Healthcare provider perspectives on emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Take-home buprenorphine/naloxone is an effective method of initiating opioid agonist therapy in the Emergency Department (ED) that requires ED healthcare worker buy-in for large-scale implementation. We aimed to investigate healthcare workers perceptions of ED take-home buprenorphine/naloxone, as well as barriers and facilitators from an ED healthcare worker perspective. METHODS: In the context of a take-home buprenorphine/naloxone feasibility study at a tertiary care teaching hospital we conducted a descriptive qualitative study. We conducted one-on-one in person or telephone interviews and focus groups with ED healthcare workers who cared for patients given take-home buprenorphine/naloxone in the feasibility study at Vancouver General Hospital from July 2019 to March 2020. We conducted 37 healthcare worker interviews from December 2019 to July 2020. We audio recorded interviews and focus groups and transcribed them verbatim. We completed interviews until we reached thematic saturation. DATA ANALYSIS: We inductively coded a sample of transcripts to generate a provisional coding structure and to identify emerging themes, which were reviewed by our multidisciplinary team. We then used the final coding structure to analyze the transcripts. We present our findings descriptively. RESULTS: Participants identified a number of context-specific facilitators and barriers to take-home buprenorphine/naloxone provision in the ED. Participants highlighted ED conditions having either facilitative or prohibitive effects: provision of buprenorphine/naloxone was feasible when ED volume was low and space was available but became less so as ED volume increased and space decreased. Similarly, participants noted that patient-related factors could have a facilitative or prohibitive effect, such as willingness to wait (willing to stay in the ED for study-related activities and buprenorphine/naloxone initiation activities), receptiveness to buprenorphine/naloxone, and comprehension of the instructions. As for staff-related factors, time was identified as a consistent barrier. Time included time available and time required to initiate buprenorphine/naloxone (including time building rapport). Healthcare worker familiarity with buprenorphine/naloxone was noted as either a facilitating factor or a barrier, and healthcare workers indicated that ongoing training would have been advantageous. Many healthcare workers identified that the ED is an important first point of contact for the target patient population. CONCLUSION: Integrating a buprenorphine/naloxone program into ED care requires organizational supports (e.g., for managing buprenorphine/naloxone within limitations of ED volume, space, and time), and ongoing education of healthcare workers to minimize identified barriers.

Physiologic oxygen responses to smoking opioids: an observational study using continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia, Canada, smoking is the most common modality of drug use among people who die of opioid toxicity. We aimed to assess oxygen saturation (SpO2) while people smoked opioids during a pilot study that introduced continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services (OPS) sites. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study, using a participatory design. We implemented our monitoring protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS. We included adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to smoke opioids. A sensor taped to participants' fingers transmitted real-time SpO2 readings to a remote monitor viewed by OPS staff. Peer researchers collected baseline data and observed the timing of participants' inhalations. We analyzed SpO2 on a per-event basis. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, drop in minimum SpO2 ≤ 90% in the current minute was our main outcome variable. Inhalation in that same minute was our main predictor. We also examined inhalation in the previous minute, cumulative inhalations, inhalation rate, demographics, co-morbidities, and substance use variables. RESULTS: We recorded 599 smoking events; 72.8% (436/599) had analyzable SpO2 data. Participants' mean age was 38.6 years (SD 11.3 years) and 73.1% were male. SpO2 was highly variable within and between individuals. Drop in SpO2 ≤ 90% was not significantly associated with inhalation in that same minute (OR: 1.2 [0.8-1.78], p = 0.261) or inhalation rate (OR 0.47 [0.20-1.10], p = 0.082). There was an association of SpO2 drop with six cumulative inhalations (OR 3.38 [1.04-11.03], p = 0.043); this was not maintained ≥ 7 inhalations. Demographics, co-morbidities, and drug use variables were non-contributory. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous pulse oximetry SpO2 monitoring is a safe adjunct to monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS. Our data reflect challenges of real-world monitoring, indicating that greater supports are needed for frontline responders at OPS. Inconsistent association between inhalations and SpO2 suggests that complex factors (e.g., inhalation depth/duration, opioid tolerance, drug use setting) contribute to hypoxemia and overdose risk while people smoke opioids.

Feeling safer: effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of continuous pulse oximetry for people who smoke opioids at overdose prevention services in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the most common mode of unregulated opioid consumption overall and implicated in fatal overdoses in British Columbia (BC). In part, perception of decreased risk (e.g., fewer who smoke carry naloxone kits) and limited smoking-specific harm reduction services contribute to overdose deaths. Overdose prevention services (OPS) offer supervised settings for drug use. Continuous pulse oximetry, common in acute care, allows real-time, remote oxygen monitoring. We evaluated the effectiveness of a novel continuous pulse oximetry protocol aimed at allowing physical distancing (as required by COVID-19, secluded spaces, and to avoid staff exposure to vaporized opioids), its feasibility, and acceptability at OPS for people who smoke opioids. METHODS: This was a mixed methods survey study. We developed a continuous pulse oximetry protocol in collaboration with clinical experts and people with lived/living experience of substance use. We implemented our protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS in BC permitting smoking. We included adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to OPS to smoke opioids. Peer researchers collected demographic, health, and substance use information, and conducted structured observations. OPS clients participating in our study, OPS staff, and peer researchers completed post-monitoring surveys. We analyzed responses using a thematic inductive approach and validated themes with peer researchers. RESULTS: We included 599 smoking events. OPS clients participating in our study had a mean age of 38.5 years; 73% were male. Most (98%) reported using "down", heroin, or fentanyl; 48% concurrently used other substances (32% of whom reported stimulants); 76% reported smoking alone in the last 3 days; and 36% reported an overdose while smoking. Respondents reported that the protocol facilitated physical distancing, was easy to use, high satisfaction, improved confidence, improved sense of safety, and that they would use it again. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous pulse oximetry allowed safe physical distancing, was feasible, and acceptable in monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS.

Qualitative Exploration of Emergency Department Care Experiences Among People With Opioid Use Disorder.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We described the experiences and preferences of people with opioid use disorder who access emergency department (ED) services regarding ED care and ED-based interventions. METHODS: Between June and September 2020, we conducted phone or in-person semistructured qualitative interviews with patients recently discharged from 2 urban EDs in Vancouver, BC, Canada, to explore experiences and preferences of ED care and ED-based opioid use disorder interventions. We recruited participants from a cohort of adults with opioid use disorder who were participating in an ED-initiated outreach program. We transcribed audio recordings verbatim. We iteratively developed a thematic coding structure, with interim analyses to assess for thematic saturation. Two team members with lived experience of opioid use provided feedback on content, wording, and analysis throughout the study. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 participants. Participants felt discriminated against for their drug use, which led to poorer perceived health care and downstream ED avoidance. Participants desired to be treated like ED patients who do not use drugs and to be more involved in their ED care. Participants nevertheless felt comfortable discussing their substance use with ED staff and valued continuous ED operating hours. Regarding opioid use disorder treatment, participants supported ED-based buprenorphine/naloxone programs but also suggested additional options (eg, different initiation regimens and settings and other opioid agonist therapies) to facilitate further treatment uptake. CONCLUSION: Based on participant experiences, we recommend addressing potentially stigmatizing practices, increasing patient involvement in their care during ED visits, and increasing access to various opioid use disorder-related treatments and community support.

Characterizing people with frequent emergency department visits and substance use: a retrospective cohort study of linked administrative data in Ontario, Alberta, and B.C., Canada.

BACKGROUND: Substance use is common among people who visit emergency departments (EDs) frequently. We aimed to characterize subgroups within this cohort to better understand care needs/gaps, and generalizability of characteristics in three Canadian provinces. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study (April 1st, 2013 to March 31st, 2016) of ED patients in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia (B.C.) We included patients ≥ 18 years with substance use-related healthcare contact during the study period and frequent ED visits, defined as those in the top 10% of ED utilization when all patients were ordered by annual ED visit number. We used linked administrative databases including ED visits and hospitalizations (all provinces); mental heath-related hospitalizations (Ontario and Alberta); and prescriptions, physician services, and mortality (B.C.). We compared to cohorts of people with (1) frequent ED visits and no substance use, and (2) non-frequent ED visits and substance use. We employed cluster analysis to identify subgroups with distinct visit patterns and clinical characteristics during index year, April 1st, 2014 to March 31st, 2015. RESULTS: In 2014/15, we identified 19,604, 7,706, and 9,404 people with frequent ED visits and substance use in Ontario, Alberta, and B.C (median 37-43 years; 60.9-63.0% male), whose ED visits and hospitalizations were higher than comparison groups. In all provinces, cluster analyses identified subgroups with "extreme" and "moderate" frequent visits (median 13-19 versus 4-6 visits/year). "Extreme" versus "moderate" subgroups had more hospitalizations, mental health-related ED visits, general practitioner visits but less continuity with one provider, more commonly left against medical advice, and had higher 365-day mortality in B.C. (9.3% versus 6.6%; versus 10.4% among people with frequent ED visits and no substance use, and 4.3% among people with non-frequent ED visits and substance use). The most common ED diagnosis was acute alcohol intoxication in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroups of people with "extreme" (13-19 visits/year) and "moderate" (4-6 visits/year) frequent ED visits and substance use had similar utilization patterns and characteristics in Ontario, Alberta, and B.C., and the "extreme" subgroup had high mortality. Our findings suggest a need for improved evidence-based substance use disorder management, and strengthened continuity with primary and mental healthcare.

Towards an International Consensus on the Prevention, Treatment, and Management of High-Risk Substance Use and Overdose among Youth.

Background and Objectives: Now more than ever, there is an obvious need to reduce the overall burden of disease and risk of premature mortality that are associated with mental health and substance use disorders among young people. However, the current state of research and evidence-based clinical care for high-risk substance use among youth is fragmented and scarce. The objective of the study is to establish consensus for the prevention, treatment, and management of high-risk substance use and overdose among youth (10 to 24 years old). Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi technique was used based on the combination of scientific evidence and clinical experience of a group of 31 experts representing 10 countries. A semi-structured questionnaire with five domains (clinical risks, target populations, intervention goals, intervention strategies, and settings/expertise) was shared with the panelists. Based on their responses, statements were developed, which were subsequently revised and finalized through three iterations of feedback. Results: Among the five major domains, 60 statements reached consensus. Importantly, experts agreed that screening in primary care and other clinical settings is recommended for all youth, and that the objectives of treating youth with high-risk substance use are to reduce harm and mortality while promoting resilience and healthy development. For all substance use disorders, evidence-based interventions should be available and should be used according to the needs and preferences of the patient. Involuntary admission was the only topic that did not reach consensus, mainly due to its ethical implications and resulting lack of comparable evidence. Conclusions: High-risk substance use and overdoses among youth have become a major challenge. The system's response has been insufficient and needs substantial change. Internationally devised consensus statements provide a first step in system improvement and reform.

Prescription opioid use among drivers in British Columbia, 1997-2016.

BACKGROUND: Opioids increase the risk of traffic crash by limiting coordination, slowing reflexes, impairing concentration and producing drowsiness. The epidemiology of prescription opioid use among drivers remains uncertain. We aimed to examine population-based trends and geographical variation in drivers' prescription opioid consumption. METHODS: We linked 20 years of province-wide driving records to comprehensive population-based prescription data for all drivers in British Columbia (Canada). We calculated age- and sex-standardised rates of prescription opioid consumption. We assessed temporal trends using segmented linear regression and examined regional variation in prescription opioid use using maps and graphical techniques. RESULTS: A total of 46 million opioid prescriptions were filled by 3.0 million licensed drivers between 1997 and 2016. In 2016 alone, 14.7% of all drivers filled at least one opioid prescription. Prescription opioid use increased from 238 morphine milligram equivalents per driver year (MMEs/DY) in 1997 to a peak of 834 MMEs/DY in 2011. Increases in MMEs/DY were greatest for higher potency and long-acting prescription opioids. The interquartile range of prescription opioid dispensation by geographical region increased from 97 (Q1=220, Q3=317) to 416 (Q1=591, Q3=1007) MMEs/DY over the study interval. IMPLICATIONS: Patterns of prescription opioid consumption among drivers demonstrate substantial temporal and geographical variation, suggesting they may be modified by clinical and policy interventions. Interventions to curtail use of potentially impairing prescription medications might prevent impaired driving.

Prevention of alcohol withdrawal seizure recurrence and treatment of other alcohol withdrawal symptoms in the emergency department: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Patients who experience harms from alcohol and other substance use often seek care in the emergency department (ED). ED visits related to alcohol withdrawal have increased across the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. ED clinicians are responsible for risk-stratifying patients under time and resource constraints and must reliably identify those who are safe for outpatient management versus those who require more intensive levels of care. Published guidelines for alcohol withdrawal are largely limited to the primary care and outpatient settings, and do not provide specific guidance for ED use. The purpose of this review was to synthesize published evidence on the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1980 to 2020). We searched for grey literature on Google and hand-searched the conference abstracts of relevant addiction medicine and emergency medicine professional associations (2015 to 2020). We included interventional and observational studies that reported outcomes of clinical interventions aimed at treating alcohol withdrawal syndrome in adults in the ED. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies that met inclusion criteria for our review (7 randomized controlled trials and 6 observational studies). Most studies were at high/serious risk of bias. We divided studies based on intervention and summarized evidence narratively. Benzodiazepines decrease alcohol withdrawal seizure recurrence and treat other alcohol withdrawal symptoms, but no clear evidence supports the use of one benzodiazepine over another. It is unclear if symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocols are effective for use in the ED. More evidence is needed to determine if phenobarbital, with or without benzodiazepines, can be used safely and effectively to treat alcohol withdrawal in the ED. Phenytoin does not have evidence of effectiveness at preventing withdrawal seizures in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for alcohol withdrawal specifically in the ED setting. Benzodiazepines are the most evidence-based treatment for alcohol withdrawal in the ED. Pharmacotherapies that have demonstrated benefit for treatment of alcohol withdrawal in other inpatient and outpatient settings should be evaluated in the ED setting before routine use.

Lorazepam Versus Diazepam in the Management of Emergency Department Patients With Alcohol Withdrawal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Alcohol withdrawal is a common emergency department (ED) presentation. Although benzodiazepines reduce symptoms of withdrawal, there is little ED-based evidence to assist clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacotherapy. We compare lorazepam with diazepam for the management of alcohol withdrawal to assess 1-week ED and hospital-related outcomes. METHODS: From January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, at 3 urban EDs in Vancouver, Canada, we studied patients with a discharge diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal. We excluded individuals presenting with a seizure or an acute concurrent illness. We performed a structured chart review to ascertain demographics, ED treatments, and outcomes. Patients were stratified according to initial management with lorazepam versus diazepam. The primary outcome was hospital admission, and secondary outcomes included in-ED seizures and 1-week return visits for discharged patients. RESULTS: Of 1,055 patients who presented with acute alcohol withdrawal, 898 were treated with benzodiazepines. Median age was 47 years (interquartile range 37 to 56 years) and 73% were men. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Overall, 69 of 394 patients (17.5%) receiving lorazepam were admitted to the hospital compared with 94 of 504 patients receiving diazepam (18.7%), a difference of 1.2% (95% confidence interval -4.2% to 6.3%). Seven patients (0.7%; 95% confidence interval 0.3% to 1.4%) had an in-ED seizure, but all seizures occurred before receipt of benzodiazepines. Among patients discharged home, 1-week return visits occurred for 78 of 325 (24.0%) who received lorazepam and 94 of 410 (23.2%) who received diazepam, a difference of 0.8% (95% confidence interval -5.3% to 7.1%). CONCLUSION: In our sample of ED patients with acute alcohol withdrawal, patients receiving lorazepam had an admission rate similar to that of those receiving diazepam. The few in-ED seizures occurred before medication administration. For discharged patients, the 1-week ED return visit rate of nearly 25% could warrant enhanced follow-up and community support.

Evaluating the implementation of collaborative teams in community family practice using the Primary Care Assessment Tool.

OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' perceptions of care outcomes following the introduction of collaborative teams into community family practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, longitudinal study comprising 4 patient telephone surveys between 2007 and 2016, using random sampling of telephone records based on postal codes. SETTING: Ten WestView Primary Care Network (WPCN) clinics in Alberta, serving a suburban-rural population of approximately 89 000 and an aggregate clinic panel of 61 611 (in 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 and older with a visit to a family physician in a WPCN clinic at least once in the previous 18 months. INTERVENTIONS: In 2006, WPCN implemented a decentralized and distributed collaborative team model, integrating nonphysician health care professionals into member clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) was used to evaluate standardized primary care delivery domains. Between-year changes were compared using ANOVA (analysis of variance). Clinic-level subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: The number of completed surveys included 896 in 2007, 904 in 2010, 1000 in 2013, and 1800 in 2016, reaching 90% to 100% of the targeted sample size. In aggregate, the WPCN PCAT summary score and the scores of 4 core and 2 ancillary domains of primary care exceeded the quality threshold of 3.0: extent of affiliation, ongoing care, first-contact utilization, coordination of care, family-centredness, and cultural competence. The first-contact access domain significantly improved from 2007 to 2016 (P < .001). The domains extent of affiliation, first-contact utilization, and coordination of information systems were unchanged. Ongoing care, coordination of care, comprehensiveness, family-centredness, community orientation, and cultural competence decreased. Except for in 2010, the 2 highest scoring clinics were non-participating solo practices; the lowest-scoring clinic was the one with the largest number of physicians. Across survey years, the PCAT summary score increased statistically significantly for 1 solo practice, remained consistent at an above-quality threshold for another, but decreased for all multi-physician clinics. Unattached patients (ie, those without a family doctor) scored the lowest. CONCLUSION: This study found that WPCN provides high-quality primary care overall, but that patient-perceived outcomes do not indicate global improvement concurrent with team-based initiatives. Decreased standardization of the distributed model likely influenced study-observed variations in clinic performance. Future research should identify clinic and team characteristics that benefit most from team-based care and factors that explain solo practices outperforming models of team-based care.

Impact of a Primary Care After-Hours Clinic on Avoidable Emergency Department Visits and Costs.

OBJECTIVES: After-hours clinics (AHCs) have been identified as a means to improve primary care access. The study objective was to evaluate the impact of AHC intervention on avoided emergency department (ED) visits and cost savings.

Comparing patients who leave the ED prematurely, before vs after medical evaluation: a National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients leave the Emergency Department (ED) before beginning or completing medical evaluation. Some of these patients may be at higher medical risk depending on their timing of leaving the ED. OBJECTIVES: To compare patient, hospital, and visit characteristics of patients who leave before completing medical care to patients who leave before ED evaluation. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ED visits using the 2009-2011 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. RESULTS: A total of 100962 ED visits were documented in the 2009-2011 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, representing a weighted count of 402211907 total ED visits. 2646 (2.62%) resulted in a disposition of left without completing medical care. Of these visits, 1792 (67.7%) left before being seen by a medical provider versus 854 (32.3%) who left after medical provider evaluation but before a final disposition. Patients who left after being assessed by a medical provider were older, had higher acuity visits, were more likely to have visited an ED without nursing triage, arrived more often by ambulance, and were more likely to have private insurance than to be self-paying or to have other payment arrangements (e.g. worker's compensation or charity/no charge). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing all patients who left the ED before completion of care, those who left after versus before medical provider evaluation differed in their patient, hospital, and visit characteristics and may represent a high risk patient group.

Mortality, admission rates and outpatient use among frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines whether frequent emergency department (ED) users experience higher mortality, hospital admissions and outpatient visits than non-frequent ED users. DESIGN: We published an a priori study protocol in PROSPERO. Our search strategy combined terms for 'frequent users' and 'emergency department'. At least two independent reviewers screened, selected, assessed quality and extracted data. Third-party adjudication resolved conflicts. Results were synthesised based on median effect sizes. DATA SOURCES: We searched seven electronic databases with no limits and performed an extensive grey literature search. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included observational analytical studies that focused on adult patients, had a comparison group of non-frequent ED users and reported deaths, admissions and/or outpatient outcomes. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 4004 citations; 374 were screened by full text and 31 cohort and cross-sectional studies were included. Authors used many different definitions to describe frequent users; the overall quality of the included studies was moderate. Across seven studies examining mortality, frequent users had a median 2.2-fold increased odds of mortality compared with non-frequent users. Twenty-eight studies assessing hospital admissions found a median increased odds of admissions per visit at 1.16 and of admissions per patient at 2.58. Ten studies reported outpatient visits with a median 2.65-fold increased risk of having at least one outpatient encounter post-ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users appear to experience higher mortality, hospital admissions and outpatient visits compared with non-frequent users, and may benefit from targeted interventions. Standardised definitions to facilitate comparable research are urgently needed. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42013005855).

Using quality improvement approaches to increase emergency department provider engagement in research participant enrollment during COVID-19 and opioid overdose public health emergencies.

PURPOSE: We utilized quality improvement (QI) approaches to increase emergency department (ED) provider engagement with research participant enrollment during the opioid crisis and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The context of this work is the Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED) study, a randomized trial offering buprenorphine/naloxone to ED patients through randomization to standard or microdosing induction. Engaging providers is crucial for participant recruitment to our study. Anticipating challenges sustaining long-term engagement after a 63% decline in provider referrals four months into enrollments, we applied Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to develop and implement an engagement strategy to increase and sustain provider engagement by 50% from baseline within 9 months. METHODS: Our engagement strategy was centered on Coffee Carts rounds: 5-min study-related educational presentations for providers on shift; and a secondary initiative, a Suboxone Champions program, to engage interested providers as study-related peer educators. We used provider referrals to our team as a proxy for study engagement and report the percent change in mean weekly referrals across two PDSA cycles relative to our established referral baseline. RESULTS: A QI approach afforded real-time review of interventions based on research and provider priorities, increasing engagement via mean weekly provider referrals by 14.5% and 49% across two PDSA cycles relative to baseline, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions program are efficient, low-barrier, educational initiatives to convey study-related information to providers. This work supported our efforts to maximally engage providers, minimize burden, and provide life-saving buprenorphine/naloxone to patients at risk of fatal overdose.

RéSUMé: BUT: Nous avons utilisé des approches d'amélioration de la qualité (AQ) pour accroître l'engagement des fournisseurs des services d'urgence (SU) avec l'inscription des participants à la recherche pendant la crise des opioïdes et la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus (COVID-19). Le contexte de ce travail est l'étude Evaluating Microdosing in the Emergency Department (EMED), un essai randomisé offrant de la buprénorphine/naloxone aux patients aux urgences par randomisation à l'induction standard ou au microdosage. L'engagement des fournisseurs est crucial pour le recrutement des participants à notre étude. En anticipant les difficultés à maintenir un engagement à long terme après une baisse de 63 % des recommandations de fournisseurs quatre mois après les inscriptions, nous avons appliqué le Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre d'une stratégie d'engagement visant à accroître et à maintenir l'engagement des fournisseurs de 50 % par rapport au niveau de référence dans les neuf mois. MéTHODES: Notre stratégie de mobilisation était axée sur les tournées de Coffee Carts : des présentations éducatives de cinq minutes sur l'étude pour les fournisseurs sur le quart de travail; et une initiative secondaire, un programme Suboxone Champions, pour mobiliser les fournisseurs intéressés en tant que pairs éducateurs liés à l'étude. Nous avons utilisé les recommandations des fournisseurs à notre équipe comme indicateur de la participation à l'étude et nous avons signalé le pourcentage de changement dans les recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes pour deux cycles PDSA par rapport à notre base de référence établie. RéSULTATS: Une approche d'AQ a permis d'examiner en temps réel les interventions en fonction des priorités de la recherche et des fournisseurs, ce qui a augmenté l'engagement par l'intermédiaire des recommandations hebdomadaires moyennes des fournisseurs de 14,5 % et de 49 % au cours de deux cycles de PDSA par rapport au niveau de référence, respectivement. CONCLUSION: Notre programme Coffee Carts and Suboxone Champions est une initiative éducative efficace et peu contraignante qui permet de transmettre aux fournisseurs des renseignements sur les études. Ce travail a appuyé nos efforts visant à mobiliser au maximum les fournisseurs, à réduire au minimum le fardeau et à fournir de la buprénorphine/naloxone vitale aux patients à risque de surdose mortelle.

Screening for harmful substance use in emergency departments: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use. METHODS: We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82-85% and specificities 70-77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

An emergency-department-initiated outreach program for patients with opioid use disorder is associated with an increase in agonist therapy and engagement in addictions care: a one-year cohort study.

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are high-risk for short-term mortality and morbidity. Emergency department (ED) interventions can reduce those risks, but benefits wane without ongoing community follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an ED-based intensive community outreach program. METHODS: At two urban EDs between October 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled patients with OUD not currently on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in a prospective cohort study evaluating a one-year intensive community outreach program, which provided ongoing addictions care, housing resources, and community support. We surveyed patients at intake and at scheduled outreach encounters at one, two, six, and twelve months. Follow-up surveys assessed OAT uptake, addictions care engagement, housing status, quality of life scores, illicit opioid use, and outreach helpfulness. We used descriptive statistics for each period and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses to account for missing data. RESULTS: Of 84 baseline participants, 29% were female and 32% were housed, with a median age of 33. Sixty participants (71%) completed at least one follow-up survey. Survey completion rates were 37%, 38%, 39%, and 40% respectively at one, two, six, and twelve months. Participants had a median of three outreach encounters. Among respondents, OAT was 0% at enrolment and ranged from 38% to 56% at follow-up; addictions care engagement was 22% at enrolment and ranged from 65% to 81% during follow-up; and housing was 40% at enrolment and ranged from 48% to 59% during follow-up. Improvements from baseline to follow-up occurred for all time periods. OAT and engagement in care benefits were maintained in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Respondents rated the outreach program as helpful at all time periods, CONCLUSION: An ED-initiated intensive outreach program for patients with OUD not yet on OAT was associated with a persistent increase in OAT use and engagement in care, as well as housing.

Factors associated with frequent buprenorphine / naloxone initiation in a national survey of Canadian emergency physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To identify individual and site-related factors associated with frequent emergency department (ED) buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP) initiation. BUP initiation, an effective opioid use disorder (OUD) intervention, varies widely across Canadian EDs. METHODS: We surveyed emergency physicians in 6 Canadian provinces from 2018 to 2019 using bilingual paper and web-based questionnaires. Survey domains included BUP-related practice, demographics, attitudes toward BUP, and site characteristics. We defined frequent BUP initiation (the primary outcome) as at least once per month, high OUD prevalence as at least one OUD patient per shift, and high OUD resources as at least 3 out of the following 5 resources: BUP initiation pathways, BUP in ED, peer navigators, accessible addiction specialists, and accessible follow-up clinics. We excluded responses from sites with <50% participation (to minimize non-responder bias) and those missing the primary outcome. We used univariate analysis to identify associations between frequent BUP initiation and factors of interest, stratifying by OUD prevalence. RESULTS: We excluded 3 responses for missing BUP initiation frequency and 9 for low response rate at one ED. Of the remaining 649 respondents from 34 EDs, 374 (58%) practiced in metropolitan areas, 384 (59%) reported high OUD prevalence, 312 (48%) had high OUD resources, and 161 (25%) initiated BUP frequently. Age, gender, board certification and years in practice were not associated with frequent BUP initiation. Site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation (high OUD resources [OR 6.91], high OUD prevalence [OR 4.45], and metropolitan location [OR 2.39],) as were individual attitudinal factors (willingness, confidence, and responsibility to initiate BUP.) Similar associations persisted in the high OUD prevalence subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Individual attitudinal and site-specific factors were associated with frequent BUP initiation. Training to increase physician confidence and increasing OUD resources could increase BUP initiation and benefit ED patients with OUD.

Association between toxic drug events and encephalopathy in British Columbia, Canada: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Encephalopathy can occur from a non-fatal toxic drug event (overdose) which results in a partial or complete loss of oxygen to the brain, or due to long-term substance use issues. It can be categorized as a non-traumatic acquired brain injury or toxic encephalopathy. In the context of the drug toxicity crisis in British Columbia (BC), Canada, measuring the co-occurrence of encephalopathy and drug toxicity is challenging due to lack of standardized screening. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of encephalopathy among people who experienced a toxic drug event and examine the association between toxic drug events and encephalopathy. METHODS: Using a 20% random sample of BC residents from administrative health data, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis. Toxic drug events were identified using the BC Provincial Overdose Cohort definition and encephalopathy was identified using ICD codes from hospitalization, emergency department, and primary care records between January 1st 2015 and December 31st 2019. Unadjusted and adjusted log-binomial regression models were employed to estimate the risk of encephalopathy among people who had a toxic drug event compared to people who did not experience a toxic drug event. RESULTS: Among people with encephalopathy, 14.6% (n = 54) had one or more drug toxicity events between 2015 and 2019. After adjusting for sex, age, and mental illness, people who experienced drug toxicity were 15.3 times (95% CI = 11.3, 20.7) more likely to have encephalopathy compared to people who did not experience a drug toxicity event. People who were 40 years and older, male, and had a mental illness were at increased risk of encephalopathy. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for collaboration between community members, health care providers, and key stakeholders to develop a standardized approach to define, screen, and detect neurocognitive injury related to drug toxicity.

Patient opinion and acceptance of emergency department buprenorphine/naloxone to-go home initiation packs.

OBJECTIVES: Many emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder are candidates for home buprenorphine/naloxone initiation with to-go packs. We studied patient opinions and acceptance of buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs, and factors associated with their acceptance. METHODS: We identified patients at two urban EDs in British Columbia who met opioid use disorder criteria, were not presently on opioid agonist therapy and not in active withdrawal. We offered patients buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as standard of care and then administered a survey to record buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance, the primary outcome. Survey domains included current substance use, prior experience with opioid agonist therapy, and buprenorphine/naloxone related opinions. Patient factors were examined for association with buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients enrolled, median age was 33 years, 27% were female, 67.4% had previously taken buprenorphine/naloxone, and 19.1% had never taken opioid agonist therapy. Overall, 78.7% believed that EDs should dispense buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs. Thirty-eight (42.7%) patients accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go. Buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance was associated with lack of prior opioid agonist therapy, less than 10 years of opioid use and no injection drug use. Reasons to accept included initiating treatment while in withdrawal; reasons to reject included prior unsatisfactory buprenorphine/naloxone experience and interest in other treatments. CONCLUSION: Although less than half of our study population accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go when offered, most thought this intervention was beneficial. In isolation, ED buprenorphine/naloxone to-go will not meet the needs of all patients with opioid use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as a low-barrier option for opioid use disorder treatment from the ED when integrated with robust addiction care services.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: De nombreux patients des services d'urgence (SU) atteints d'un trouble lié à la consommation d'opioïdes sont des candidats à l'initiation à la buprénorphine/naloxone à domicile avec des trousses à emporter. Nous avons étudié les opinions des patients et l'acceptation des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, ainsi que les facteurs associés à leur acceptation. MéTHODES: Nous avons identifié des patients à deux urgences urbaines de la Colombie-Britannique qui répondaient aux critères relatifs aux troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes, qui ne suivaient pas actuellement un traitement aux agonistes des opioïdes et qui n'étaient pas en sevrage actif. Nous avons offert aux patients la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme norme de soins, puis nous avons administré une enquête pour enregistrer l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, le critère de jugement principal. Les domaines d'enquête comprenaient la consommation actuelle de substances, l'expérience antérieure avec le traitement aux agonistes opioïdes et les opinions liées à la buprénorphine/naloxone. Les facteurs du patient ont été examinés pour déterminer l'association avec l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. RéSULTATS: Sur 89 patients inscrits, l'âge médian était de 33 ans, 27,0% étaient des femmes, 67,4% avaient déjà pris de la buprénorphine/naloxone et 19,1% n'avaient jamais pris de traitement aux agonistes opioïdes. Dans l'ensemble, 78,7% des répondants étaient d'avis que les SU devraient distribuer des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. Trente-huit (42,7%) patients ont accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. L'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter était associée à l'absence de traitement antérieur par agonistes opioïdes, à moins de 10 ans d'utilisation d'opioïdes et à l'absence de consommation de drogues injectables. Les raisons d'accepter comprenaient le fait de commencer un traitement pendant le sevrage; les raisons de rejeter comprenaient une expérience antérieure insatisfaisante de buprénorphine/naloxone et un intérêt pour d'autres traitements. CONCLUSION: Bien que moins de la moitié de notre population à l'étude ait accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter lorsqu'elle lui était offerte, la plupart ont pensé que cette intervention était bénéfique. Isolément, la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter à l'urgence ne répondra pas aux besoins de tous les patients atteints de troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes. Les cliniciens et les décideurs devraient considérer la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme une option à faible barrière pour le traitement des troubles liés à la consommation d'opioïdes par l'urgence lorsqu'elle est intégrée à de solides services de soins de la toxicomanie.