Increasing buprenorphine access for veterans with opioid use disorder in rural clinics using telemedicine.

Background:Having prescribers use clinical video teleconferencing (telemedicine) to prescribe buprenorphine to people with opioid use disorder (OUD) has shown promise but its implementation is challenging. We describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned while implementing a system to remotely prescribe buprenorphine to Veterans in rural settings. Methods: We conducted a quality improvement project aimed at increasing the availability of medications for OUD (MOUD) to Veterans. This project focused on tele-prescribing buprenorphine to rural sites via a hub (centralized prescribers) and spoke (rural clinics) model. After soliciting a wide-range of inputs from site visits, qualitative interviews of key stakeholders at rural sites, and review of preliminary cases, a "how-to" toolkit was developed and iteratively refined to guide tele-prescribing of buprenorphine. After internal and external facilitation strategies were employed, Veterans with OUD at three clinics were transitioned to buprenorphine treatment via telemedicine. Results: Factors impacting adoption of the tele-prescribing intervention were mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs. Barriers to adoption included concerns about legality of tele-prescribing a controlled substance, conflicting interests between different stakeholders, and coordination with an existing buprenorphine program requiring more attendance and abstinence from Veterans than the tele-prescribing program required. Factors facilitating adoption included a sense of mission around combating the opioid epidemic, preexisting use of and comfort with tele-prescribing, and rural sites' control over Veterans referred to tele-prescribers. A total of 12 patients from rural areas were successfully transitioned onto buprenorphine, of whom 9 remained on buprenorphine 6 months after initiation of treatment. Conclusions: Implementing tele-prescribing was negotiated with stakeholders at the target clinics and operationalized in a toolkit to guide future efforts. Implementation issues can be addressed by activities that foster collaboration between hubs (centralized prescribers) and spokes (rural clinics) and by a toolkit that operationalizes tele-prescribing procedures.

Barriers to colonoscopy in remote northern Canada: an analysis of cancellations.

Background: Colonoscopy is a critical diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that is challenging to access in northern Canada. In part, this is due to frequent cancellations. We sought to understand the trends and reasons for colonoscopy cancellations in the Northwest Territories (NWT). Methods: A retrospective review of colonoscopy cancellations January, 2018 to May, 2019 was conducted at Stanton Territorial Hospital, NWT. Cancellation details and rationale were captured from the endoscopy cancellation logs. Thematic analysis was used to group cancellation reasons. Descriptive statistics were generated, and trends were analysed using run chart. Results: Of the scheduled colonoscopies, 368(28%) were cancelled during the 16 month period, and cancellations occurred, on average, 27 days after booking. Cancellation reasons were grouped into 15 themes, encompassing personal, social, geographic and health system factors. The most frequently cited theme was work/other commitments (69 respondents; 24%). Cancellations due to travel and accommodation issues occurred more frequently in the winter. Conclusion: Over one in four booked colonoscopies were cancelled and the reasons for cancellations were complex. Initiatives focusing on communication and support for patients with personal or occupational obligations could dramatically reduce cancellations. Ongoing collaborative efforts are needed to inform and optimise access to colonoscopy in this region.

Impact of colorectal cancer screening participation in remote northern Canada: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Screening provides earlier colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and improves outcomes. It remains poorly understood if these benefits are realized with screening guidelines in remote northern populations of Canada where CRC rates are nearly twice the national average and access to colonoscopy is limited. AIM: To evaluate the participation and impact of CRC screening guidelines in a remote northern population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included residents of the Northwest Territories, a northern region of Canada, age 50-74 who underwent CRC screening by a fecal immunohistochemical test (FIT) between January 1, 2014 to March 30, 2019. To assess impact, individuals with a screen-detected CRC were compared to clinically-detected CRC cases for stage and location of CRC between 2014-2016. To assess participation, we conducted subgroup analyses of FIT positive individuals exploring the relationships between signs and symptoms of CRC at the time of screening, wait-times for colonoscopy, and screening outcomes. Two sample Welch t-test was used for normally distributed continuous variables, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Tests for data without normal distribution, and Chi-square goodness of fit test for categorical variables. A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: 6817 fecal tests were completed, meaning an annual average screening rate of 25.04%, 843 (12.37%) were positive, 629 individuals underwent a follow-up colonoscopy, of which, 24.48% had advanced neoplasia (AN), 5.41% had CRC. There were no significant differences in stage, pathology, or location between screen-detected cancers and clinically-detected cancers. In assessing participation and screening outcomes, we observed 49.51% of individuals referred for colonoscopy after FIT were ineligible for CRC screening, most often due to signs and symptoms of CRC. Individuals were more likely to have AN if they had signs and symptoms of cancer at the time of screening, waited over 180 d for colonoscopy, or were indigenous [respectively, estimated RR 1.18 95%CI of RR (0.89-1.59)]; RR 1.523 (CI: 1.035, 2.240); RR 1.722 (CI: 1.165, 2.547)]. CONCLUSION: Screening did not facilitate early cancer detection but facilitated higher than anticipated AN detection. Signs and symptoms of CRC at screening, and long colonoscopy wait-times appear contributory.