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.

Contextual barriers and enablers to establishing an addiction-focused consultation team for hospitalized adults with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context.

Prevalence of fentanyl in methamphetamine and cocaine samples collected by community-based drug checking services.

BACKGROUND: Overdose deaths involving stimulants and opioids simultaneously have raised the specter of widespread contamination of the stimulant supply with fentanyl. METHODS: We quantified prevalence of fentanyl in street methamphetamine and cocaine, stratified by crystalline texture, analyzing samples sent voluntarily to a public mail-in drug checking service (May 2021-June 2023). Samples from 77 harm reduction programs and clinics originated in 25 US states. Sample donors reported expected drug and physical descriptions. Substances were identified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Negative binomial models were used to calculate fentanyl prevalence, adjusting for potential confounders related to sample selection. We also examined if xylazine changed donors' accuracy of detecting fentanyl. RESULTS: We analyzed 718 lab-confirmed samples of methamphetamine (64%) and cocaine (36%). The adjusted prevalence of fentanyl was 12.5% (95% CI: 2.2%, 22.9%) in powder methamphetamine and 14.8% (2.3%, 27.2%) in powder cocaine, with notable geographic variation. Crystalline forms of both methamphetamine (Chisq=57, p<0.001) and cocaine (Chisq=18, p<0.001) were less likely to contain fentanyl: less than 1% of crystal methamphetamine (2/276) and no crack cocaine (0/53). Heroin was present in 6.6% of powder cocaine samples. Xylazine reduced donors' ability to detect fentanyl, with correct classification dropping from 92% to 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl was detected primarily in powder forms of methamphetamine and cocaine. Recommended interventions include expanding community-based drug checking, naloxone and fentanyl test strip distribution for people who use stimulants , and supervised drug consumption sites. New strategies to dampen variability in street drug composition are needed to reduce inadvertent fentanyl exposure.

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.

Design of CLARO (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from other Stresses): A randomized trial of collaborative care for opioid use disorder and co-occurring depression and/or posttraumatic stress disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) co-occurring with depression and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common and, if untreated, may lead to devastating consequences. Despite the availability of evidence-based treatments for these disorders, receipt of treatment is low. Even when treatment is provided, quality is variable. Primary care is an important and underutilized setting for treating co-occurring disorders (COD) because OUD, depression and PTSD are frequently co-morbid with medical conditions and most people visit a primary care provider at least once a year. With rising rates of OUD and opioid-related fatalities, this is a critical treatment and quality gap in a vulnerable and stigmatized population. METHODS: CLARO (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses) is a multi-site, randomized pragmatic trial of collaborative care (CC) for co-occurring disorders in 13 rural and urban primary care clinics in New Mexico to improve care for patients with OUD and co-occurring depression and/or PTSD. CC, a service delivery approach that uses multi-faceted interventions, has not been tested with COD. We will enroll and randomize 900 patients to either CC adapted for COD (CC-COD) or enhanced usual care (EUC) and will collect patient data at baseline, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Our primary outcomes are medications for OUD (MOUD) access, MOUD continuity of care, depression symptoms, and PTSD symptoms. DISCUSSION: Although CC is effective for improving outcomes in primary care among patients with mental health conditions, it has not been tested for COD. This article describes the CLARO CC-COD intervention and clinical trial.