Evaluation of audit and feedback to family physicians on prescribing of opioid analgesics to opioid-naïve patients: A pragmatic randomized delay trial.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to opioid analgesics have historically raised concern for a risk of developing opioid use disorder. Prescriber audit-and-feedback interventions may reduce opioid prescribing, but some studies have shown detrimental effects for current users. We examined the effectiveness of an audit and feedback intervention, named Portrait, to reduce initiation of opioid analgesics among opioid-naïve patients experiencing pain. METHODS: REDONNA was a single-blinded, two-arm (Early vs Delayed mailing) randomized trial of a portrait for eligible family physicians (FPs) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The primary outcome was the change in the number of initiations of opioid analgesic prescriptions written by FPs for acute/chronic pain management. We compared outcomes for a 6-month window before vs. after each mailed intervention, using differences in percent differences (DPD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and odds ratios (OR) from logistic regressions adjusted for clustering of patients by FP. RESULTS: In the Early (n = 2260) and Delayed (n = 2156) groups, opioid initiations per month were the same in the Before (2.10 Early; 2.06 Delayed) and After (1.94 Early; 1.95 Delayed) windows. The DPD was -2.1% (CI: -4.4% to 0.3%), and ORs were: 0.98 (CI: 0.96 to 1.01) for any opioid, 0.97 (CI: 0.94 to 1.01) for codeine (62% of initiations), and 1.0 (CI: 0.97 to 1.07) for tramadol (25% of initiations). There were no differences in mean quantity of tablets, mean milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME), or mean number of days. CONCLUSION: Portrait had no impact on FPs' rates of prescribing opioid analgesics to opioid-naïve patients experiencing pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively on 30 March 2020 at the ISRCTN Register (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34246811).

"I'm almost opioid-a-phobic": family medicine residents' perceptions of enhancing opioid analgesic and agonist treatment training in a Canadian setting.

PURPOSE: As deaths from the illicit drug poisoning crisis continue to rise in Canada, increasing the number of healthcare professionals qualified to effectively prescribe opioids could be beneficial. The willingness of family medicine residents to undertake structured training in prescribing opioids for Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) and pain management have not been well described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Family medicine residents (n = 20) in British Columbia, Canada, were asked about their experience with and willingness to enrol in OAT training. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, data were analysed thematically using NVivo software. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (1) challenges to training implementation, (2) feelings and attitudes on prescribing practices, (3) helpful learning spaces and places of substance use training, and (4) recommendations for implementing training. Preparedness, exposure, and supportive learning environments for substance use education increased willingness to pursue OAT accreditation, while ineffective learning experiences, mixed feelings about opioid prescribing, and lack of protected time were the most common reasons for unwillingness. CONCLUSIONS: Protected time and a range of clinical experiences appear to facilitate residents' willingness to complete OAT and opioid training. Implementation strategies to enhance the uptake of OAT accreditation in family medicine residency must be prioritised.

"I don't think they're as culturally sensitive": a mixed-method study exploring e-mental health use among culturally diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: Culturally diverse populations (CDPs), such as visible minorities, face challenges, such as lack of culturally tailored resources, when accessing mental health services. These barriers may be addressed by e-mental health (eMH) technologies. However, little attention has been devoted to understanding the cultural responsiveness of these services among CDPs. AIMS: This study explores CDPs experience of eMH for anxiety and depressive disorders in an urban area and gauge its cultural responsiveness. METHODS: In this mixed methods study, participants (N = 136) completed a survey regarding their eMH use, mental health status, and socio-demographic characteristics. Subsequently, participants (N = 14) shared their experiences through semi-structured focus groups. RESULTS: The majority of participants (68%) indicated that the eMH resources used were not culturally tailored. However, most participants (65%) agreed that the resource was available in their preferred language. Focus group discussions revealed key experiences around limited language diversity, cultural representation and cultural competency, and culturally linked stigma. eMH recommendations suggested by participants focused on including culturally tailored content, graphics and phrases, and lived experiences of CDPs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings showcase the need for more culturally responsive eMH beyond language translation, while providing healthcare professionals with a greater and nuanced understanding of treatment needs in cultural groups.

Advancing virtual primary care for people with opioid use disorder (VPC OUD): a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of COVID-19 introduced a dual public health emergency in British Columbia, which was already in the fourth year of its opioid-related overdose crisis. The public health response to COVID-19 must explicitly consider the unique needs of, and impacts on, communities experiencing marginalisation including people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD). The broad move to virtual forms of primary care, for example, may result in changes to healthcare access, delivery of opioid agonist therapies or fluctuations in co-occurring health problems that are prevalent in this population. The goal of this mixed-methods study is to characterise changes to primary care access and patient outcomes following the rapid introduction of virtual care for PWOUD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a fully integrated mixed-methods design comprised of three components: (a) qualitative interviews with family physicians and PWOUD to document experiences with delivering and accessing virtual visits, respectively; (b) quantitative analysis of linked, population-based administrative data to describe the uptake of virtual care, its impact on access to services and downstream outcomes for PWOUD; and (c) facilitated deliberative dialogues to co-create educational resources for family physicians, PWOUD and policymakers that promote equitable access to high-quality virtual primary care for this population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for this study has been granted by Research Ethics British Columbia. We will convene PWOUD and family physicians for deliberative dialogues to co-create educational materials and policy recommendations based on our findings. We will also disseminate findings via traditional academic outputs such as conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Reflecting on earlier affected areas that shaped COVID-19 mental health efforts.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious public health threat that many countries in the world are facing. While several measures are being taken to minimize the spread of infection, mental health efforts must address psychological challenges due to the pandemic. This commentary reflects on original research from earlier epicenters of COVID-19 and identifies effective practices and suggestions applicable to mental health interventions in the North American context. Tailored mental health services need to be provided for populations that are at high risk of infection. Suggested interventions targeting specific population groups, such as healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients, and vulnerable populations, are discussed.

Development and pilot evaluation of an educational session to support sparing opioid prescriptions to opioid naïve patients in a Canadian primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing rates of some analgesics decreased during the public health crisis. Yet, up to a quarter of opioid-naïve persons prescribed opioids for noncancer pain develop prescription opioid use disorder. We, therefore, sought to evaluate a pilot educational session to support primary care-based sparing of opioid analgesics for noncancer pain among opioid-naïve patients in British Columbia (BC). METHODS: Therapeutics Initiative in BC has launched an audit and feedback intervention. Individual prescribing portraits were mailed to opioid prescribers, followed by academic detailing webinars. The webinars' learning outcomes included defining the terms opioid naïve and opioid sparing, and educating attendees on the (lack of) evidence for opioid analgesics to treat noncancer pain. The primary outcome was change in knowledge measured by four multiple-choice questions at the outset and conclusion of the webinar. RESULTS: Two hundred participants attended four webinars; 124 (62%) responded to the knowledge questions. Community-based primary care professionals (80/65%) from mostly urban settings (77/62%) self-identified as family physicians (46/37%), residents (22/18%), nurse practitioners (24/19%), and others (32/26%). Twelve participants (10%) recalled receiving the individualized portraits. While the correct identification of opioid naïve definitions increased by 23%, the correct identification of opioid sparing declined by 7%. Knowledge of the gaps in high-quality evidence supporting opioid analgesics and risk tools increased by 26% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The educational session outlined in this pilot yielded mixed results but appeared acceptable to learners and may need further refinement to become a feasible way to train professionals to help tackle the current toxic drugs crisis.