A Quality Improvement Project: Implementation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Guidelines at an Addiction Treatment Center

PURPOSE

This quality improvement project was introduced at an addiction treatment center to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment guidelines and offer anticraving medications to patients to improve standards of care of patients with substance use disorders.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Patients with opioid use disorders are at the highest risk of contracting HCV. More than 80% of people in the United States with opioid use disorders who use intravenous drugs have contracted HCV. Despite the high prevalence of HCV, patients at treatment centers are being screened only for HCV antibodies (HCV-AB) and are not receiving the CDC's HCV treatment guidelines. The CDC has treatment recommendations of hepatitis panels, full STD testing, and early follow-up care.

METHOD

This quality improvement project utilized the Plan-Do-Study-Act tool. With the application of Plan-Do-Study-Act, for patients identified with HCV-AB, the established CDC HCV treatment guidelines were followed, and the clinical progress of the implementation of the guidelines was monitored. Chart reviews comparing compliance of guidelines before and after the study were implemented.

PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 125 patients were collected, and of these, 32 patients were found to be HCV-AB+.

FINDINGS

The findings revealed that 18.75% of patients followed the CDC's HCV recommendations after the quality improvement project compared with 6.25% of patients before the intervention. The number of HIV testing offered increased by 40.00% as a result of the implementation of the project.

Framework for community-based models for treating hepatitis C virus

Objective Although community-based models for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) are widely recognised for reaching more people who require treatment, little is known about their organisational and operational elements. This study aimed to address this gap and develop a framework for designing, implementing and evaluating community-based models for treating HCV. Methods This study was a systematic review in which 17 databases were searched for published and unpublished studies. The final search of databases was performed in September 2017. A qualitative inductive thematic approach was used to extract and categorise organisational and operational elements of community-based models for treating HCV. Results Data analysis yielded 13 organisational and operational elements that were categorised into three domains: support for patients, support for healthcare providers and service delivery facilitation. In the support for patients domain, support was categorised into four elements: peer support, psychological assessment and support, social assessment and support and adherence support. In the support for healthcare providers domain, the elements included the provision of educational opportunities for HCV care providers, specialist mentoring, decision making support and rewarding and recognition for HCV care providers. Finally, the service delivery facilitation domain included seven elements that target service-level enablers for community-based HCV treatment, including essential infrastructure, policy implementation and collocation and collaboration with other related services. Conclusion This framework for understanding the components of models of community-based HCV treatment may be used as a guide for designing, implementing and evaluating models of care in support of HCV elimination. HCV care providers and patients need to be supported to improve their engagement with the provision of community-based treatment. In addition, evidence-based strategies to facilitate service delivery need to be included. What is known about the topic? Community-based models for treating HCV are widely recognised as having the advantage of reaching more people who require treatment. These types of models aim to remove barriers related to accessibility and acceptability associated with tertiary centre-based HCV treatment. What does this paper add? Community-based models for treating HCV use various organisational and operational elements to improve the accessibility, effectiveness and acceptability of these services. The elements we identified target three main domains: support for patients with HCV, support for HCV care providers and service delivery facilitation. The importance of these organisational and operational elements designed to improve health and health services outcomes of community-based models for treating HCV is strongly influenced by context, and dependent on both the setting and target population. What are the implications for practitioners? Health policy makers and practitioners need to consider a patient’s psychosocial and economic status and provide support when needed. To successfully deliver HCV treatment in community settings, HCV care providers need to be trained and supported, and need to establish linkages, collaborations or colocations with other related services.

Clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of community-based treatment of hepatitis C virus infection: A mixed method systematic review

Several community-based models for treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have been implemented to improve treatment accessibility and health outcomes. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding how well these models achieve the desired goals. We conducted a mixed-method systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence about clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of community-based HCV treatment models. Seventeen databases were researched for published and unpublished studies. Methodological quality was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. Quantitative findings were synthesized in narrative form and qualitative findings were synthesized using meta-synthesis. Forty-two quantitative and six qualitative studies were included. No relevant cost effectiveness studies were found. Five categories of community-based models were identified: telehealth, integration of HCV and addiction services, integration of HCV and HIV services, integration of HCV and primary care, and implementation by a home care and health care management company. The range of reported outcomes included; end of treatment response: 48.7% to 96%, serious side effects: 3.3% to 27.8%, sustained virological response: 22.3% to 95.5%, relapse: 2.2% to 16.7%, and treatment completion: 33.4% to 100%. Inconsistent measures of uptake and adherence were used; uptake ranged from 8.3% to 92%, and 68.4% to 100% of patients received ≥80% of prescribed doses. Patient reported experiences included trusted and supportive care providers, safe and trusted services, easily accessible care, and positive psychological and behavioural changes. The clinical effectiveness and acceptability reported from the included studies are similar to or better than reported outcomes from systematic reviews of studies in tertiary settings. Studies of the cost effectiveness of community-based models for treating HCV are needed.