DATA 2000 waiver training for medical students: Lessons learned from a medical school experience.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of this national opioid crisis, it has become apparent that there is a large shortage in the workforce of treatment providers equipped to deliver evidence-based care for opioid use disorders (OUD). Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, are crucial in reducing mortality in those with OUD, and yet prescribers must meet federal waiver requirements under the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000). There are now several pathways for medical schools to satisfy these waiver requirements for all graduates, but this has not yet become widespread. We propose that including a DATA 2000 waiver training within the medical school curriculum is a feasible and effective way to meet eligibility requirements to prescribe buprenorphine. Methods: As part of a longitudinal opioid curriculum requirement, we implemented a DATA 2000 waiver training for all rising Year 4 medical students. One hundred sixty-nine students completed a hybrid (online and in-person) waiver training. The majority completed a pre- and post-survey. Results: The pre-training survey showed 93% of rising Year 4 medical students (112/120) reported participation in care of patients with OUD. Students six month post-training reported a rise in confidence (1.94 to 2.45; p < 0.01) and knowledge (2.27 to 2.76; p < 0.01) regarding MOUD. They also reported their plans to apply for the buprenorphine waiver once licensed and reported being more likely to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD as a result of the training (mean = 3.35; SD = 1.36; 0 = extremely unlikely to 5 = extremely likely). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a DATA 2000 waiver training as a mandatory requirement for the medical school curriculum. Further studies are needed to determine optimal timing, best format, and frequency of reinforcement of MOUD educational content across the undergraduate and graduate medical education continuum.

Implementing an Interactive Introduction to Complementary Medicine for Chronic Pain Management Into the Medical School Curriculum.

Introduction: In the setting of the opioid crisis, chronic pain management requires new approaches and open dialogue between physicians and patients to explore evidence-based nonpharmacologic treatments. We developed an educational session on the role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for chronic pain management as part of our larger curriculum on health equity and social justice. Methods: Students and faculty developed a novel educational session for second-year medical students consisting of a lecture and an experiential small-group session immersing the students in CAM. We conducted pre- and postsurveys to assess the students' self-reported learning and impressions of the session. Results: Over the academic years of 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, 345 second-year medical students participated in this mandatory session. In matched pre-and postsession surveys, students rated their knowledge of the evidence behind CAM practices, and reported statistically significant increases in their understanding. When asked about the importance of physician familiarity with common CAM practices, students noted both a high baseline agreement and a statistically significant increase after the session concluded. Familiarity with financial costs of each of the practices also saw statistically significant increases after the session. Discussion: Our results indicated that the session met the educational objectives. A critical part of improving our session between academic years involved gathering feedback and implementing changes based on these suggestions. Our model is easy to implement and replicate at medical schools across the country. Future studies should assess the effects of CAM-focused educational interventions on practices in the clinical setting.

Descriptive Analysis of State and Federal Spine Surgery Malpractice Litigation in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the factors associated with malpractice litigation in cases involving spine surgery in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medical malpractice is of substantial interest to the medical community due to concerns of increased health care costs and medical decision-making for the sole purpose of reducing legal liability. METHODS: The Westlaw online legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) was searched for verdict and settlement reports pertaining to spine surgery from 2010 to 2015. Data were collected regarding type of procedure, patient age and gender, defendant specialty, outcome, award, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors involved in the plaintiff's decision to file. Initial search queried 187 cases, after which exclusion criteria were applied to eliminate duplicates and cases unrelated to spine surgery, yielding a total of 98 cases for analysis. RESULTS: The verdict was in favor of the defendant in 62 cases (63.3%). Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons were the most common defendants in 29 (17.3%) and 40 (23.8%) of the cases, respectively. A perceived lack of informed consent was noted as a factor in 24 (24.4%) of the cases. A failure to diagnose or a failure to treat was noted in 31 (31.6%) and 32 (32.7%) cases, respectively. Median payments for plaintiff verdicts were nearly double those of settlements ($2,525,000 vs. $1,300,000). A greater incidence of plaintiff verdicts was noted in cases in which a failure to treat (P < 0.05) was cited, a patient death occurred (P < 0.05), or an emergent surgery had been performed (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Overall, physicians were not found liable in the majority of spine surgery malpractice cases queried. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.