History and current status of contingency management programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national implementation of contingency management within VA substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. METHODS: The rationale for implementing CM, role of VA leadership, and training and supervision procedures are detailed. The role of the Veterans Canteen Service (VCS) in sustaining the CM implementation through the donation of incentives is outlined. Updated outcomes from the primary program, CM to incentivize stimulant abstinence, are provided. Data presented were gathered from June 2011 to January 2023, from VA facilities across the country. RESULTS: More than 6000 Veterans from 119 VA facilities have received CM in a 12-week program in which two urine samples are obtained per week, with 92% of the samples negative for the targeted substance. Two other CM pilot projects are described. The first incentivizes adherence to injectable medications for opioid and alcohol use disorders, with over 580 veterans from 27 VA sites participating to date. The second incentivized smoking cessation in 312 patients from four sites. A new initiative in which CM is implemented in smaller community-based VA facilities through use of onsite prize cabinets is presented and the possibility of providing CM remotely in VA is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: It has proved feasible to implement abstinence CM and several other CM pilot programs at many VA facilities. Factors that contributed to the success of the VA CM rollout, challenges that were encountered along the way, and lessons learned that may facilitate wider use of CM outside VA are discussed.

The limitations of hospital and law enforcement databases in characterizing the epidemiology of firearm injury.

BACKGROUND: Current data on the epidemiology of firearm injury in the United States are incomplete. Common sources include hospital, law enforcement, consumer, and public health databases, but each database has limitations that exclude injury subgroups. By integrating hospital (inpatient and outpatient) and law enforcement databases, we hypothesized that a more accurate depiction of the totality of firearm injury in our region could be achieved. METHODS: We constructed a collaborative firearm injury database consisting of all patients admitted as inpatients to the regional level 1 trauma hospital (inpatient registry), patients treated and released from the emergency department (ED), and subjects encountering local law enforcement as a result of firearm injury in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Injuries recorded from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, were analyzed. Outcomes, demographics, and injury detection rates from individual databases were compared with those of the combined collaborative database and compared using χ2 testing across databases. RESULTS: The inpatient registry (n = 1,441) and ED database (n = 1,109) were combined, resulting in 2,550 incidents in the hospital database. The law enforcement database consisted of 2,665 patient incidents, with 2,008 incidents in common with the hospital database and 657 unique incidents. The merged collaborative database consisted of 3,207 incidents. In comparison with the collaborative database, the inpatient, total hospital (inpatient and ED), and law enforcement databases failed to include 55%, 20%, and 17% of all injuries, respectively. The hospital captured nearly 94% of survivors but less than 40% of nonsurvivors. Law enforcement captured 93% of nonsurvivors but missed 20% of survivors. Mortality (11-26%) and injury incidence were markedly different across the databases. DISCUSSION: The utilization of trauma registry or law enforcement databases alone do not accurately reflect the epidemiology of firearm injury and may misrepresent areas in need of greater injury prevention efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.