Assessing Substance Use Disorder Symptoms with a Checklist among Primary Care Patients with Opioid Use Disorder and/or Long-Term Opioid Treatment: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care (PC) offers an opportunity to treat opioid use disorders (OUD). The Substance Use Symptom Checklist ("Checklist") can assess DSM-5 substance use disorder (SUD) symptoms in PC. OBJECTIVE: To test the psychometric properties of the Checklist among PC patients with OUD or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA). DESIGN: Observational study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race and ethnicity, and receipt of treatment. PATIENTS: Electronic health records (EHR) data were extracted for all adult PC patients visiting KPWA 3/1/15-8/30/2020 who had ≥ 1 Checklist documented and indication of either (a) clinically-recognized OUD (i.e., documented OUD diagnosis and/or OUD medication treatment) or (b) LTOT in the year prior to the checklist. MAIN MEASURE: The Checklist includes 11 items reflecting DSM-5 criteria for SUD. We described the prevalence of 2 SUD symptoms reported on the Checklist (consistent with mild-severe DSM-5 SUD). Analyses were conducted in the overall sample and in two subsamples (clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT only). KEY RESULTS: Among 2007 eligible patients, 39.9% endorsed ≥ 2 SUD symptoms (74.3% in the clinically-recognized OUD subsample and 13.1% in LTOT subsample). IRT indicated that a unidimensional model for the 11 checklist items had excellent fit (comparative fit index = 0.998) with high item-level discrimination parameters for the overall sample and both subsamples. DIF across age, race and ethnicity, and treatment was observed for one item each, but had minimal impact on expected number of criteria (0-11) patients endorse. CONCLUSIONS: The Substance Use Symptom Checklist measured SUD symptoms consistent with DSM-5 conceptualization (scaled, unidimensional) in patients with clinically-recognized OUD and LTOT and had similar measurement properties across demographic subgroups. The Checklist may support symptom assessment in patients with OUD and diagnosis in patients with LTOT.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Processes of Engagement in Outpatient Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review.

Effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is available, but patient engagement is central to achieving care outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to describe patient and provider-reported strategies that may contribute to patient engagement in outpatient OUD care delivery. We searched PubMed and Scopus for articles reporting patient and/or provider experiences with outpatient OUD care delivery. Analysis included: (1) describing specific engagement strategies, (2) mapping strategies to patient-centered care domains, and (3) identifying themes that characterize the relationship between engagement and patient-centered care. Of 3,222 articles screened, 30 articles met inclusion criteria. Analysis identified 14 actionable strategies that facilitate patient engagement and map to all patient-centered care domains. Seven themes emerged that characterize interpersonal approaches to OUD care engagement. Interpersonal interactions between patients and providers play a pivotal role in encouraging engagement throughout OUD treatment. Future research is needed to further evaluate promising engagement strategies.

Integrating Routine Screening for Opioid Use Disorder into Primary Care Settings: Experiences from a National Cohort of Clinics.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine population-based screening for drug use, yet screening for opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care occurs rarely, and little is known about barriers primary care teams face. OBJECTIVE: As part of a multisite randomized trial to provide OUD and behavioral health treatment using the Collaborative Care Model, we supported 10 primary care clinics in implementing routine OUD screening and conducted formative evaluation to characterize early implementation experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative formative evaluation. APPROACH: Formative evaluation included taking detailed observation notes at implementation meetings with individual clinics and debriefings with external facilitators. Observation notes were analyzed weekly using a Rapid Assessment Process guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with iterative feedback from the study team. After clinics launched OUD screening, we conducted structured fidelity assessments via group interviews with each site to evaluate clinic experiences with routine OUD screening. Data from observation and structured fidelity assessments were combined into a matrix to compare across clinics and identify cross-cutting barriers and promising implementation strategies. KEY RESULTS: While all clinics had the goal of implementing population-based OUD screening, barriers were experienced across intervention, individual, and clinic setting domains, with compounding effects for telehealth visits. Seven themes emerged characterizing barriers, including (1) challenges identifying who to screen, (2) complexity of the screening tool, (3) staff discomfort and/or hesitancies, (4) workflow barriers that decreased screening follow-up, (5) staffing shortages and turnover, (6) discouragement from low screening yield, and (7) stigma. Promising implementation strategies included utilizing a more universal screening approach, health information technology (HIT), audit and feedback, and repeated staff trainings. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating population-based OUD screening in primary care is challenging but may be made feasible via implementation strategies and tailored practice facilitation that standardize workflows via HIT, decrease stigma, and increase staff confidence regarding OUD.

Program Adaptations to Provide Harm Reduction Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study of Syringe Services Programs in the U.S.

Syringe services programs (SSPs) are essential to preventing injection drug use-related infections and overdose death among people who use drugs (PWUD). The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic initially impeded SSPs' operations. To effectively support these programs, information is needed regarding SSPs' experiences adapting their services and the challenges posed by COVID-19. We conducted qualitative interviews with leadership and staff from a sample of 31 U.S. SSPs. Respondents discussed urgent concerns including reduced reach of services, suspended HIV/hepatitis C testing, high COVID-19 risk among PWUD, and negative impacts of isolation on overdose and mental health. They also noted opportunities to improve future services for PWUD, including shifting to evidence-based distribution practices and maintaining regulatory changes that increased access to opioid use disorder medications post-pandemic. Findings can inform efforts to support SSPs in restoring and expanding services, and provide insight into SSPs' role in engaging PWUD during the COVID-19 response and future emergencies.

RESUMEN: Los programas de servicios de jeringas (reconocido como SSP en inglés) son esenciales para prevenir las infecciones relacionadas con el consumo de drogas inyectables y la muerte por sobredosis entre las personas que consumen drogas (reconocidos como PWUD en ingles). La nueva pandemia del coronavirus (COVID-19) inicialmente impidió las operaciones de los SSP. Para apoyar eficazmente estos programas, se necesita información sobre las experiencias de los SSP que adaptan sus servicios y los desafíos que plantea COVID-19. Realizamos entrevistas cualitativas con el liderazgo y el personal de una muestra de 31 SSPs de EE.UU. Los encuestados discutieron las preocupaciones urgentes, incluyendo la reducción del alcance de los servicios, la suspensión de las pruebas de VIH/hepatitis C, el alto riesgo de COVID-19 entre la PWUD, y los impactos negativos del aislamiento en las sobredosis y la salud mental. También identificaron las oportunidades de mejorar los servicios futuros para las PWUD, incluyendo el cambio a prácticas de distribución basadas en evidencias y el mantenimiento de cambios regulatorios que aumentaran el acceso a medicamentos para el trastorno por consumo de opiáceos después de la pandemia. La información que se encontró en este estudio se puede utilizar junto los esfuerzos para apoyar a los SSP en la restauración y expansión de los servicios, y proporcionar información sobre el papel de los SSP en la participación de PWUD durante la respuesta covid-19 futuras emergencias.

Responding to a surge in overdose deaths: perspectives from US syringe services programs.

BACKGROUND: US overdose deaths have reached a record high. Syringe services programs (SSPs) play a critical role in addressing this crisis by providing multiple services to people who use drugs (PWUD) that help prevent overdose death. This study examined the perspectives of leadership and staff from a geographically diverse sample of US SSPs on factors contributing to the overdose surge, their organization's response, and ongoing barriers to preventing overdose death. METHODS: From 2/11/2021 to 4/23/2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership and staff from 27 SSPs sampled from the North American Syringe Exchange Network directory. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process. RESULTS: Respondents reported that increased intentional and unintentional fentanyl use (both alone and combined with other substances) was a major driver of the overdose surge. They also described how the COVID-19 pandemic increased solitary drug use and led to abrupt increases in use due to life disruptions and worsened mental health among PWUD. In response to this surge, SSPs have increased naloxone distribution, including providing more doses per person and expanding distribution to people using non-opioid drugs. They are also adapting overdose prevention education to increase awareness of fentanyl risks, including for people using non-opioid drugs. Some are distributing fentanyl test strips, though a few respondents expressed doubts about strips' effectiveness in reducing overdose harms. Some SSPs are expanding education and naloxone training/distribution in the broader community, beyond PWUD and their friends/family. Respondents described several ongoing barriers to preventing overdose death, including not reaching certain groups at risk of overdose (PWUD who do not inject, PWUD experiencing homelessness, and PWUD of color), an inconsistent naloxone supply and lack of access to intranasal naloxone in particular, inadequate funding, underestimates of overdoses, legal/policy barriers, and community stigma. CONCLUSIONS: SSPs remain essential in preventing overdose deaths amid record numbers likely driven by increased fentanyl use and COVID-19-related impacts. These findings can inform efforts to support SSPs in this work. In the face of ongoing barriers, support for SSPs-including increased resources, political support, and community partnership-is urgently needed to address the worsening overdose crisis.

Provider Perspectives on Implementing Shared Decision Making for PTSD Treatment in VA Primary Care.

Shared decision making is an important implementation "pull" strategy for increasing uptake of evidence-based mental health practices. In this qualitative study, we explored provider perspectives on implementing shared decision making at the point of mental health treatment initiation using a publicly available, patient-facing decision support tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 mental health providers (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers) working in one of five VA primary care clinics. Interviewed were analyzed using thematic analysis. Provider were enthusiastic about using decision aids as a source of high quality information that could improve patient experience and confidence in treatment. However, providers had concerns about decision aid accessibility, time constraints to conduct shared decision making in-session, and patient motivation to engage in shared decision making. Providers stated they would prefer to use shared decision making with patients that they felt were most likely to follow through with treatment. While providers believed that shared decision making could improve PTSD treatment planning, they thought it most appropriate for patients with the highest levels of motivation and fewest barriers to care. These beliefs may limit widespread adoption and reflect missed opportunities to reach difficult-to-engage patients.

Participant engagement in a community based participatory research study to reduce alcohol use among Latino immigrant men.

Although Latino immigrant men experience many health disparities, they are underrepresented in research to understand and address disparities. Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) has been identified to encourage participant engagement and increase representation in health disparities research. The CBPR conceptual model describes how partnership processes and study design impact participant engagement in research. Using this model, we sought to describe how these domains influenced participant engagement in a pilot randomized controlled trial of brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use (n = 121) among Latino immigrant men. We conducted interviews with a sample of study participants (n = 25) and reviewed logs maintained by 'promotores'. We identified facilitators of participant engagement, including the relevance of the study topic, alignment with participants' goals to improve their lives, partnerships with study staff that treated participants respectfully and offered access to resources. Further, men reported that the study time and location were convenient and that they appreciated being compensated for their time. Barriers to participant engagement included survey questions that were difficult to understand and competing demands of work responsibilities. Findings suggest that engaging underserved communities requires culturally responsive and community engagement strategies that promote trust. Future studies should further investigate how CBPR partnership processes can inform intervention research.

Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline.

BACKGROUND: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence. METHODS: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit. RESULTS: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

"Being able to speak": What individuals in jail perceived as helpful about participating in alcohol-related brief interventions.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of individuals within the criminal justice system meet criteria for a substance use disorder. Treatments for individuals who are incarcerated with substance use disorders show minimal to no benefit on postrelease outcomes, suggesting a need to improve their effectiveness, particularly those that can be delivered in a brief format. The purpose of this study was to describe what individuals in jail with substance use disorders perceived as being helpful about 2 brief alcohol-focused interventions, which can be used to inform future treatments with this population. METHODS: Data came from a parent study where 58 individuals in jail with substance use disorders received either a motivational or educational intervention focused on alcohol and other substance use and then completed a questionnaire assessing what was most and least helpful about the interventions. Qualitative responses were coded using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Results indicated that participants from both interventions reported that receiving individualized attention and talking one-on-one with someone was helpful, and that the interventions were encouraging and elicited hope. There also were specific components from each intervention that participants said were beneficial, including the opportunity to discuss plans for postrelease and to learn about addiction from psychoeducational videos. Participants noted areas for improving future interventions. Suggestions from participants were to offer tangible resources upon release, make session lengths flexible, and reduce assessment burden during research interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Findings align with established approaches for working with marginalized groups, namely, community-based participatory research methods and shared decision-making models for treatment. This study provided a voice to individuals in jail with substance use disorders, a group often underrepresented in the literature, and may offer an initial look at how to improve treatments for this high-risk population.

Binge drinking and perceived ethnic discrimination among Hispanics/Latinos: Results from the Hispanic community health study/study of Latinos sociocultural ancillary study.

The study assessed whether overall perceived ethnic discrimination and four unique discrimination types were associated with binge drinking in participants from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos who also completed the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study (n = 5,313). In unadjusted analyses that were weighted for sampling strategy and design, each unit increase in discrimination type was associated with a 12-63% increase in odds of binge drinking; however, after adjusting for important demographic variables including age, sex, heritage group, language, and duration of U.S. residence, there was no longer an association between discrimination and binge drinking. Further research still needs to identify the salient factors that contribute to increased risk for binge drinking among Hispanics/Latinos.

"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center.

OBJECTIVES: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics. METHODS: SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively. RESULTS: SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch). CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population. METHODS: We interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

Clinician Perspectives on Delivering Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated changes in opioid use disorder care. Little is known about COVID-19's impact on general healthcare clinicians' experiences providing medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). This qualitative evaluation assessed clinicians' beliefs about and experiences delivering MOUD in general healthcare clinics during COVID-19. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted May through December 2020 with clinicians participating in a Department of Veterans Affairs initiative to implement MOUD in general healthcare clinics. Participants included 30 clinicians from 21 clinics (9 primary care, 10 pain, and 2 mental health). Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The following 4 themes were identified: overall impact of the pandemic on MOUD care and patient well-being, features of MOUD care impacted, MOUD care delivery, and continuance of telehealth for MOUD care. Clinicians reported a rapid shift to telehealth care, resulting in few changes to patient assessments, MOUD initiations, and access to and quality of care. Although technological challenges were noted, clinicians highlighted positive experiences, including treatment destigmatization, more timely visits, and insight into patients' environments. Such changes resulted in more relaxed clinical interactions and improved clinic efficiency. Clinicians reported a preference for in-person and telehealth hybrid care models. CONCLUSIONS: After the quick shift to telehealth-based MOUD delivery, general healthcare clinicians reported few impacts on quality of care and highlighted several benefits that may address common barriers to MOUD care. Evaluations of in-person and telehealth hybrid care models, clinical outcomes, equity, and patient perspectives are needed to inform MOUD services moving forward.

Integrating Alcohol-Related Prevention and Treatment Into Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial.

Importance: Unhealthy alcohol use is common and affects morbidity and mortality but is often neglected in medical settings, despite guidelines for both prevention and treatment. Objective: To test an implementation intervention to increase (1) population-based alcohol-related prevention with brief interventions and (2) treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care implemented with a broader program of behavioral health integration. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Sustained Patient-Centered Alcohol-Related Care (SPARC) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, including 22 primary care practices in an integrated health system in Washington state. Participants consisted of all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary care visits from January 2015 to July 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2021. Interventions: The implementation intervention included 3 strategies: practice facilitation; electronic health record decision support; and performance feedback. Practices were randomly assigned launch dates, which placed them in 1 of 7 waves and defined the start of the practice's intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes for prevention and AUD treatment were (1) the proportion of patients who had unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention documented in the electronic health record (brief intervention) for prevention and (2) the proportion of patients who had newly diagnosed AUD and engaged in AUD treatment (AUD treatment engagement). Analyses compared monthly rates of primary and intermediate outcomes (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment initiation) among all patients who visited primary care during usual care and intervention periods using mixed-effects regression. Results: A total of 333 596 patients visited primary care (mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years; 193 583 [58%] female; 234 764 [70%] White individuals). The proportion with brief intervention was higher during SPARC intervention than usual care periods (57 vs 11 per 10 000 patients per month; P < .001). The proportion with AUD treatment engagement did not differ during intervention and usual care (1.4 vs 1.8 per 10 000 patients; P = .30). The intervention increased intermediate outcomes: screening (83.2% vs 20.8%; P < .001), new AUD diagnosis (33.8 vs 28.8 per 10 000; P = .003), and treatment initiation (7.8 vs 6.2 per 10 000; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the SPARC intervention resulted in modest increases in prevention (brief intervention) but not AUD treatment engagement in primary care, despite important increases in screening, new diagnoses, and treatment initiation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675777.

Unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention rates among high and low complexity veterans seeking primary care services in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Brief intervention (BI) is recommended for all primary care (PC) patients who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use; however, patients with multiple chronic health conditions who are at high-risk of hospitalization (i.e., "high complexity" patients) may face disparities in receiving BIs in PC. The current study investigated whether high complexity and low complexity patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) differed regarding screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use, alcohol-use severity, and receipt of BI for those with unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: Patients were veterans receiving PC services at the VHA in a mid-Atlantic region of the United States. The study extracted VHA administrative and clinical data for a total of 282,242 patients who had ≥1 PC visits between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2014, during which they were screened for unhealthy alcohol use by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). The study defined high complexity patients as those within and above the 90th percentile of risk for hospitalization per the VHA's Care Assessment Need Score. Logistic regression models assessed if being a high complexity patient was associated with screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT-C ≥ 5), severity of unhealthy alcohol use in those who screened positive (AUDIT-C score range 5-12), and receipt of BI in those who screened positive. RESULTS: Our sample was 94.5% male, 83% White, 13% Black, 4% other race, and 1.7% Hispanic. A total of 10,813 (3.8%) patients screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use from which we identified 569 (5.3%) high complexity and 10,128 (93.6%) low complexity patients (n = 116 removed due to missing complexity data). Relative to low complexity patients, high complexity patients were less likely to screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use (3.3% vs. 4.1%, AOR = 0.59, p < .001); however, in patients who screened positive, high complexity patients had higher AUDIT-C scores (Mean AUDIT-C = 7.75 vs. 6.87, AOR = 1.46, p < .001) and were less likely to receive a BI (78.0% vs. 92.6%, AOR = 0.42, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in BI exist for highly complex patients despite having more severe unhealthy alcohol use. Future research should examine the specific patient- and/or clinic-level factors impeding BI delivery for complex patients.

Integrating Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Into Primary Care Settings.

Importance: Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (eg, buprenorphine and naltrexone) can be offered in primary care, but barriers to implementation exist. Objective: To evaluate an implementation intervention over 2 years to explore experiences and perspectives of multidisciplinary primary care (PC) teams initiating or expanding MOUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey-based and ethnographic qualitative study was conducted at 12 geographically and structurally diverse primary care clinics that enrolled in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study from July 2020 to July 2022 and included PC teams (prescribing clinicians, nonprescribing behavioral health care managers, and consulting psychiatrists). Survey data analysis was conducted from February to April 2022. Exposure: Implementation intervention (external practice facilitation) to integrate OUD treatment alongside existing collaborative care for mental health services. Measures: Data included (1) quantitative surveys of primary care teams that were analyzed descriptively and triangulated with qualitative results and (2) qualitative field notes from ethnographic observation of clinic implementation meetings analyzed using rapid assessment methods. Results: Sixty-two primary care team members completed the survey (41 female individuals [66%]; 1 [2%] American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4 [7%] Asian, 5 [8%] Black or African American, 5 [8%] Hispanic or Latino, 1 [2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 46 [4%] White individuals), of whom 37 (60%) were between age 25 and 44 years. An analysis of implementation meetings (n = 362) and survey data identified 4 themes describing multilevel factors associated with PC team provision of MOUD during implementation, with variation in their experience across clinics. Themes characterized challenges with clinical administrative logistics that limited the capacity to provide rapid access to care and patient engagement as well as clinician confidence to discuss aspects of MOUD care with patients. These challenges were associated with conflicting attitudes among PC teams toward expanding MOUD care. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey and qualitative study of PC team perspectives suggest that PC teams need flexibility in appointment scheduling and the capacity to effectively engage patients with OUD as well as ongoing training to maintain clinician confidence in the face of evolving opioid-related clinical issues. Future work should address structural challenges associated with workload burden and limited schedule flexibility that hinder MOUD expansion in PC settings.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a Pharmacist, Physician, and Patient Navigator-Collaborative Care Model (PPP-CCM) to treat hepatitis C among people who inject drugs.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) offer an unprecedented opportunity to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, yet barriers among people who inject drugs (PWID) remain. Having pharmacists provide care through collaborative drug therapy agreements (CDTAs) offers a promising solution. We developed and piloted a Pharmacist, Physician, and Patient Navigator-Collaborative Care Model (PPP-CCM) which utilized pharmacists to directly deliver HCV care at community organizations serving PWID. We conducted formative evaluation of the PPP-CCM pilot to characterize implementation experiences. METHODS: The PPP-CCM was implemented from November of 2020 through July of 2022. Formative evaluation team members observed implementation-related meetings and conducted multiple site visits, taking detailed fieldnotes. Fieldnotes were iteratively reviewed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and used to inform 7 key informant interviews conducted with programmatic staff at the end of the pilot. All data were analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process (RAP) guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The formative evaluation team shared results with program stakeholders (pharmacists, physicians, and other site staff) to verify and expand on learnings. RESULTS: Evaluation of PPP-CCM revealed 5 themes, encompassing all CFIR domains: 1) PPP-CCM was feasible but challenging to deliver efficiently; 2) the pharmacist role and characteristics (e.g., being flexible, available, and patient-centered) were key to PPP-CCM successes; 3) the PPP-CCM team met challenges engaging patients over time, but some team-based strategies helped; 4) community site characteristics (e.g., existing trusting relationships with PWID and physical space that enabled program visibility) were important contributors; and 5) financial barriers may limit PPP-CCM scale-up and sustainability. CONCLUSION: PPP-CCM is a novel and promising approach to HCV care delivery for PWID who may previously lack engagement in traditional care models, but careful attention needs to be paid to financial barriers to ensure scalability and sustainability.

Syringe Service Program Perspectives on Barriers, Readiness, and Programmatic Needs to Support Rollout of the COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: We explored syringe service program (SSP) perspectives on barriers, readiness, and programmatic needs to support coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine uptake among people who use drugs. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study, leveraging an existing sample of SSPs in the United States. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with SSP staff between February and April 2021. Interviews were analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process, an intensive, iterative process that allows for rapid analysis of time-sensitive qualitative data. RESULTS: Twenty-seven SSPs completed a qualitative interview. Many SSP respondents discussed that COVID-19 vaccination was not a priority for their participants because of competing survival priorities, and respondents shared concerns that COVID-19 had deepened participant mistrust of health care. Most SSPs wanted to participate in COVID-19 vaccination efforts; however, they identified needed resources, including adequate space, personnel, and training, to implement successful vaccine programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although SSPs are trusted resources for people who use drugs, many require additional structural and personnel support to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among their participants. Funding and supporting SSPs in the provision of COVID-19 prevention education and direct vaccine services should be a top public health priority.

Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening and brief interventions (BIs) are ranked the third highest US prevention priority, but effective methods of implementing BI into routine care have not been described. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prevalence of documented BI among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients with alcohol misuse before, during, and after implementation of a national performance measure (PM) linked to incentives and dissemination of an electronic clinical reminder (CR) for BI. METHODS: VA outpatients were included in this study if they were randomly sampled for national medical record reviews and screened positive for alcohol misuse (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score ≥5) between July 2006 and September 2008 (N=6788). Consistent with the PM, BI was defined as documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking plus feedback linking drinking to health. The prevalence of BI was evaluated among outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse during 4 successive phases of BI implementation: baseline year (n=3504), after announcement (n=753) and implementation (n=697) of the PM, and after CR dissemination (n=1834), unadjusted and adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among patients with alcohol misuse, the adjusted prevalence of BI increased significantly over successive phases of BI implementation, from 5.5% (95% CI 4.1%-7.5%), 7.6% (5.6%-10.3%), 19.1% (15.4%-23.7%), to 29.0% (25.0%-33.4%) during the baseline year, after PM announcement, PM implementation, and CR dissemination, respectively (test for trend P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.