An investigation of an open-access model for scaling up methadone maintenance treatment.

AIMS: To examine retrospectively patient and programmatic outcomes following the development and implementation of an 'open-access' model in which prospective patients were enrolled rapidly in methadone maintenance treatment, irrespective of ability to pay, and provided real-time access to multiple voluntary treatment options. DESIGN: Medical and administrative records were abstracted to compare data for 1 year before and 9 years after initiating the implementation of an open-access treatment model in May 2007. SETTING: Methadone maintenance treatment center in Connecticut, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with opioid use disorder entering treatment between July 2006 and June 2015. In June 2015, 64% (n = 2594) of the sample were men and 80% (n = 3133) reported that they were white. INTERVENTION: The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment-informed open-access treatment model uses process improvement strategies to improve treatment access and capacity. MEASUREMENTS: Census, waiting time, retention, non-medical opioid use, patient mortality and financial sustainability (net income and state-block grants as proportions of revenue). FINDINGS: In the 9 years following the initial implementation of the open-access model, patient census increased by 183% from 1431 to 4051, and average waiting-time days decreased from 21 to 0.3 (same day) without apparent deleterious effects on rates of retention, non-medical opioid use or mortality. Between fiscal years (FY) 06 and FY 15, net operating margin rose from 2 to 10%, while state-block grant revenues declined 14% and the proportion of total revenue from state-block grant revenue decreased from 49 to 24%. CONCLUSIONS: An open-access model for rapid enrolment of people with opioid use disorder in methadone treatment appears to improve treatment access, capacity, and financial sustainability without evidence of deleterious effects on treatment outcomes.

What Influences Participation in QI? A Randomized Trial of Addiction Treatment Organizations.

Healthcare providers have increased the use of quality improvement (QI) techniques, but organizational variables that affect QI uptake and implementation warrant further exploration. This study investigates organizational characteristics associated with clinics that enroll and participate over time in QI. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) conducted a large cluster-randomized trial of outpatient addiction treatment clinics, called NIATx 200, which randomized clinics to one of four QI implementation strategies: (1) interest circle calls, (2) coaching, (3) learning sessions, and (4) the combination of all three components. Data on organizational culture and structure were collected before, after randomization, and during the 18-month intervention. Using univariate descriptive analyses and regression techniques, the study identified two significant differences between clinics that enrolled in the QI study (n = 201) versus those that did not (n = 447). Larger programs were more likely to enroll and clinics serving more African Americans were less likely to enroll. Once enrolled, higher rates of QI participation were associated with clinics' not having a hospital affiliation, being privately owned, and having staff who perceived management support for QI. The study discusses lessons for the field and future research needs.

Integrating addiction treatment into primary care using mobile health technology: protocol for an implementation research study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare reform in the United States is encouraging Federally Qualified Health Centers and other primary-care practices to integrate treatment for addiction and other behavioral health conditions into their practices. The potential of mobile health technologies to manage addiction and comorbidities such as HIV in these settings is substantial but largely untested. This paper describes a protocol to evaluate the implementation of an E-Health integrated communication technology delivered via mobile phones, called Seva, into primary-care settings. Seva is an evidence-based system of addiction treatment and recovery support for patients and real-time caseload monitoring for clinicians. METHODS/DESIGN: Our implementation strategy uses three models of organizational change: the Program Planning Model to promote acceptance and sustainability, the NIATx quality improvement model to create a welcoming environment for change, and Rogers's diffusion of innovations research, which facilitates adaptations of innovations to maximize their adoption potential. We will implement Seva and conduct an intensive, mixed-methods assessment at three diverse Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers in the United States. Our non-concurrent multiple-baseline design includes three periods - pretest (ending in four months of implementation preparation), active Seva implementation, and maintenance - with implementation staggered at six-month intervals across sites. The first site will serve as a pilot clinic. We will track the timing of intervention elements and assess study outcomes within each dimension of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework, including effects on clinicians, patients, and practices. Our mixed-methods approach will include quantitative (e.g., interrupted time-series analysis of treatment attendance, with clinics as the unit of analysis) and qualitative (e.g., staff interviews regarding adaptations to implementation protocol) methods, and assessment of implementation costs. DISCUSSION: If implementation is successful, the field will have a proven technology that helps Federally Qualified Health Centers and affiliated organizations provide addiction treatment and recovery support, as well as a proven strategy for implementing the technology. Seva also has the potential to improve core elements of addiction treatment, such as referral and treatment processes. A mobile technology for addiction treatment and accompanying implementation model could provide a cost-effective means to improve the lives of patients with drug and alcohol problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01963234).

Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial.

AIMS: Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective. DESIGN: An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group. SETTING: Out-patient addiction treatment clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and one clinics in five states. MEASUREMENTS: Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percentage of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session) and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Waiting-time declined significantly for three groups: coaching (an average of 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), learning sessions (3.5 days/clinic, P = 0.012) and the combination (4.7 days/clinic, P = 0.001). The coaching and combination groups increased significantly the number of new patients (19.5%, P = 0.028; 8.9%, P = 0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effect on outcomes. None of the groups improved retention significantly. The estimated cost per clinic was $2878 for coaching versus $7930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting-time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.

A business case for quality improvement in addiction treatment: evidence from the NIATx collaborative.

The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) promotes treatment access and retention through a customer-focused quality improvement model. This paper explores the issue of the "business case" for quality improvement in addiction treatment from the provider's perspective. The business case model developed in this paper is based on case examples of early NIATx participants coupled with a review of the literature. Process inefficiencies indicated by long waiting times, high no-show rates, and low continuation rates cause underutilization of capacity and prevent optimal financial performance. By adopting customer-focused practices aimed at removing barriers to treatment access and retention, providers may be able to improve financial performance, increase staff retention, and gain long-term strategic advantage.

Disseminating quality improvement: study protocol for a large cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination is a critical facet of implementing quality improvement in organizations. As a field, addiction treatment has produced effective interventions but disseminated them slowly and reached only a fraction of people needing treatment. This study investigates four methods of disseminating quality improvement (QI) to addiction treatment programs in the U.S. It is, to our knowledge, the largest study of organizational change ever conducted in healthcare. The trial seeks to determine the most cost-effective method of disseminating quality improvement in addiction treatment. METHODS: The study is evaluating the costs and effectiveness of different QI approaches by randomizing 201 addiction-treatment programs to four interventions. Each intervention used a web-based learning kit plus monthly phone calls, coaching, face-to-face meetings, or the combination of all three. Effectiveness is defined as reducing waiting time (days between first contact and treatment), increasing program admissions, and increasing continuation in treatment. Opportunity costs will be estimated for the resources associated with providing the services. OUTCOMES: The study has three primary outcomes: waiting time, annual program admissions, and continuation in treatment. Secondary outcomes include: voluntary employee turnover, treatment completion, and operating margin. We are also seeking to understand the role of mediators, moderators, and other factors related to an organization's success in making changes. ANALYSIS: We are fitting a mixed-effect regression model to each program's average monthly waiting time and continuation rates (based on aggregated client records), including terms to isolate state and intervention effects. Admissions to treatment are aggregated to a yearly level to compensate for seasonality. We will order the interventions by cost to compare them pair-wise to the lowest cost intervention (monthly phone calls). All randomized sites with outcome data will be included in the analysis, following the intent-to-treat principle. Organizational covariates in the analysis include program size, management score, and state. DISCUSSION: The study offers seven recommendations for conducting a large-scale cluster-randomized trial: provide valuable services, have aims that are clear and important, seek powerful allies, understand the recruiting challenge, cultivate commitment, address turnover, and encourage rigor and flexibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. govNCT00934141.