Patient and Clinician Experiences with the Implementation of Telemedicine and Related Adaptations in Office-Based Buprenorphine Treatment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Deaths from opioid overdose have increased dramatically in the past decade, representing an epidemic in the United States. For individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), agonist medications such as methadone and buprenorphine reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. Historically, the provision of buprenorphine treatment in office-based settings has relied on frequent in-person contact, likely influencing patients' access to and retention in care. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers of office-based buprenorphine treatment rapidly adapted their care processes, increasingly relying on telemedicine visits. To date, relatively few prior studies have combined patient and clinician perspectives to examine the implementation of telemedicine and related care adaptations, particularly in safety-net settings. Methods: Qualitative methods were used to explore clinician and patient experiences with telemedicine in an office-based buprenorphine treatment clinic affiliated with an urban safety-net hospital. From this clinic, we interviewed 25 patients and 16 clinicians (including prescribers and non-prescribers) to understand how telemedicine impacted treatment quality and engagement in care, as well as preferences for using telemedicine moving forward. Results: Five themes regarding the implementation of telemedicine and other COVID-19-related care adaptations arose from patient and clinician perspectives: 1) telemedicine integration precipitated openness to more flexibility in care practices, 2) concerns regarding telemedicine-related adaptations centered around safety and accountability, 3) telemedicine encounters required rapport and trust between patients and clinicians to facilitate open communication, 4) safety-net patient populations experienced unique challenges when using telemedicine, particularly in terms of the technology required and the need for privacy, and 5) there is an important role for telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment moving forward, primarily through its use in hybrid models of care. Conclusions: Telemedicine implementation within office-based buprenorphine treatment has the potential to improve patients' engagement in care; however, our findings emphasize the need for tailored approaches to implementing telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment, particularly within safety-net settings. Overall, this study supports the maintenance of changes to policy and practice that facilitate the use of telemedicine in office-based buprenorphine treatment beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.

A Clinical Guide to Support the Implementation of Addiction Consult Services and the Value of Teaching and Technical Assistance.

ABSTRACT: People with substance use disorders (SUDs) are increasingly admitted to general hospitals; however, many hospital systems lack both formal structures and skilled staff to provide high-quality care for inpatients with SUDs. Inpatient addiction consult services (ACSs), which are increasingly being implemented around the country, are an evidence-based strategy to add focused care for people with SUDs into the general medical setting. In 2018, New York City Health + Hospitals (H + H) launched an ACS program called Consult for Addiction Care and Treatment in Hospitals in six hospitals, supported by a team of addiction consult experts to deliver teaching and technical assistance (TTA) for the Consult for Addiction Care and Treatment in Hospitals ACSs. This commentary describes the TTA, which included site visits, introductory educational lectures, case conferences, ad hoc support, implementation assistance, and the creation of an addiction care guide. Similar TTA services could be used in the future when hospitals or systems want to launch novel clinical programs.

Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. Objective: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. Intervention: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. Results: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Strokes in Patients With Injection Drug Use and Tricuspid Valve Endocarditis - A Case Series.

Research Design: In this study, we describe patients from a tertiary care safety-net hospital endocarditis registry with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis (TVIE), and concomitant acute or subacute ischemic stroke predominantly associated with injection drug use (IDU). We retrospectively obtained data pertinent to neurologic examinations, history of injection drug use (IDU), blood cultures, transthoracic/transesophageal echocardiography (TTE/TEE), neuroimaging, and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at discharge. Only those patients with bacteremia, tricuspid valve vegetations, and neuroimaging consistent with acute to subacute ischemic infarction and microhemorrhages in two cases were included in this series. Results: Of 188 patients in the registry, 66 patients had TVIE and 10 of these were complicated by ischemic stroke. Neurologic symptoms were largely non-specific, eight patients had altered mental status and only 3 had focal deficits. Nine cases were associated with IDU. Two patients had evidence of a patent foramen ovale on echocardiography. Blood cultures grew S. aureus species in 9 of the patients, all associated with IDU. Three patients died during hospitalization. The mRS score at discharge for survivors ranged 0-4. Conclusions: Patients with strokes from TVIE had heterogeneous presentations and putative mechanisms. We noted that robust neuroimaging is lacking for patients with TVIE from IDU and that such patients may benefit from neuroimaging as a screen for strokes to assist peri-operative management. Further inquiry is needed to elucidate stroke mechanisms in these patients.

Grayken lessons: the role of an interdisciplinary endocarditis working group in evaluating and optimizing care for a woman with opioid use disorder requiring a second tricuspid valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use-related endocarditis is increasingly common among hospitalized patients in the United States, and associated morbidity and mortality are rising. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we present the case of a 34-year-old woman with severe opioid use disorder and multiple episodes of infective endocarditis requiring prosthetic tricuspid valve replacement, who developed worsening dyspnea on exertion. Her echocardiogram demonstrated severe tricuspid regurgitation with a flail prosthetic valve leaflet, without concurrent endocarditis, necessitating a repeat valve replacement. Her care was overseen by our institution's Endocarditis Working Group, a multidisciplinary team that includes providers from addiction medicine, cardiology, infectious disease, cardiothoracic surgery, and neurocritical care. The team worked together to evaluate her, develop a treatment plan for her substance use disorder in tandem with her other medical conditions, and advocate for her candidacy for valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary endocarditis teams such as these are important emerging innovations, which have demonstrated improvements in outcomes for patients with infective endocarditis and substance use disorders, and have the potential to reduce bias by promoting standard-of-care treatment.

Developing a Women's Health track within addiction medicine fellowship: reflections and inspirations.

BACKGROUND: Women who use drugs face sexism and intersectional stigma that influence their drug use experiences and treatment needs. There is a need to build the capacity of addiction medicine specialists who can deliver gender-responsive services and advance research and policy in women-focused addiction care. We describe the development of a Women's Health track within an addiction medicine fellowship program and reflect on successes, challenges, and future directions. MAIN BODY: The Women's Health track was developed in collaboration between program leaders in Addiction Medicine and Obstetrics/Gynecology. Implementing the track led to the development of women-focused rotations and continuity clinics, as well as enrichment of women's health didactic education for all fellows. The fellowship track spurred interdepartmental mentorship and collaboration on research and advocacy projects. CONCLUSION: Addiction medicine fellowships can replicate this curriculum model to advance women-focused education, research, and policy. Future curricula should focus on structural sexism in drug use and addiction treatment throughout a woman's life course.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Versus Traditional Buprenorphine Induction in the Hospital: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests low-dose buprenorphine (LDB) induction can expand opportunities for buprenorphine induction in patients who are taking taking methadone, short-acting opioid agonists, or who have anxiety about opioid withdrawal. STUDY QUESTION: How is a rapid LDB protocol using transdermal buprenorphine tolerated in the hospital? STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study of 20 patient encounters (n = 20 patients) with traditional buprenorphine induction before implementation of study protocol (control group) and 37 patient encounters (n = 34 patients) with LDB induction protocol (pilot group). Summary statistics were used to describe demographics, clinical opioid withdrawal scale and pain scores within 24 hours preprotocol and within 24 hours postprotocol initiation, hospital length of stay after protocol initiation, receipt of a buprenorphine prescription at discharge, and prescription activity at 30 days. T test and chi-square tests were used to analyze comparisons. A subset of pilot group patients completed a survey about their experience. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in pain and clinical opioid withdrawal scale scores between the pilot and control groups. There were 5 instances of precipitated withdrawal in the pilot group. There was no statistically significant difference in mean discharge time after protocol initiation between the pilot and control groups (P = 0.60). Most patients surveyed described a positive experience with LDB induction. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization is a critical time to initiate buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder. Our data adds to the growing evidence that LDB induction is feasible for patients taking methadone and short-acting opioid agonists, and that a more rapid induction protocol is generally well-tolerated by patients although precipitated withdrawal is a risk. Finally, our rapid induction protocol did not seem to increase hospital length of stay compared with traditional induction.

Pre-Paid Phone Distribution: A Tool for Improving Healthcare Engagement for People with Substance Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic drove significant disruptions in access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and harm reduction services. Healthcare delivery via telemedicine has increasingly become the norm, rendering access to a phone essential for engagement in care. METHODS: Adult patients with SUD who lacked phones (n = 181) received a free, pre-paid phone during encounters with inpatient and outpatient SUD programs. We evaluated changes in healthcare engagement including completed in-person and telemedicine outpatient visits and telephone encounters 30 days before and after phone receipt. We used descriptive statistics, where appropriate, and paired t-tests to assess the change in healthcare engagement measures. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly male (64%) and white (62%) with high rates of homelessness (81%) and opioid use disorder (89%). When comparing 30 days before to 30 days after phone receipt, there was a significant increased change in number of telemedicine visits by 0.3 (95% CL [0.1,0.4], p < 0.001) and telephone encounters by 0.2 (95% CL [0.1,0.3], p = 0.004). There was no statistically significant change in in-person outpatient visits observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-paid phone distribution to patients with SUD was associated with an increased healthcare engagement including telemedicine visits and encounters.

Adapting methadone inductions to the fentanyl era.

Since 2013, fentanyl and fentanyl analogs, which are significantly more potent than heroin, have been increasingly prevalent in the opioid drug supply. A need exists to adapt methadone dosing from opioid treatment programs (OTPs) in this era. Current methadone protocols at many clinics in the United States are based on expert consensus documents that were created prior to the introduction of fentanyl into the drug supply and are relatively conservative. To date, most OTP reform efforts have focused on relaxation of regulations for take-homes and have not addressed the need to adapt methadone induction schedules to be more rapid in the fentanyl era, as allowed by current regulations. Written by OTP and inpatient consult service addiction medicine physicians with expertise in OUD treatment from across the United States, the aims of the perspective piece are to: 1) highlight the need to improve OTP care by adapting methadone inductions to the fentanyl era, 2) cite emerging evidence for and examples of experiences of OTPs using more aggressive methadone inductions, and 3) call for research and updated guidelines on safety and best practices for methadone induction.

Management of opioid use disorder, opioid withdrawal, and opioid overdose prevention in hospitalized adults: A systematic review of existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations related to the consequences of opioid use are rising. National guidelines directing in-hospital opioid use disorder (OUD) management do not exist. OUD treatment guidelines intended for other treatment settings could inform in-hospital OUD management. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the quality and content of existing guidelines for OUD treatment and management. DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid PsychINFO, EBSCOhost CINHAL, ERCI Guidelines Trust, websites of relevant societies and advocacy organizations, and selected international search engines. STUDY SELECTION: Guidelines published between January 2010 to June 2020 addressing OUD treatment, opioid withdrawal management, opioid overdose prevention, and care transitions among adults. DATA EXTRACTION: We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nineteen guidelines met the selection criteria. Most recommendations were based on observational studies or expert consensus. Guidelines recommended the use of nonstigmatizing language among patients with OUD; to assess patients with unhealthy opioid use for OUD using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Diseases-5th Edition criteria; use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat OUD and opioid withdrawal; use of multimodal, nonopioid therapy, and when needed, short-acting opioid analgesics in addition to buprenorphine or methadone, for acute pain management; ensuring linkage to ongoing methadone or buprenorphine treatment; referring patients to psychosocial treatment; and ensuring access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. CONCLUSIONS: Included guidelines were informed by studies with various levels of rigor and quality. Future research should systematically study buprenorphine and methadone initiation and titration among people using fentanyl and people with pain, especially during hospitalization.

Bridge clinic implementation of "72-hour rule" methadone for opioid withdrawal management: Impact on opioid treatment program linkage and retention in care.

BACKGROUND: Methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment is restricted to licensed opioid treatment programs (OTPs) with substantial barriers to entry. Underutilized regulations allow non-OTP providers to administer methadone for opioid withdrawal for up to 72 h while arranging ongoing care. Our low-barrier bridge clinic implemented a new pathway to treat opioid withdrawal and facilitate OTP linkage utilizing the "72-hour rule." METHODS: Patients presenting to a hospital-based bridge clinic were evaluated for OUD, opioid withdrawal, and treatment goals. Eligible patients were offered methadone opioid withdrawal management with rapid OTP referral. OTPs accepted patients as direct admissions. We described bridge clinic patients who received at least one dose of methadone between March-August 2021 and key clinical outcomes including OTP referral completion within 72 h. For the subset of patients referred to our two primary OTP partners, we described OTP linkage (i.e., attended at least one OTP visit within one month) and OTP retention at one month. RESULTS: Methadone was administered during 150 episodes of care for 142 unique patients, the majority of whom were male (73%), white (67%), and used fentanyl (85%). In 92% of episodes (138/150), a plan for ongoing care was in place within 72 h. Among 121 referrals to two primary OTP partners, 87% (105/121) linked and 58% (70/121) were retained at one month. CONCLUSIONS: Methadone administration for opioid withdrawal with direct OTP admission under the "72-hour rule" is feasible in an outpatient bridge clinic and resulted in high OTP linkage and 1-month retention rates. This model has the potential to improve methadone access.

Surgical outcomes of pulmonary valve infective endocarditis: A US population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary valve infective endocarditis (PVIE) represents a rare subset of right-sided IE. This study aimed to evaluate the population-level surgical outcomes of PVIE in the United States. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study using the 2002-2017 National Inpatient Sample database. We included hospitalizations with both IE and PV interventions. We excluded Tetralogy of Fallot, congenital PV malformation, and those who underwent the Ross procedure. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included major complications and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We identified 677 PVIE hospitalizations that underwent surgical treatment, accounting for 0.06% of all IE hospitalizations. The mean age was 35.2 ± 1.7 years; 60.0% were White, 30.3% were women, and 11.4% were intravenous drug users. Most were treated in large-sized (70.1%) urban teaching (88.8%) hospitals. Close to 30% of patients received at least one concomitant valve procedure. The in-hospital mortality was 5.5% for the entire cohort, and the median length of stay was 16 days. Major complications included complete heart block (8.7%), acute kidney injury (8.1%), and stroke (1.3%). The differences in mortality and complications rate comparing PV repair and replacement were not statistically significant. PV repair was associated with a longer length of hospital stay compared to PV replacement (median: 25 vs. 16 days, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study defines the population-level in-hospital outcomes after surgical intervention of PVIE. Surgically treated PVIE patients are associated with relatively low mortality and morbidities. The outcomes between PV replacement and repair are similar.

Clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies for addressing the US opioid epidemic: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The syndemic of injection drug use and serious injection-related infections is leading to increasing mortality in the USA. Although outpatient treatment with medications for opioid use disorder reduces overdose risk and recurrent infections, hospitalisation remains common. We evaluated the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to address the US opioid epidemic. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of: standard hospital care-detoxification for opioids, no addiction consult service (status quo); expanded inpatient prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder, including bridge prescriptions (ie, medication until they can see an outpatient provider) when possible (medications for opioid use disorder with bridge); implementation of addiction consult services within the hospital (addiction consult services alone); and a combined medication for opioid use disorder with addiction consult services strategy (combined). We used clinical trials and observational cohorts to inform model inputs. Outcomes were life-years, discounted costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, hospitalisations, and deaths. We did deterministic sensitivity analyses on key model inputs related to costs and sequelae of drug use and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to further address uncertainty. FINDINGS: Among people who inject opioids in the USA, we estimated that expanding medications for opioid use disorder with bridge prescriptions would reduce hospitalisations and overdose deaths by 3·2% and 3·6%, respectively, and the combination of expanded medications with opioid use disorder along with addiction consult sevices would reduce hospitalisations and overdoses by 5·2% and 6·6%, respectively, compared with the status quo. Mean lifetime costs ranged from US$731 400 (95% credible interval 447 911-859 189 for the medications for opioid use disorder strategy) to $741 200 (470 930-868 551 for the combined strategy) per person. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-year gained, medications for opioid use disorder with bridge and combined strategies were cost-effective ($7600 and $14 300, respectively). A scenario that assumed ideal access to harm reduction services came to the same conclusions as the base case and our results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: The combined interventions of expanding hospital-based prescribing of medications for opioid use disorder and implementing addiction consult services could improve life expectancy, be cost-effective, and could be the basis for a comprehensive hospital-based strategy for addressing the opioid epidemic in the USA and countries with similar opioid epidemics. FUNDING: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Current Best Practices for Acute and Chronic Management of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

This comprehensive review on opioids summarizes the scope of the current opioid epidemic, the diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and the medical and psychiatric complications of opioid use.

Outcomes of Ottawa, Canada's Managed Opioid Program (MOP) where supervised injectable hydromorphone was paired with assisted housing.

BACKGROUND: The Ottawa Inner City Health's Managed Opioid Program is the first, to our knowledge, to pair injectable opioid agonist hydromorphone treatment with assisted housing for people experiencing homelessness with severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and injection drug use. We aimed to describe this program and evaluate retention, health, and social wellbeing outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the first cohort of clients enrolled in the Managed Opioid Program between August 2017-2018. The primary outcome was retention at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included injectable and oral opioid dose titration, non-prescribed opioid use, overdoses, connection with behavioural health services, and social well-being. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline demographics and secondary outcomes. Actuarial survival analysis was used to assess retention among participants. RESULTS: The study sample included 26 participants: median age was 36 years, 14 were female, 22 were White, eight had alcohol use disorders, 25 had stimulant use disorders, and all had a history of concurrent psychiatric illness. Retention at 12 months was 77% (95% CI 62-95). Throughout the first-year participants' opioid treatment doses increased. The median daily dose of injectable hydromorphone was 36 mg [17-54 mg] and 156 mg [108-188 mg] at enrollment and one year respectively. The median daily dose of oral opioid treatment was 120-milligram morphine equivalents [83-180 mg morphine equivalents] and 330-milligram morphine equivalents [285-428 mg morphine equivalents] at enrollment and one year respectively. Over half had no overdoses and there were no deaths among participants who remained enrolled. At one year, 45% stopped non-prescribed opioid use, 96% connected to behavioral health services, 73% reconnected with estranged families, and 31% started work or vocational programs. CONCLUSION: Individuals with severe OUD engaged in injectable hydromorphone treatment and housing showed high retention in care and substantive improvements in patient-centered health and social well-being outcomes.

Shorter outpatient wait-times for buprenorphine are associated with linkage to care post-hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient addiction consult services (ACS) lower barriers to accessing medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), however not every patient recommended for MOUD links to outpatient care. We hypothesized that fewer days between discharge date and outpatient appointment date was associated with improved linkage to buprenorphine treatment among patients evaluated by an ACS. METHODS: We extracted appointment and demographic data from electronic medical records and conducted retrospective chart review of adults diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) evaluated by an ACS in Boston, MA between July 2015 and August 2017. These patients were initiated on or recommended buprenorphine treatment on discharge and provided follow-up appointment at our hospital post-discharge. Multivariable logistic regression assessed whether arrival to the appointment post-discharge was associated with shorter wait-times (0-1 vs. 2+ days). RESULTS: In total, 142 patients were included. Among patients who had wait-times of 0-1 day, 63 % arrived to their appointment compared to wait-times of 2 or more days (42 %). There were no significant differences between groups based on age, gender, distance of residence from the hospital, insurance status, co-occurring alcohol use disorder diagnosis, or discharge with buprenorphine prescription. After adjusting for covariates, patients with 0-1 day of wait-time had 2.6 times the odds of arriving to their appointment [95 % CI 1.3-5.5] compared to patients who had 2+ days of wait-time. CONCLUSION: For hospitalized patients with OUD evaluated for initiating MOUD, same- and next-day appointments are associated with increased odds of linkage to outpatient MOUD care post-discharge compared to waiting two or more days.

Adapting inpatient addiction medicine consult services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We describe addiction consult services (ACS) adaptations implemented during the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic across four different North American sites: St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia; Oregon Health & Sciences University in Portland, Oregon; Boston Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; and Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut. EXPERIENCES: ACS made system, treatment, harm reduction, and discharge planning adaptations. System changes included patient visits shifting to primarily telephone-based consultations and ACS leading regional COVID-19 emergency response efforts such as substance use treatment care coordination for people experiencing homelessness in COVID-19 isolation units and regional substance use treatment initiatives. Treatment adaptations included providing longer buprenorphine bridge prescriptions at discharge with telemedicine follow-up appointments and completing benzodiazepine tapers or benzodiazepine alternatives for people with alcohol use disorder who could safely detoxify in outpatient settings. We believe that regulatory changes to buprenorphine, and in Vancouver other medications for opioid use disorder, helped increase engagement for hospitalized patients, as many of the barriers preventing them from accessing care on an ongoing basis were reduced. COVID-19 specific harm reductions recommendations were adopted and disseminated to inpatients. Discharge planning changes included peer mentors and social workers increasing hospital in-reach and discharge outreach for high-risk patients, in some cases providing prepaid cell phones for patients without phones. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE: We believe that ACS were essential to hospitals' readiness to support patients that have been systematically marginilized during the pandemic. We suggest that hospitals invest in telehealth infrastructure within the hospital, and consider cellphone donations for people without cellphones, to help maintain access to care for vulnerable patients. In addition, we recommend hospital systems evaluate the impact of such interventions. As the economic strain on the healthcare system from COVID-19 threatens the very existence of ACS, overdose deaths continue rising across North America, highlighting the essential nature of these services. We believe it is imperative that health care systems continue investing in hospital-based ACS during public health crises.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.