Mis-implementation of evidence-based behavioural health practices in primary care: lessons from randomised trials in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Background: Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) within service systems is critical to population-level health improvements - but also challenging, especially for complex behavioral health interventions in low-resource settings. "Mis-implementation" refers to poor outcomes from an EBP implementation effort; mis-implementation outcomes are an important, but largely untapped, source of information about how to improve knowledge exchange. Aims and objectives: We present mis-implementation cases from three pragmatic trials of behavioral health EBPs in U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Methods: We adapted the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and its Outcomes Addendum into a framework for mis-implementation and used it to structure the case summaries with information about the EBP and trial, mis-implementation outcomes, and associated determinants (barriers and facilitators). We compared the three cases to identify shared and unique mis-implementation factors. Findings: Across cases, there was limited adoption and fidelity to the interventions, which led to eventual discontinuation. Barriers contributing to mis-implementation included intervention complexity, low buy-in from overburdened providers, lack of alignment between providers and leadership, and COVID-19-related stressors. Mis-implementation occurred earlier in cases that experienced both patient- and provider-level barriers, and that were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion and conclusion: Multi-level determinants contributed to EBP mis-implementation in FQHCs, limiting the ability of these health systems to benefit from knowledge exchange. To minimize mis-implementation, knowledge exchange strategies should be designed around common, core barriers but also flexible enough to address a variety of site-specific contextual factors and should be tailored to relevant audiences such as providers, patients, and/or leadership.

Perspectives Regarding Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Among Individuals with Mental Illness.

Most people with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness do not receive effective medications for treating OUD. To investigate perspectives of adults in a publicly-funded mental health system regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 adults with OUD (current or previous diagnosis) receiving mental health treatment. Themes that emerged included: perceiving or using MOUDs as a substitute for opioids or a temporary solution to prevent withdrawal symptoms; negative perceptions about methadone/methadone clinics; and viewing MOUD use as "cheating". Readiness to quit was important for patients to consider MOUDs. All participants were receptive to discussing MOUDs with their mental health providers and welcomed the convenience of receiving care for their mental health and OUD at the same location. In conclusion, clients at publicly-funded mental health clinics support MOUD treatment, signaling a need to expand access and build awareness of MOUDs in these settings.

Organizational Capacity and Readiness to Provide Medication for Individuals with Co-Occurring Alcohol Use Disorders in Public Mental Health Settings.

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) in individuals with mental illness are largely untreated. The purpose of this study was to identify gaps in organizational capacity and readiness to provide medications for AUD in outpatient public mental health clinics. We selected a purposive sample of eight publicly funded outpatient mental health clinics operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health; clinics were chosen to maximize heterogeneity. Guided by theories of organizational capacity and readiness and research on the adoption of pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary and specialty care treatment settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with administrators, providers and staff, and a qualitative analysis of the results. Respondents described significant organizational capacity and behavioral readiness constraints to providing medication treatment for AUD. Both groups articulated a perception that mental health clinics were not designed to provide co-occurring AUD treatment because of large caseloads, staffing configurations, and time constraints that did not support the delivery of appropriate treatment, and a lack of protocols and workflow procedures. We documented organizational capacity and readiness constraints which impede the delivery of medication treatment for AUD in a large mental helth system. While some constraints have straightforward solutions, others require structural changes to the way care is delivered, and state-level funding and policy changes.

Rates and Impact of Adherence to Recommended Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a major worldwide health problem. Yet few studies have assessed provider adherence to the alcohol-related care recommended in clinical practice guidelines, nor links between adherence to recommended care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe quality of care for unhealthy alcohol use and its impacts on drinking behavior RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of quality of alcohol care for the population of patients screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use in a large Veterans Affairs health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 719 patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at one of 11 primary care practices and who completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews. MAIN MEASURES: Using administrative encounter and medical record data, we assessed three composite and 21 individual process-based measures of care delivered across primary and specialty care settings. We assessed self-reported daily alcohol use using telephone interviews at baseline and 6-month follow-up. KEY RESULTS: The median proportion of patients who received recommended care across measures was 32.8% (range < 1% for initiating pharmacotherapy to 93% for depression screening). There was negligible change in drinking for the study population between baseline and 6 months. In covariate-adjusted analyses, no composites were significantly associated with changes in heavy drinking days or drinks per week, and just one of nine individual measures tested was significantly associated. In a subsample of patients drinking above recommended weekly limits prior to screening, two of nine individual measures were significantly associated. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows wide variability in receipt of recommended care for unhealthy alcohol use. Receipt of recommended interventions for reducing drinking was frequently not associated with decreased drinking. Results suggest deficits in provision of comprehensive alcohol care and in understanding how to improve population-based drinking outcomes.

Randomized Clinical Trial Examining Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Individuals With a First-Time DUI Offense.

BACKGROUND: Driving under the influence (DUI) programs are a unique setting to reduce disparities in treatment access to those who may not otherwise access treatment. Providing evidence-based therapy in these programs may help prevent DUI recidivism. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of 312 participants enrolled in 1 of 3 DUI programs in California. Participants were 21 and older with a first-time DUI offense who screened positive for at-risk drinking in the past year. Participants were randomly assigned to a 12-session manualized cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or usual care (UC) group and then surveyed 4 and 10 months later. We conducted intent-to-treat analyses to test the hypothesis that participants receiving CBT would report reduced impaired driving, alcohol consumption (drinks per week, abstinence, and binge drinking), and alcohol-related negative consequences. We also explored whether race/ethnicity and gender moderated CBT findings. RESULTS: Participants were 72.3% male and 51.7% Hispanic, with an average age of 33.2 (SD = 12.4). Relative to UC, participants receiving CBT had lower odds of driving after drinking at the 4- and 10-month follow-ups compared to participants receiving UC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37, p = 0.032, and OR = 0.29, p = 0.065, respectively). This intervention effect was more pronounced for females at 10-month follow-up. The remaining 4 outcomes did not significantly differ between UC versus CBT at 4- and 10-month follow-ups. Participants in both UC and CBT reported significant within-group reductions in 2 of 5 outcomes, binge drinking and alcohol-related consequences, at 10-month follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, individuals receiving CBT reported significantly lower rates of repeated DUI than individuals receiving UC, which may suggest that learning cognitive behavioral strategies to prevent impaired driving may be useful in achieving short-term reductions in impaired driving.

Commentary: Applying the Community Partners in Care Approach to the Opioid Crisis.

Background: Given national concern over rising mortality from opioid use disorders (OUD) and challenges to increasing OUD treatment access, a coalition approach may hold promise to improve access and outcomes for diverse populations. We present considerations of a community-partnered working group on adapting the Community Partners in Care (CPIC) study and coalition approach to OUD. Method: During January 2016 through January 2017, academic, provider, consumer and policy stakeholders reviewed options to adapt CPIC's Resources for Services (RS) for individual program technical assistance and Community Engagement and Planning (CEP) for coalition support to OUD treatments, integrating stakeholder input into design options with estimated sample sizes. Findings: The working group recommended Community Reinforcement and Family Treatment (CRAFT) as a stakeholder-support intervention to facilitate uptake and adherence to Medications for Addiction Treatment (MAT). Recommended implementation interventions for MAT/CRAFT were expert technical assistance supplemented by organizational readiness, and CEP for coalition support with a Learning Collaborative. Power estimation suggests that to compare implementation intervention effects on abstinence would require a somewhat larger enrolled sample and 3-4 times the screening sample as CPIC, and for mortality, at least 5-10 times the enrolled sample as CPIC. Discussion: Stakeholders viewed the CPIC design and interventions as feasible and acceptable as community-wide approaches for addressing the opioid epidemic, but comparing impacts on mortality would require large, multi-site trials.

Assessing and improving organizational readiness to implement substance use disorder treatment in primary care: findings from the SUMMIT study.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people with substance use disorders (SUDs) need, but do not receive, treatment. Delivering SUD treatment in primary care settings could increase access to treatment because most people visit their primary care doctors at least once a year, but evidence-based SUD treatments are underutilized in primary care settings. We used an organizational readiness intervention comprised of a cluster of implementation strategies to prepare a federally qualified health center to deliver SUD screening and evidence-based treatments (extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX) for alcohol use disorders, buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX) for opioid use disorders and a brief motivational interviewing/cognitive behavioral -based psychotherapy for both disorders). This article reports the effects of the intervention on key implementation outcomes. METHODS: To assess changes in organizational readiness we conducted pre- and post-intervention surveys with prescribing medical providers, behavioral health providers and general clinic staff (N = 69). We report on changes in implementation outcomes: acceptability, perceptions of appropriateness and feasibility, and intention to adopt the evidence-based treatments. We used Wilcoxon signed rank tests to analyze pre- to post-intervention changes. RESULTS: After 18 months, prescribing medical providers agreed more that XR-NTX was easier to use for patients with alcohol use disorders than before the intervention, but their opinions about the effectiveness and ease of use of BUP/NX for patients with opioid use disorders did not improve. Prescribing medical providers also felt more strongly after the intervention that XR-NTX for alcohol use disorders was compatible with current practices. Opinions of general clinic staff about the appropriateness of SUD treatment in primary care improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with implementation theory, we found that an organizational readiness implementation intervention enhanced perceptions in some domains of practice acceptability and appropriateness. Further research will assess whether these factors, which focus on individual staff readiness, change over time and ultimately predict adoption of SUD treatments in primary care.

Surgeons' views of peer comparison and guideline-based feedback on postsurgery opioid prescriptions: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Excess opioid prescribing after surgery can lead to prolonged opioid use and diversion. We interviewed surgeons who were part of a three-group cluster-randomised controlled trial aimed at reducing prescribed opioid quantities after surgery via two versions of a monthly emailed behavioural 'nudge' (messages encouraging but not mandating compliance with social norms and clinical guidelines around prescribing) at the end of the implementation year in order to understand surgeons' reasoning for changing or continuing their prescribing behaviour as a result of the intervention and the context for their rationale. METHODS: The study took place at a large healthcare system in northern California with surgeons from three surgical specialties-orthopaedics, obstetrics/gynaecology and general surgery. Following the intervention period, we conducted semistructured interviews with 36 surgeons who had participated in the trial, ensuring representation across trial arm, specialty and changes in prescribing quantities over the year. Interviews focused on reactions to the nudges, impacts of the nudges on prescribing behaviours and other factors impacting prescribing. Three study team members coded and analysed the transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Nudges were equally effective in reducing postsurgical opioid prescribing across surgical specialties and between intervention arms. Surgeons were generally receptive to the nudge intervention, noting that it reduced the size of their discharge opioid prescriptions by improving their awareness and intentionality around prescribing. Most were unaware that clinical guidelines around opioid prescribing existed. Some had reservations regarding the accuracy and context of information provided in the nudges, the prescription quantities encouraged by the nudges and feelings of being watched or admonished. A few described discussing the nudges with colleagues. Respondents emphasised that the prescribing behaviours are informed by individual clinical experience and patient-related and procedure-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons were open to learning about their prescribing behaviour through comparisons to guidelines or peer behaviour and incorporating this feedback as one of several factors that guide discharge opioid prescribing. Increasing awareness of clinical guidelines around opioid prescribing is important for curbing postsurgical opioid overprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05070338.

Findings from an Organizational Context Survey to Inform the Implementation of a Collaborative Care Study for Co-occurring Disorders.

Primary care is an opportune setting to deliver treatments for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders; however, treatment delivery can be challenging due multi-level implementation barriers. Documenting organizational context can provide insight into implementation barriers and the adaptation of new processes into usual care workflows. This study surveyed primary care and behavioral health staff from 13 clinics implementing a collaborative care intervention for opioid use disorders co-occurring with PTSD and/or depression as part of a multisite randomized controlled trial. A total of 323 completed an online survey for a 60% response rate. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided this assessment of multi-level factors that influence implementation. Most areas for improvement focused on inner setting (organizational level) constructs whereas individual-level constructs tended to be strengths. This work addresses a research gap regarding how organizational analyses can be used prior to implementation and provides practical implications for researchers and clinic leaders.

Drivers of Variation in Opioid Prescribing after Common Surgical Procedures in a Large Multihospital Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Misuse of prescription opioids is a well-established contributor to the United States opioid epidemic. The primary objective of this study was to identify which level of care delivery (i.e. patient, prescriber, or hospital) produced the most unwarranted variation in opioid prescribing after common surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Electronic health record (EHR) data from a large multihospital healthcare system was used in conjunction with random-effect models to examine variation in opioid prescribing practices following similar inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures between October 2019 and September 2021. Unwarranted variation was conceptualized as variation resulting from prescriber behavior unsupported by evidence. Covariates identified as drivers of warranted variation included characteristics known to influence pain levels or patient safety. All other model variables, including prescriber specialty and patient race, ethnicity, and insurance status were characterized as potential drivers of unwarranted variation. RESULTS: Among 25,188 procedures with an opioid prescription at hospital discharge, 53.5% exceeded guideline recommendations, corresponding to 13,228 patients receiving the equivalent of >140,000 excess 5mg oxycodone tablets following surgical procedures. Prescribing variation was primarily driven by prescriber-level factors, with approximately half of the total variation in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed observed at the prescriber level and not explained by any measured variables. Unwarranted covariates associated with higher prescribed opioid quantity included non-Hispanic black race, Medicare insurance, smoking history, later hospital discharge times, and prescription by a surgeon rather than a hospitalist or primary care provider. CONCLUSION: Given the large proportion of unexplained variation observed at the provider level, targeting prescribers through education and training may be an effective strategy for reducing postoperative opioid prescribing.

It takes a village: A pilot study of a group telehealth intervention for support persons affected by opioid use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) has devastating effects on individuals, families, and communities. The Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT) is a Support Person (SP)-focused intervention that aims to increase SPs' communication strategies, positive reinforcement/rewards, and social support. This pilot study, called eINSPIRE (INtegrating Support Persons Into REcovery), adapted CRAFT for delivery via group telehealth. The aims were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of this intervention on patient buprenorphine retention and SP mental health. METHODS: The study recruited patients receiving buprenorphine treatment in a primary care setting across five community health centers with their SP (N = 100 dyads). SP participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care (UC) or the eINSPIRE intervention. We interviewed Patients and SPs at baseline and three months later. The study collected patient buprenorphine retention data from the electronic medical record three months post-baseline. RESULTS: About 88 % (656/742) of potentially eligible patients were able to nominate a SP and 69 % (100/145) of nominated SPs were eligible and consented to the study. eINSPIRE groups had low reach (25 % of SPs attended), but high exposure (M = 7 of 10 sessions attended) and acceptability (classes helped them with their patient's OUD). The proportion of eINSPIRE patients (68 %) and UC patients (53 %) retained on buprenorphine at follow-up were similar (p = 0.203). SPs in both conditions reported similar reductions in their depression, anxiety, and impairment symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data suggest that eINSPIRE groups may not be feasible in primary care without further adaptations for this population. A future study with a larger sample size is needed to elucidate the observed distribution differences in buprenorphine retention. Future research should also explore methods to reduce barriers to SP session attendance to improve the reach of this evidence-based intervention.

Peer Comparison or Guideline-Based Feedback and Postsurgery Opioid Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Excess opioid prescribing after surgery can result in prolonged use and diversion. Email feedback based on social norms may reduce the number of pills prescribed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 social norm-based interventions on reducing guideline-discordant opioid prescribing after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at a large health care delivery system in northern California between October 2021 and October 2022 included general, obstetric/gynecologic, and orthopedic surgeons with patients aged 18 years or older discharged to home with an oral opioid prescription. Interventions: In 19 hospitals, 3 surgical specialties (general, orthopedic, and obstetric/gynecologic) were randomly assigned to a control group or 1 of 2 interventions. The guidelines intervention provided email feedback to surgeons on opioid prescribing relative to institutionally endorsed guidelines; the peer comparison intervention provided email feedback on opioid prescribing relative to that of peer surgeons. Emails were sent to surgeons with at least 2 guideline-discordant prescriptions in the previous month. The control group had no intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The probability that a discharged patient was prescribed a quantity of opioids above the guideline for the respective procedure during the 12 intervention months. Results: There were 38 235 patients discharged from 640 surgeons during the 12-month intervention period. Control-group surgeons prescribed above guidelines 36.8% of the time during the intervention period compared with 27.5% and 25.4% among surgeons in the peer comparison and guidelines arms, respectively. In adjusted models, the peer comparison intervention reduced guideline-discordant prescribing by 5.8 percentage points (95% CI, -10.5 to -1.1; P = .03) and the guidelines intervention reduced it by 4.7 percentage points (95% CI, -9.4 to -0.1; P = .05). Effects were driven by surgeons who performed more surgeries and had more guideline-discordant prescribing at baseline. There was no significant difference between interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, email feedback based on either guidelines or peer comparison reduced opioid prescribing after surgery. Guideline-based feedback was as effective as peer comparison-based feedback. These interventions are simple, low-cost, and scalable, and may reduce downstream opioid misuse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05070338.

The quality of mental health care for veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom.

BACKGROUND: Some Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans experience serious mental health (MH) problems. As OEF/OIF soldiers leave active military duty, their growing numbers pose a challenge to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in delivering high-quality mental health/substance-use disorder (MH/SUD) care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quality of MH/SUD care provided by the VA differs by OEF/OIF veteran status. METHODS: Veterans with selected MH/SUDs were identified from administrative records using diagnostic codes. OEF/OIF service was determined based on Defense Manpower Data Center separation files. Eleven processes of care and 7 utilization performance indicators were examined. Regression analyses were adjusted for veteran demographic and clinical characteristics to test for differences in care by OEF/OIF status. RESULTS: Of the 836,699 veterans with selected diagnoses who received MH/SUD treatment in FY2007, 52,870 (6.3%) were OEF/OIF veterans. In unadjusted analyses, OEF/OIF veterans were more likely to receive evidence-based care processes captured by 6 of the 11 dichotomous performance indicators examined; however, among those receiving psychotherapy encounters, OEF/OIF veterans received significantly fewer visits (6.9 vs. 9.7, P<0.0001). In adjusted analyses, only postdischarge follow-up remained meaningfully higher for OEF/OIF veterans. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to maintain and/or increase OEF/OIF veteran participation in VA MH/SUD services should be informed by their characteristics, such as younger age and better physical health relative to other veterans.

Training Addiction Counselors to Implement an Evidence-Based Intervention: Strategies for Increasing Organizational and Provider Acceptance.

One barrier to widespread public access to empirically supported treatments (ESTs) is the limited availability and high cost of professionals trained to deliver them. Our earlier work from two clinical trials demonstrated that front-line addiction counselors could be trained to deliver a manualized, group-based cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for depression, a prototypic example of an EST, with a high level of adherence and competence. This follow-up article provides specific recommendations for the selection and initial training of counselors, and for the structure and process of their ongoing clinical supervision. Unique challenges in working with counselors unaccustomed to traditional clinical supervision are highlighted. The recommendations are based on comprehensive feedback derived from clinician notes taken throughout the clinical trials, a focus group with counselors conducted one year following implementation, and interviews with key organization executives and administrators.

Design of CLARO+ (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses, Plus): A randomized trial of collaborative care to decrease overdose and suicide risk among patients with co-occurring disorders.

BACKGROUND: The United States is mired in two intertwined epidemics of death from suicide and overdose. Opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness contribute to both, and individuals with co-occurring disorders (CODs) are a complex population at high risk. Although universal prevention makes sense from a public health perspective, medical and behavioral health providers often lack the time to proactively address these issues with all patients. In this study, we build upon a parent study called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO), a model of collaborative care in which care coordinators deliver preventative measures to high-risk patients and coordinate care with the patients' care team, with the goal of increasing MOUD retention and decreasing risk of suicide and overdose. METHODS: CLARO+ adds intervention components on overdose prevention, recognition, and response training; lethal means safety counseling; and an effort to mail compassionate messages called Caring Contacts. Both CLARO and CLARO+ have been implemented at 17 clinics in New Mexico and California, and this study seeks to determine the difference in effectiveness between the two versions of the intervention. This paper describes the design protocol for CLARO+. CONCLUSION: CLARO+ is an innovative approach that aims to supplement existing collaborative care with additional suicide and overdose prevention strategies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04559893.

Disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing by race and ethnicity: an electronic health records-based observational study from Northern California, 2015-2020.

OBJECTIVES: To examine racial and ethnic disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing. DATA SOURCES: Electronic health records (EHR) data across 24 hospitals from a healthcare delivery system in Northern California from January 1, 2015 to February 2, 2020 (study period). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, secondary data analyses were conducted to examine differences by race and ethnicity in opioid prescribing, measured as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), among patients who underwent select, but commonly performed, surgical procedures. Linear regression models included adjustment for factors that would likely influence prescribing decisions and race and ethnicity-specific propensity weights. Opioid prescribing, overall and by race and ethnicity, was also compared to postoperative opioid guidelines. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from the EHR on adult patients undergoing a procedure during the study period, discharged to home with an opioid prescription. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 61,564 patients, on adjusted regression analysis, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients received prescriptions with higher mean MME than non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients (+ 6.4% [95% confidence interval: 4.4%, 8.3%]), whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian patients received lower mean MME (-4.2% [-5.1%, -3.2%] and - 3.6% [-4.8%, -2.3%], respectively). Nevertheless, 72.8% of all patients received prescriptions above guidelines, ranging from 71.0 to 80.3% by race and ethnicity. Disparities in prescribing were eliminated among Hispanic and NHB patients versus NHW patients when prescriptions were written within guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing exist in the postoperative setting, yet all groups received prescriptions above guideline recommendations. Policies encouraging guideline-based prescribing may reduce disparities and overall excess prescribing.

Screening for opioid use disorder and co-occurring depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in primary care in New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients in primary care services with opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders is critical to providing treatment. Objectives of this study were to (1) assess the feasibility of recruiting people to screen in-person for opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders (depression and/or post-traumatic stress disorder) in primary care clinic waiting rooms in preparation for a randomized controlled trial, and (2) compare results of detecting these disorders by universal in-person screening compared to electronic health record (EHR) diagnoses. METHODS: This cross-sectional feasibility and pilot study recruited participants from four primary care clinics, two rural and two urban, from three health care organizations in New Mexico. Inclusion criteria were adults (≥ 18 years), attending one of the four clinics as a patient, and who spoke English or Spanish. Exclusion criteria were people attending the clinic for a non-primary care visit (e.g., dental, prescription pick up, social support). The main outcomes and measures were (1) recruitment feasibility which was assessed by frequencies and proportions of people approached and consented for in-person screening, and (2) relative differences of detecting opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders in waiting rooms relative to aggregate EHR data from each clinic, measured by prevalence and prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Over two-weeks, 1478 potential participants were approached and 1145 were consented and screened (77.5% of patients approached). Probable opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders were identified in 2.4% of those screened compared to 0.8% in EHR. Similarly, universal screening relative to EHR identified higher proportions of probable opioid use disorder (4.5% vs. 3.4%), depression (17.5% vs. 12.7%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (19.0% vs. 3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for opioid use disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder was feasible, and identified three times as many patients with these co-occurring disorders compared to EHR. Higher proportions of each condition were also identified, especially post-traumatic stress disorder. Results support that there are likely gaps in identification of these disorders in primary care services and demonstrate the need to better address the persistent public health problem of these co-occurring disorders.

Pilot randomized controlled trial of a hospital-based substance use treatment and recovery team (START) to improve initiation of medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder and linkage to follow-up care.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore whether a hospital inpatient addiction consult team (Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team [START]) based on collaborative care was feasible, acceptable to patients, and whether it could improve uptake of medication in the hospital and linkage to care after discharge, as well as reduce substance use and hospital readmission. The START consisted of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager who implemented a motivational and discharge planning intervention. METHODS: We randomized inpatients age ≥ 18 with a probable alcohol or opioid use disorder to receive START or usual care. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of START and the RCT, and we conducted an intent-to-treat analysis on data from the electronic medical record and patient interviews at baseline and 1-month postdischarge. The study compared RCT outcomes (medication for alcohol or opioid use disorder, linkage to follow-up care after discharge, substance use, hospital readmission) between arms by fitting logistic and linear regression models. FINDINGS: Of 38 START patients, 97 % met with the addiction medicine specialist and care manager; 89 % received ≥8 of 10 intervention components. All patients receiving START found it to be somewhat or very acceptable. START patients had higher odds of initiating medication during the inpatient stay (OR 6.26, 95 % CI = 2.38-16.48, p < .001) and being linked to follow-up care (OR 5.76, 95 % CI = 1.86-17.86, p < .01) compared to usual care patients (N = 50). The study found no significant differences between groups in drinking or opioid use; patients in both groups reported using fewer substances at the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot data suggest START and RCT implementation are feasible and acceptable and that START may facilitate medication initiation and linkage to follow-up for inpatients with an alcohol or opioid use disorder. A larger trial should assess effectiveness, covariates, and moderators of intervention effects.

Multicultural web-based motivational interviewing for clients with a first-time DUI offense.

Culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions are needed to reduce the risk of driving under the influence (DUI) recidivism among diverse populations. Using core elements of Motivational Interviewing, we developed a culturally relevant web-MI intervention (web-MI) in English and Spanish to serve as a standalone or adjunctive program in DUI educational settings and evaluated its feasibility and acceptability among clients with first-time DUI offenses. We conducted an iterative formative assessment using focus groups with staff (n = 8) and clients (n = 27), and usability interviews with clients (n = 21). Adapting MI for the web was widely accepted by staff and clients. Clients stated the web-MI was engaging, interactive and personal, and felt more comfortable than past classes and programs. Spanish-speaking clients felt less shame, embarrassment, and discomfort with the web-MI compared to other in-person groups. Results support the viability of web-MI for DUI clients at risk for recidivism and highlight the importance of adapting the intervention for diverse populations. Key decisions used to develop the web-MI are discussed.

Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO): process of adapting collaborative care for co-occurring opioid use and mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorders (OUD), co-occurring with either depression and/or PTSD, are prevalent, burdensome, and often receive little or low-quality care. Collaborative care is a service delivery intervention that uses a team-based model to improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes in primary care patients, but has not been evaluated for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. To address this treatment and quality gap, we adapted collaborative care for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. METHODS: Our adapted model is called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO). We used the five-step Map of Adaptation Process (McKleroy in AIDS Educ Prev 18:59-73, 2006) to develop the model. For each step, our stakeholder team of research and clinical experts, primary care partners, and patients provided input into adaptation processes (e.g., adaptation team meetings, clinic partner feedback, patient interviews and beta-testing). To document each adaptation and our decision-making process, we used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (Wiltsey Stirman in Implement Sci 14:1-10, 2019). RESULTS: We documented 12 planned fidelity-consistent adaptations to collaborative care, including a mix of content, context, and training/evaluation modifications intended to improve fit with the patient population (co-occurring disorders) or the New Mexico setting (low-resource clinics in health professional shortage areas). Examples of documented adaptations include use of community health workers as care coordinators; an expanded consultant team to support task-shifting to community health workers; modified training protocols for Problem-Solving Therapy and Written Exposure Therapy to incorporate examples of treating patients for depression or PTSD with co-occurring OUD; and having care coordinators screen for patients' social needs. CONCLUSIONS: We completed the first three steps of the Map of Adaptation Process, resulting in a variety of adaptations that we believe will make collaborative care more acceptable and feasible in treating co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. Future steps include evaluating the effectiveness of CLARO and documenting reactive and/or planned adaptations to the model that occur during its implementation and delivery. Trial registration NCT04559893, NCT04634279. Registered 08 September 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04559893.