Disparities in Maternal-Infant Drug Testing, Social Work Assessment, and Custody at 5 Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate for disparities in peripartum toxicology testing among maternal-infant dyads across a hospital network and subsequent child protective services (CPS) involvement. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 59,425 deliveries at 5 hospitals in Massachusetts between 2016 and 2020. We evaluated associations between maternal characteristics, toxicology testing, and child welfare involvement with disproportionality risk ratios and hierarchical logistical regression. RESULTS: Toxicology testing was performed on 1959 (3.3%) dyads. Younger individuals and individuals of color were more likely to be tested for cannabis use or maternal medical complications compared to white non-Hispanic individuals. Among those without a substance use disorder, age <25 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-3.26), race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black (aOR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.52-2.13), Hispanic (aOR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45), mixed race/other (aOR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.87), unavailable race (aOR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32-2.79), and public insurance (Medicaid [aOR 2.61; 95% CI, 2.27-3.00], Medicare [aOR 13.76; 95% CI, 9.99-18.91]) had increased odds of toxicology testing compared to older, white non-Hispanic, and privately insured individuals. The disproportionality ratios in testing were greater than 1.0 for individuals under 25 years old (3.8), Hispanic individuals (1.6), non-Hispanic Black individuals (1.8), individuals of other race (1.2), unavailable race (1.8), and individuals with public insurance (Medicaid 2.6; Medicare 10.6). Among dyads tested, race and ethnicity was not associated with CPS involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Peripartum toxicology testing is disproportionately performed on non-white, younger, and poorer individuals and their infants, with cannabis use and medical complications prompting testing more often for patients of color than for white non-Hispanic individuals.

Assessing the clinical utility of toxicology testing in the peripartum period.

BACKGROUND: Toxicology testing is frequently used as a means of gathering objective data about substance use in pregnancy, but little is known about the clinical utility of testing in the peripartum setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the utility of obtaining maternal-neonatal dyad toxicology testing at the time of delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of all deliveries in a single healthcare system in Massachusetts between 2016 and 2020, and identified deliveries with either maternal or neonatal toxicology testing at delivery. An unexpected result was defined as a positive test for a nonprescribed substance that was not known on the basis of clinical history, self-report, or previous toxicology testing within a week of delivery, excluding results for cannabis. We evaluated the characteristics of maternal-infant dyads with unexpected positive results, unexpected positive results by rationale for testing, changes in clinical management after an unexpected positive test, and maternal outcomes in the year after delivery using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 2036 maternal-infant dyads with toxicology tests performed during the study period, there were 80 (3.9%) with an unexpected positive result. Diagnosis of substance use disorder with active use in the last 2 years was the clinical rationale for testing that yielded the greatest number of unexpected positive results (10.7% of total tests ordered for this rationale). Inadequate prenatal care (5.8%), maternal use of medication for opioid use disorder (3.8%), maternal medical indications such as hypertension or placental abruption (2.3%), history of substance use disorder in remission (1.7%), or maternal cannabis use (1.6%) yielded lower rates of unexpected results compared with a recent substance use disorder (within the last 2 years). Solely on the basis of findings from unexpected test results, 42% of dyads were referred to child protective services, 30% of dyads had no documentation of maternal counseling during delivery hospitalization, and 31% did not receive breastfeeding counseling after an unexpected test; 22.8% had monitoring for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. Postpartum, 26 (32.5%) were referred to substance use disorder treatment, 31 (38.8%) attended a postpartum mental health visit, and only 26 (32.5%) attended a postpartum visit. Fifteen individuals (18.8%) were readmitted in the year after delivery, all for substance-related medical complications. CONCLUSION: Unexpected positive toxicology results at delivery were uncommon, particularly when tests were sent for frequently used clinical rationales for testing, suggesting a need to revisit guidelines surrounding appropriateness of indications for toxicology testing. The poor maternal outcomes in this cohort highlight a missed opportunity for maternal connection to counseling and treatment in the peripartum period.

Informed consent is poorly documented when obtaining toxicology testing at delivery in a Massachusetts cohort.

BACKGROUND: Positive toxicology testing at delivery can have enormous consequences for birthing persons and their families, including charges of child abuse or neglect and potential loss of custody for the birthing parent. Therefore state and national guidelines stipulate that, clinicians must obtain consent before toxicology testing at delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed (1) to determine clinician documentation of patient consent for peripartum toxicology testing and (2) to characterize the extent to which patient and hospital characteristics were associated with documented consent. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort of individuals who underwent toxicology testing within 96 hours of delivery between April 2016 and April 2020 at 5 affiliated hospitals across Massachusetts. Medical records were reviewed for documentation of clinician intent to obtain maternal toxicology, testing indication, verbal consent to testing, and child protective services involvement. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient and hospital characteristics and documentation of verbal consent. RESULTS: Among 60,718 deliveries, 1562 maternal toxicology tests were obtained. Verbal consent for testing was documented in 466 cases (29.8%). Documented consent was lacking across most demographic groups. Consent was no more likely to be documented when a report was filed with child protective services and less likely in cases where the birthing parent lost custody before discharge (P=.003). In our multivariable model, consent was least likely to be documented when a maternal complication (abruption, hypertension, preterm labor, preterm premature rupture of membranes, or intrauterine fetal demise) was the indication for testing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.76). Verbal consent was twice as likely to be documented in delivery hospitals with established consent policies (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-4.37). CONCLUSION: Consent for toxicology testing at delivery seemed to be infrequently obtained on the basis of clinician documentation. Provider education and hospital policies for obtaining informed consent are needed to protect the rights of birthing individuals.

Third trimester stillbirth during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Similar rates with increase in placental vasculopathic pathology.

Whether early SARS-CoV-2 definitively increases the risk of stillbirth is unknown, though studies have suggested possible trends of stillbirth increase during the pandemic. This study of third trimester stillbirth does not identify an increase in rates during the first wave of the pandemic period, however investigation of the placental pathology demonstrates trends towards more vascular placental abnormalities.

Use of promethazine, gabapentin and clonidine in combination with opioids or opioid agonist therapies among individuals attending a syringe service program.

BACKGROUND: Clonidine, gabapentin, and promethazine are commonly used by people who use opioids, including heroin, raising concern for increased morbidity and mortality in a vulnerable population. We aimed to characterize how and why individuals use opioids in combination with these three psychoactive medications (PAMs). METHODS: Participants (n = 103) were a convenience sample of adults attending a syringe service program who reported using a PAM in addition to opioids or opioid agonist therapies (buprenorphine or methadone). Face-to-face structured interviews consisted of closed and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Patterns of PAM use varied. Risky use, including use of high doses and with other sedating medications, was common. Most individuals reported multiple medical reasons for use, even while reporting the PAM had mind-altering effects. Use of high doses of PAMs was associated with a history of overdose. Among those with a history of overdose, 32% reported that a PAM was involved. CONCLUSION: The use of clonidine, gabapentin and promethazine among individuals who use opioids is complex. Providers should take individualized approaches to PAM prescribing, recognizing both the risks of PAMs and the potential unintended consequences of supply-side interventions in the era of the overdose crisis. Harm reduction interventions are needed to prevent PAM-involved overdoses.