Overdose from Unintentional Fentanyl Use when Intending to Use a Non-opioid Substance: An Analysis of Medically Attended Opioid Overdose Events.

Fentanyl-mixed and substituted heroin is well-documented, but less is known about unintentional fentanyl use among people using stimulants. To determine the prevalence of and racial and ethnic disparities in unintentional fentanyl use among people experiencing a medically attended opioid overdose, we reviewed 448 suspected non-fatal overdose cases attended by a community paramedic overdose response team in San Francisco from June to September 2022. We applied a case definition for opioid overdose to paramedic records and abstracted data on intended substance use prior to overdose. Among events meeting case criteria with data on intended substance use, intentional opioid use was reported by 57.3%, 98.0% of whom intended to use fentanyl. No intentional opioid use was reported by 42.7%, with most intending to use stimulants (72.6%), including methamphetamine and cocaine. No intentional opioid use was reported by 58.5% of Black, 52.4% of Latinx, and 28.8% of White individuals (p = 0.021), and by 57.6% of women and 39.5% of men (p = 0.061). These findings suggest that unintentional fentanyl use among people without opioid tolerance may cause a significant proportion of opioid overdoses in San Francisco. While intentional fentanyl use might be underreported, the magnitude of self-reported unintentional use merits further investigation to confirm this phenomenon, explore mechanisms of use and disparities by race and ethnicity, and deploy targeted overdose prevention interventions.

Withdrawal during outpatient low dose buprenorphine initiation in people who use fentanyl: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD); however, buprenorphine initiation can be complicated by withdrawal symptoms including precipitated withdrawal. There has been increasing interest in using low dose initiation (LDI) strategies to reduce this withdrawal risk. As there are limited data on withdrawal symptoms during LDI, we characterize withdrawal symptoms in people with daily fentanyl use who underwent initiation using these strategies as outpatients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with OUD using daily fentanyl who were prescribed 7-day or 4-day LDI at 2 substance use disorder treatment clinics in San Francisco. Two addiction medicine experts assessed extracted chart documentation for withdrawal severity and precipitated withdrawal, defined as acute worsening of withdrawal symptoms immediately after taking buprenorphine. A third expert adjudicated disagreements. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 175 initiations in 126 patients. The mean age was 37 (SD 10 years). 71% were men, 26% women, and 2% non-binary. 21% identified as Black, 16% Latine, and 52% white. 60% were unstably housed and 75% had Medicaid insurance. Substance co-use included 74% who used amphetamines, 29% cocaine, 22% benzodiazepines, and 19% alcohol. Follow up was available for 118 (67%) initiations. There was deviation from protocol instructions in 22% of these initiations with follow up. 31% had any withdrawal, including 21% with mild symptoms, 8% moderate and 2% severe. Precipitated withdrawal occurred in 10 cases, or 8% of initiations with follow up. Of these, 7 had deviation from protocol instructions; thus, there were 3 cases with follow up (3%) in which precipitated withdrawal occurred without protocol deviation. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal was relatively common in our cohort but was mostly mild, and precipitated withdrawal was rare. Deviation from instructions, structural barriers, and varying fentanyl use characteristics may contribute to withdrawal. Clinicians should counsel patients who use fentanyl that mild withdrawal symptoms are likely during LDI, and there is still a low risk for precipitated withdrawal. Future studies should compare withdrawal across initiation types, seek ways to support patients in initiating buprenorphine, and qualitatively elicit patients' withdrawal experiences.

The Howard Street Method: A Community Pharmacy-led Low Dose Overlap Buprenorphine Initiation Protocol for Individuals Using Fentanyl.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine treatment significantly reduces morbidity and mortality for people with opioid use disorder. Fear of precipitated withdrawal remains a barrier to starting buprenorphine for patients who use synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl. We aim to evaluate the development and implementation of a buprenorphine low dose overlap initiation (LDOI) protocol in an urban public health community pharmacy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with nonprescribed fentanyl use (N = 27) to examine clinical outcomes of a buprenorphine LDOI schedule, named the Howard Street Method, dispensed from a community pharmacy in San Francisco from January to December 2020. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were prescribed the Howard Street Method. Twenty-six patients picked up the prescription and 14 completed the protocol. Of those who completed the protocol, 11 (79%) reported no symptoms of withdrawal and 3 (21%) reported mild symptoms. Four patients (29%) reported cessation of full opioid agonist use and 10 (71%) reported reduction in their use by the end of the protocol. At 30 days, 12 patients (86%) were retained in care and 10 (71%) continued buprenorphine. At 180 days, 6 patients (43%) were retained in care and 2 (14%) were still receiving buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a LDOI blister-pack protocol based at a community pharmacy was a viable intervention for starting buprenorphine treatment and a promising alternative method for buprenorphine initiation in an underresourced, safety-net population of people using fentanyl.

Rapid Overlap Initiation Protocol Using Low Dose Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in an Outpatient Setting: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Fear and risk of precipitated withdrawal are barriers for initiating buprenorphine in individuals with opioid use disorder, particularly among those using fentanyl. A buprenorphine rapid overlap initiation (ROI) protocol (also knownas "rapidmicro-dosing") utilizing small, escalating doses of buprenorphine can overcome this barrier, reaching therapeutic doses in 3 to 4 days. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a buprenorphine ROI protocol for buprenorphine initiation in the outpatient setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients prescribed an outpatient ROI protocol at the Office-based Buprenorphine Induction Clinic from October to December 2020. The ROI protocol utilizes divided doses of sublingual buprenorphine tablets and blister packaging for easier dosing. Patients were not required to stop other opioid use and were advised to follow up on day 4 of initiation. RESULTS: Twelve patients were included, of whom eleven (92%) were using fentanyl at intake. Eleven patients picked up their prescription. Seven patients returned for follow-up (58%), and all 7 completed the ROI protocol. One patient reported any withdrawal symptoms, which were mild. At 30 days, 7 patients (58%) were retained in care, and 5 (42%) were still receiving buprenorphine treatment, 4 (33%) of whom had been abstinent from nonprescribed opioid use for ≥2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The ROI protocol was successful in initiating buprenorphine treatment for patients in our outpatient clinic, many of whom were using fentanyl. The ROI protocol may offer a safe alternative to traditional buprenorphine initiation and warrants further study.

Are physicians' perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use?

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) adoption is a national priority in the USA, and well-designed EHRs have the potential to improve quality and safety. However, physicians are reluctant to implement EHRs due to financial constraints, usability concerns, and apprehension about unintended consequences, including the introduction of medical errors related to EHR use. The goal of this study was to characterize and describe physicians' attitudes towards three consequences of EHR implementation: (1) the potential for EHRs to introduce new errors; (2) improvements in healthcare quality; and (3) changes in overall physician satisfaction. METHODS: Using data from a 2007 statewide survey of Massachusetts physicians, we conducted multivariate regression analysis to examine relationships between practice characteristics, perceptions of EHR-related errors, perceptions of healthcare quality, and overall physician satisfaction. RESULTS: 30% of physicians agreed that EHRs create new opportunities for error, but only 2% believed their EHR has created more errors than it prevented. With respect to perceptions of quality, there was no significant association between perceptions of EHR-associated errors and perceptions of EHR-associated changes in healthcare quality. Finally, physicians who believed that EHRs created new opportunities for error were less likely be satisfied with their practice situation (adjusted OR 0.49, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Almost one third of physicians perceived that EHRs create new opportunities for error. This perception was associated with lower levels of physician satisfaction.

Doctors' perceptions of laboratory monitoring in office practice.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory monitoring has been increasingly recognized as an important area for improving patient safety in ambulatory care. Little is known about doctors' attitudes towards laboratory monitoring and potential ways to improve it. METHODS: Six focus groups and one individual interview with 20 primary care doctors and nine specialists from three Massachusetts communities. RESULTS: Participants viewed laboratory monitoring as a critical, time-consuming task integral to their practice of medicine. Most believed they commit few laboratory monitoring errors and were surprised at the error rates reported in the literature. They listed various barriers to monitoring, including not knowing which doctor was responsible for ensuring the completion of laboratory monitoring, uncertainty regarding the necessity of monitoring, lack of alerts/reminders and patient non-adherence with recommended monitoring. The primary facilitator of monitoring was ordering laboratory tests while the patient is in the office. Primary care doctors felt more strongly than specialists that computerized alerts could improve laboratory monitoring. Participants wanted to individualize alerts for their practices and warned that alerts must not interrupt work flow or require too many clicks. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors in community practice recognized the potential of computerized alerts to enhance their monitoring protocols for some medications. They viewed patient non-adherence as a barrier to optimal monitoring. Interventions to improve laboratory monitoring should address doctor workflow issues, in addition to patients' awareness of the importance of fulfilling recommended therapeutic monitoring to prevent adverse drug events.

The relationship between electronic health record use and quality of care over time.

OBJECTIVE Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to advance the quality of care, but studies have shown mixed results. The authors sought to examine the extent of EHR usage and how the quality of care delivered in ambulatory care practices varied according to duration of EHR availability. METHODS The study linked two data sources: a statewide survey of physicians' adoption and use of EHR and claims data reflecting quality of care as indicated by physicians' performance on widely used quality measures. Using four years of measurement, we combined 18 quality measures into 6 clinical condition categories. While the survey of physicians was cross-sectional, respondents indicated the year in which they adopted EHR. In an analysis accounting for duration of EHR use, we examined the relationship between EHR adoption and quality of care. RESULTS The percent of physicians reporting adoption of EHR and availability of EHR core functions more than doubled between 2000 and 2005. Among EHR users in 2005, the average duration of EHR use was 4.8 years. For all 6 clinical conditions, there was no difference in performance between EHR users and non-users. In addition, for these 6 clinical conditions, there was no consistent pattern between length of time using an EHR and physicians performance on quality measures in both bivariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS In this cross-sectional study, we found no association between duration of using an EHR and performance with respect to quality of care, although power was limited. Intensifying the use of key EHR features, such as clinical decision support, may be needed to realize quality improvement from EHRs. Future studies should examine the relationship between the extent to which physicians use key EHR functions and their performance on quality measures over time.

Physicians' use of key functions in electronic health records from 2005 to 2007: a statewide survey.

OBJECTIVE Electronic health records (EHRs) have potential to improve quality and safety, but many physicians do not use these systems to full capacity. The objective of this study was to determine whether this usage gap is narrowing over time. DESIGN Follow-up mail survey of 1,144 physicians in Massachusetts who completed a 2005 survey. MEASUREMENTS Adoption of EHRs and availability and use of 10 EHR functions. RESULTS The response rate was 79.4%. In 2007, 35% of practices had EHRs, up from 23% in 2005. Among practices with EHRs, there was little change between 2005 and 2007 in the availability of nine of ten EHR features; the notable exception was electronic prescribing, reported as available in 44.7% of practices with EHRs in 2005 and 70.8% in 2007. Use of EHR functions changed inconsequentially, with more than one out of five physicians not using each available function regularly in both 2005 and 2007. Only electronic prescribing increased substantially: in 2005, 19.9% of physicians with this function available used it most or all the time, compared with 42.6% in 2007 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS By 2007, more than one third of practices in Massachusetts reported having EHRs; the availability and use of electronic prescribing within these systems has increased. In contrast, physicians reported little change in the availability and use of other EHR functions. System refinements, certification efforts, and health policies, including standards development, should address the gaps in both EHR adoption and the use of key functions.

Do electronic health records create more errors than they prevent?

While use of electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic prescribing can prevent many medication errors, it may also create opportunities for new errors. Therefore, we conducted a study to examine providers' perception of opportunities for errors introduced by the use of EHRs.