pediatric patients with SCD. Significant improvements from baseline were achieved and sustained over a 10-month period in all 4 targeted metrics. We consistently exceeded our goal of having 80% of patients assessed within 30 minutes of triage, and our mean time to first pain medication (35.2 ± 22.8 minutes) came close to our goal of 30 minutes from triage. While we also achieved our goal to have 80% of patients re-assessed within 30 minutes after having received their first dose of an analgesic, we fell short in the percent who received their initial pain medication within 30 minutes of triage (52.7% versus goal of 80%). Although the length of stay in the ED decreased, no change was observed in the percentage of patients who required admission to the inpatient unit. A secondary analysis showed that mean pain scores significantly decreased over the course of the ED visit, from severe to moderate intensity.

The improvements that we observed began prior to implementation of the order set. We recognize that simply raising awareness and educating staff about the importance of timely and appropriate assessment and treatment of acute sickle cell related pain in the ED might be a potential confounder of our results. However, changes were sustained for 10 months post order set implementation and beyond, with no evidence that the performance on the target metrics is drifting back to baseline levels. Education and awareness-raising alone rarely result in sustained application of clinical practice guidelines [22]. We collaborated with NICHQ and other HRSA-WISCH grantees to systematically implement improvement science to ensure that the changes that we observed were indeed improvements and would be sustained [23] by first changing the system of care in the ED by introducing a standard order set [24,25]. We put a system into place to track use of the order set and to work with providers almost immediately if deviations were observed, to understand and overcome any barriers to the order set implementation. Systems in the ED and in the sickle cell center were aligned with the hospital’s QI initiatives [23].

Another strategy that we used to insure that the changes we observed would be sustained was to create a multidisciplinary team to build knowledge, skills, and new practices, including learning from other WISCH grantees and the NICHQ coordinating center [23]. We modified and adapted the intervention to our specific context [25]; although the outline of the order set was influenced by our WISCH colleagues, the final order set was structured to be consistent with other protocols within our institution. Finally, we included consumer input in the design of the project from the outset.

A previous study of a multi-institutional QI initiative aimed at improving acute SCD pain management for adult patients in the ED was unable to demonstrate an improvement in time to administration of initial analgesic [26]. Our study with pediatric patients was able to demonstrate a clinically meaningful decrease in the time to administration of first parenteral analgesic. The factors that account for the discrepant findings between these studies are likely multifactorial. Age (ie, pediatric vs. adult patients) may have played a role given that IV access may become increasingly difficult as patients with SCD age [26]. Education for providers should include the importance of alternative methods of administration of opioids, including subcutaneous and intranasal routes, to avoid delays when IV access is difficult. It is possible that negative provider attitudes converge with the documented increase in patient visits during the young adult years [27]. This may set up a challenging feedback loop wherein these vulnerable young adults are faced with greater stigma and consequently receive lower quality care, even when there is an attempt to carry out a standardized protocol.

We did not find that the QI intervention resulted in decreased admissions to the inpatient unit, with 68% of visits resulting in admission. In a recent pediatric SCD study, hospital admissions for pain control accounted for 78% of all admissions and 70% of readmissions within 30 days [28]. The investigators found that use of a SCD analgesic protocol including patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) improved quality of care as well as hospital readmission rates within 30 days (from 28% to 11%). Our ED QI protocol focused on only the first 90 minutes of the visit for pain. Our team has discussed the potential for starting the PCA in the ED and we should build on our success to focus on specific care that patients receive beyond their initial presentation. Further, we introduced pain action planning into outpatient care and need to continue to improve positive patient self-management strategies to ensure more seamless transition of pain management between home, ED, and inpatient settings.

Several valuable lessons were learned over the course of the ED QI initiative. Previous researchers [28] have emphasized the importance of coupling provider education with standardized order sets in efforts to improve the care of patients with SCD. Although we did not offer monthly formal education to our providers, the immediate follow-up when there were protocol deviations most likely served as teaching moments. These teaching moments also surfaced when some ED and hematology providers expressed concerns about the risk for oversedation with the rapid reassessment of pain and re-dosing of pain medications. Although rare, some parents also expressed that their child was being treated too vigorously with opioids. Our project highlighted the element of stigma that still accompanies the use of opioids for SCD pain management.

The project could not have been undertaken were it not for a small but determined multidisciplinary team of individuals who were personally invested in seeing the project come to fruition. The identification of physician and nurse champions who were enthusiastic about the project, invested in its conduct, and committed to its success was a cornerstone of the project’s success. These champions played an essential role in engaging staff interest in the project and oversaw the practicalities of implementing a new protocol in the ED. A spirit of collaboration, teamwork, and good communication between all involved parties was also critical. At the same time, we incorporated input from the treating ED and hematology clinicians using PDSA cycles as we were refining our protocol. We believe that our process enhanced buy-in from participating providers and clarified any issues that needed to be addressed in our setting, resulting in accelerated and sustained quality improvement.

Limitations

Although protocol-driven interventions are designed to provide a certain degree of uniformity of care, the protocol was not designed nor utilized in such a way that it superseded the best medical judgment of the treating clinicians. Deviations from the protocol were permissible when they were felt to be in the patient’s best interest. The study did not control for confounding variables such as disease severity, how long the patient had been in pain prior to coming to the ED, nor did we assess therapeutic interventions the patient had utilized at home prior to seeking out care in the ED. All of these factors could affect how well a patient might respond to treatment. We believe that sharing baseline data and monthly progress via run charts (graphs of data over time) with ED and sickle cell center staff and with consumer representatives enhanced the pace and focus of the project [23]. We had a dedicated person managing our data in real time through our HRSA funding, thus the project might not be generalizable to other institutions that do not have such staffing or access to the technology to allow project progress to be closely monitored by stakeholders.

Future Directions

With the goal of further reducing the time to administration of first analgesic dose in the ED setting, intranasal fentanyl will be utilized in our ED as the initial drug of choice for patients who do not object to or have a contraindication to its use. Collection of data from patients and family members is being undertaken to assess consumer satisfaction with the ED QI initiative. Recognizing that the ED management of acute pain addresses only one aspect of sickle cell pain, we are looking at ways to more comprehensively address pain. Individualized outpatient pain management plans are being created and patients and families are being encouraged and empowered to become active partners with their sickle cell providers in their own care. Although our initial efforts have focused on our pediatric patients, an additional aim of our project is to broaden the scope of our ED QI initiative to include community hospitals in the region that serve adult patients with SCD.

Conclusion

Implementation of a QI initiative in the ED has led to expeditious care for pediatric patients with SCD presenting with VOE. A multidisciplinary approach, ongoing staff education, and commitment to the initiative have been necessary to sustain the improvements. Our success can provide a template for other QI initiatives in the ED that translate to improved patient care for other diseases. A QI framework provided us with unique challenges but also invaluable lessons as we addressed our objective to improve outcomes for patients with SCD across the life course.

 

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Theresa Freitas, RN, Lisa Hale, PNP, Carolyn Hoppe, MD, Ileana Mendez, RN, Helen Mitchell, Mary Rutherford, MD, Augusta Saulys, MD and the Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland Emergency Medicine Department and Sickle Cell Center for their support.

Corresponding author: Marsha Treadwell, PhD, Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, 747 52nd St, Oakland, CA 94609, mtreadwell@mail.cho.org.

Funding/support: This research was conducted as part of the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality (NICHQ) Working to Improve Sickle Cell Healthcare (WISCH) project. Further support came from a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Project Grant No. U1EMC16492 and from NIH CTSA grant UL1 RR024131. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of WISCH, NICHQ, or HRSA.