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.

Impact of the international collaborative addiction medicine research fellowship on physicians' future engagement in addiction research.

Background: To evaluate how an international one-year intensive research training program for addiction medicine physicians contributed to subsequent research involvement and productivity. Methods: We prospectively compared addiction medicine physician fellows admitted to a one-year training program with non-admitted controls, using baseline questionnaire and peer-reviewed publication data. Participants' publication activity was assessed from fellowship application date onwards using biomedical databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase). Results: Between July 2014 and June 2020, which is six years of cohorts, 56 (39 women) physicians, both fellows (n = 25) and non-admitted applicants (n = 31), were observed and included in the study, contributing 261 person-years of observation. At baseline, in the fellows' cohort: 76% of participants (19/25) reported past research involvement, 24% (6/25) had one or more advanced graduate degrees (e.g., MPH), and the median number of peer-reviewed, first author publications was one (Interquartile Range [IQR] = 0-2). At baseline, in the controls' cohort: 84% of participants (26/31) reported past research involvement, 39% (12/31) had one or more advanced graduate degrees, and the median number of peer-reviewed, first author publications was zero. The physicians' training included internal medicine (n = 8), family medicine (n = 33), psychiatry (n = 5) and others (n = 4). At follow up, there was a significant difference between fellows (n = 25) and controls (n = 31) in total number of publications (Rate Ratio [RR] = 13.09, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 5.01 - 34.21, p < 0.001), as well as first author publications (RR = 5.59, 95% CI, 2.23 - 14.06, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the six-year observation period, fellows' productivity indicates undertaking this fellowship was associated with significant research outputs in comparison to controls, signaling successful training of addiction physicians to help recruit addiction medicine physicians to participate in addiction research.

Access to episodic primary care: a cross-sectional comparison of walk-in clinics and urgent primary care centers in British Columbia.

AIM: This study aimed to identify publicly reported access characteristics for episodic primary care in BC and provided a clinic-level comparison between walk-in clinics and UPCCs. BACKGROUND: Walk-in clinics are non-hospital-based primary care facilities that are designed to operate without appointments and provide increased healthcare access with extended hours. Urgent and Primary Care Centres (UPCCs) were introduced to British Columbia (BC) in 2018 as an additional primary care resource that provided urgent, but not emergent care during extended hours. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from all walk-in clinics and UPCCs in BC. A structured data collection form was used to record access characteristics from clinic websites, including business hours, weekend availability, attachment to a longitudinal family practice, and provision of virtual services. FINDINGS: In total, 268 clinics were included in the analysis (243 walk-in clinics, 25 UPCCs). Of those, 225 walk-in clinics (92.6%) and two UPCCs (8.0%) were attached to a longitudinal family practice. Only 153 (63%) walk-in clinics offered weekend services, compared to 24 (96%) of UPCCs. Walk-in clinics offered the majority (8,968.6/ 78.4%) of their service hours between 08:00 and 17:00, Monday to Friday. UPCCs offered the majority (889.3/ 53.7%) of their service hours after 17:00. CONCLUSION: Most walk-in clinics were associated with a longitudinal family practice and provided the majority of clinic services during typical business hours. More research that includes patient characteristics and care outcomes, analyzed at the clinic level, may be useful to support the optimization of episodic primary healthcare delivery.

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).

Educational Studies Examining Knowledge of Substance Use Disorders and Career Aspirations Among Medical Trainees in an Inner-City Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Gaps in addiction medicine training are a reason for poor substance use care in North America. Hospital addiction medicine consult services (AMCS) provide critical medical services, including screening and treatment of substance use disorders. Although these programs often feature an educational component for medical learners, the impact of AMCS teaching on objective knowledge and career aspirations in addiction medicine has not been well described. METHODS: The authors report findings from two sequential studies conducted at a large academic hospital in Vancouver, Canada. The first study assessed the impact of an AMCS clinical rotation on medical trainee addiction medicine objective knowledge using an online survey of 6 true/false questions before and after the rotation. The second study examined the impact of an AMCS rotation on career aspirations using 4 seven-point Likert-type questions. One-sample t tests on mean differences (MD) with Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment for multiple comparisons were employed for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and June 2018, knowledge scores were significantly higher postrotation (MD = 4.78, standard deviation [SD] = 19.5, P = 0.034) among 115 medical trainees. Between July 2018 and July 2019, aspirations to practice addiction medicine were significantly more favorable postrotation (MD = 3.48, SD = 3.15, P < 0.001) among 101 medical trainees. CONCLUSIONS: AMCS rotations appear to improve addiction medicine knowledge and aspirations to practice addiction medicine among medical trainees. Larger-scale evaluations and outcomes research on integrating substance use disorders teaching in these settings will help move the discipline forward.

Finding Primary Care-Repurposing Physician Registration Data to Generate a Regionally Accurate List of Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of an Open-Source Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Some Canadians have limited access to longitudinal primary care, despite its known advantages for population health. Current initiatives to transform primary care aim to increase access to team-based primary care clinics. However, many regions lack a reliable method to enumerate clinics, limiting estimates of clinical capacity and ongoing access gaps. A region-based complete clinic list is needed to effectively describe clinic characteristics and to compare primary care outcomes at the clinic level. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to show how publicly available data sources, including the provincial physician license registry, can be used to generate a verifiable, region-wide list of primary care clinics in British Columbia, Canada, using a process named the Clinic List Algorithm (CLA). METHODS: The CLA has 10 steps: (1) collect data sets, (2) develop clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) process data sets, (4) consolidate data sets, (5) transform from list of physicians to initial list of clinics, (6) add additional metadata, (7) create working lists, (8) verify working lists, (9) consolidate working lists, and (10) adjust processing steps based on learnings. RESULTS: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Registry contained 13,726 physicians, at 2915 unique addresses, 6942 (50.58%) of whom were family physicians (FPs) licensed to practice in British Columbia. The CLA identified 1239 addresses where primary care was delivered by 4262 (61.39%) FPs. Of the included addresses, 84.50% (n=1047) were in urban locations, and there was a median of 2 (IQR 2-4, range 1-23) FPs at each unique address. CONCLUSIONS: The CLA provides a region-wide description of primary care clinics that improves on simple counts of primary care providers or self-report lists. It identifies the number and location of primary care clinics and excludes primary care providers who are likely not providing community-based primary care. Such information may be useful for estimates of capacity of primary care, as well as for policy planning and research in regions engaged in primary care evaluation or transformation.

Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although oral opioid agonist therapies (OATs), buprenorphine and methadone, are effective first-line treatments, OAT remains largely underutilized due to low retention rates and wide variation across programs. This rapid review therefore sought to summarize the retention rates reported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational study designs that compared methadone to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, up to April 2018) for RCTs and controlled observational studies that compared oral fixed-dose methadone to buprenorphine versus methadone (or buprenorphine-naloxone). Data were extracted separately for two different definitions of retention in treatment: (1) length of time retained in the study and (2) presence on the final day of a study. Separate random effects meta-analyses were performed for RCTs and controlled observational studies. Data from controlled observational studies where retention was measured as the length of time retained in the study were not amenable to meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 7603 studies reviewed, 10 RCTs and 3 observational studies met inclusion criteria (n = 5065) and compared fixed-dose oral buprenorphine with methadone. Across studies, the average retention rate was highly variable (RCTs: buprenorphine 20.0-82.5% and methadone 30.7-83.8%; observational studies: buprenorphine 20.2-78.3% and methadone 48.3-74.8%). For time period retained in the study, we observed no significant difference in treatment retention for buprenorphine versus methadone in RCTs (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.07; 95% CI - 0.35-0.21, p = 0.63; quality of evidence: low). For presence on the final study day, we observed no significant difference between buprenorphine and methadone treatment retention in RCTs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% CI 0.73-1.08, p = 0.24; quality of evidence: low) and controlled observational studies (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.36-1.58, p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of existing RCTs suggests retention in oral fixed-dose opioid agonist therapy with methadone appears to be generally equal to buprenorphine (or buprenorphine-naloxone), with wide variation across studies. Similarly, a meta-analysis of three controlled observational studies indicated no difference in treatment retention although there was significant heterogeneity among the included studies. The length of follow-up did not appear to affect the retention rate. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018104452 .

What Are the Self-Assessed Training Needs of Early Career Professionals in Addiction Medicine? A BEME Focused Review.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: Substance use disorders represent a significant social and economic burden globally. Accurate diagnosis and treatment by early career professionals in addiction medicine (ECPAM) falls short, in part, due to a lack of training programmes targeting this career stage. Prior research has highlighted the need to assess the specific training needs of ECPAM. Therefore, this focused review assessed self-reported training needs of ECPAM. Methods: Medical and medical education databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PSYCHInfo, BEI, and AEI) were searched to June 2018 for studies reporting self-reported training needs of ECPAM (trained at most five years before assessment occurred). Retrieved citations were screened for eligibility; two independent researchers reviewed included studies, assessed quality and extracted data. Experts reviewed study findings. Results: Of 1364 identified records, three cross-sectional studies were included, originating from China, USA and England. All studies surveyed ECPAM using self-reported questionnaires, with one study including face-to-face interviews. Participants included residents, physicians and social workers. All studies had a low risk of bias, and reported a wide range of training needs including rehabilitation, relapse prevention, buprenorphine treatment and risk assessment. Conclusions: There is little evidence for and substantial heterogeneity of training needs of ECPAM found in this review, particularly at the level of skills and knowledge. Study quality varies greatly. ECPAM training needs assessments are a priority.