Lessons Learned From Developing Dashboards to Support Decision-Making for Community Opioid Response by Community Stakeholders: Mixed Methods and Multisite Study.

BACKGROUND: Data dashboards are published tools that present visualizations; they are increasingly used to display data about behavioral health, social determinants of health, and chronic and infectious disease risks to inform or support public health endeavors. Dashboards can be an evidence-based approach used by communities to influence decision-making in health care for specific populations. Despite widespread use, evidence on how to best design and use dashboards in the public health realm is limited. There is also a notable dearth of studies that examine and document the complexity and heterogeneity of dashboards in community settings. OBJECTIVE: Community stakeholders engaged in the community response to the opioid overdose crisis could benefit from the use of data dashboards for decision-making. As part of the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, community data dashboards were created for stakeholders to support decision-making. We assessed stakeholders' perceptions of the usability and use of the CTH dashboards for decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods assessment between June and July 2021 on the use of CTH dashboards. We administered the System Usability Scale (SUS) and conducted semistructured group interviews with users in 33 communities across 4 states of the United States. The SUS comprises 10 five-point Likert-scale questions measuring usability, each scored from 0 to 4. The interview guides were informed by the technology adoption model (TAM) and focused on perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intention to use, and contextual factors. RESULTS: Overall, 62 users of the CTH dashboards completed the SUS and interviews. SUS scores (grand mean 73, SD 4.6) indicated that CTH dashboards were within the acceptable range for usability. From the qualitative interview data, we inductively created subthemes within the 4 dimensions of the TAM to contextualize stakeholders' perceptions of the dashboard's usefulness and ease of use, their intention to use, and contextual factors. These data also highlighted gaps in knowledge, design, and use, which could help focus efforts to improve the use and comprehension of dashboards by stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: We present a set of prioritized gaps identified by our national group and list a set of lessons learned for improved data dashboard design and use for community stakeholders. Findings from our novel application of both the SUS and TAM provide insights and highlight important gaps and lessons learned to inform the design of data dashboards for use by decision-making community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04111939; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04111939.

Reducing perceived barriers to scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder in the United States in the HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) communities study.

BACKGROUND: Scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is needed to reduce opioid overdose deaths, but barriers are pervasive. This study examines whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention reduced perceived barriers to expanding OEND and MOUD in healthcare/behavioral health, criminal-legal, and other/non-traditional venues. METHODS: The HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) Communities Study is a parallel, wait-list, cluster randomized trial testing the CTH intervention in 67 communities in the United States. Surveys administered to coalition members and key stakeholders measured the magnitude of perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in November 2019-January 2020, May-June 2021, and May-June 2022. Multilevel linear mixed models compared Wave 1 (intervention) and Wave 2 (wait-list control) respondents. Interactions by rural/urban status and research site were tested. RESULTS: Wave 1 respondents reported significantly greater reductions in mean scores for three outcomes: perceived barriers to scaling up OEND in Healthcare/Behavioral Health Venues (-0.26, 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.48, -0.05, p = 0.015), OEND in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.53, 95% CI: - 0.84, -0.22, p = 0.001) and MOUD in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.34, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.05, p = 0.020). There were significant interactions by research site for perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in Criminal-Legal Venues. There were no significant interactions by rural/urban status. DISCUSSION: The CTH Intervention reduced perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in certain venues, with no difference in effectiveness between rural and urban communities. More research is needed to understand facilitators and barriers in different venues.

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.

Feasibility and acceptability of a timeline follow-back method to assess opioid use, non-fatal overdose, and substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Non-fatal overdoses are underreported and there is no accepted and feasible self-report research measure of non-fatal opioid overdose. Timeline follow-back (TLFB) calendar-based questionnaires assess self-reported risk behaviors. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of a new TLFB research measure for opioid use, non-fatal opioid overdose, and substance use disorder treatment among opioid overdose survivors. METHODS: For the Repeated-dose Behavioral Intervention to Reduce Opioid Overdose Trial (REBOOT) study among opioid overdose survivors, we developed a TLFB questionnaire to assess daily non-prescribed opioid use, opioid overdose, facility stays, medications/behavioral treatment for opioid use disorder, and COVID-19 history during the previous 120 days. Staff assessors administered TLFB at four-monthly visits over the 16-month study participation period. To measure feasibility, we estimated TLFB completion time using an electronic timestamp tool. To measure acceptability, we administered a satisfaction survey to 103 participants who completed REBOOT. RESULTS: Among 525 TLFB assessments conducted in 174 participants from January 2021-January 2023, opioid use was reported in 510 assessments, medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in 331 assessments, and ≥ 1 overdose in 107 assessments. Median TLFB completion time was 11 (IQR: 6-17) minutes for sections administered to all participants; detailed overdose questions administered to those reporting overdose took an additional 3 (IQR: 2-6) minutes. Report of ≥ 1 overdose and MOUD use were significantly associated with increased TLFB completion time. 88 % of participants reported that TLFB was very/somewhat acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Among opioid overdose survivors, REBOOT TLFB was a feasible and acceptable research measure, with similar completion time as other TLFB assessments of substance use.

Patient Perspectives on Improving Patient-Provider Relationships and Provider Communication During Opioid Tapering.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions. APPROACH: From 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers. KEY RESULTS: Participants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: From patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.

Do Urine Drug Tests Reveal Substance Misuse Among Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain?

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is a recommended risk mitigation strategy for patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, but evidence that UDT supports identification of substance misuse is limited. OBJECTIVE: Identify the prevalence of UDT results that may identify substance misuse, including diversion, among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=638) receiving opioids for chronic pain who had one or more UDTs, examining up to eight substances per sample, during a one 1-year period. MAIN MEASURES: Experts adjudicated the clinical concern that UDT results suggest substance misuse or diversion as not concerning, uncertain, or concerning. KEY RESULTS: Of 638 patients, 48% were female and 49% were over age 55 years. Patients had a median of three UDTs during the intervention year. We identified 37% of patients (235/638) with ≥1 concerning UDT and a further 35% (222/638) having ≥1 uncertain UDT. We found concerning UDTs due to non-detection of a prescribed substance in 24% (156/638) of patients and detection of a non-prescribed substance in 23% (147/638). Compared to patients over 65 years, those aged 18-34 years were more likely to have concerning UDT results with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-12.5). Patients with mental health diagnoses (AOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]) and substance use diagnoses (AOR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]) were more likely to have a concerning UDT result. CONCLUSIONS: Expert adjudication of UDT results identified clinical concern for substance misuse in 37% of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Further research is needed to determine if UDTs impact clinical practice or patient-related outcomes.

"I felt like I had a scarlet letter": Recurring experiences of structural stigma surrounding opioid tapers among patients with chronic, non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience. METHODS: From 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes. RESULTS: Among 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system." CONCLUSIONS: Opioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems.

Non-prescription Fentanyl Positive Toxicology: Prevalence, Positive Predictive Value of Fentanyl Immunoassay Screening, and Description of Co-substance Use.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid overdose deaths in Massachusetts linked to illicitly-manufactured fentanyl have increased dramatically. In response, an urban safety-net hospital added urine fentanyl testing with reflex confirmation testing to its standard urine toxicology panel. The goals of this study were to describe fentanyl toxicology test results, identify the positive predictive value of presumptive fentanyl immunoassay, and describe co-substance use among those with unexpected fentanyl positive results. METHODS: We included urine toxicology tests from January through June 2016 analyzed at an urban safety-net hospital. We excluded tests from individuals prescribed or administered fentanyl within the preceding 72 hours. Positive fentanyl immunoassay tests underwent reflex chromatography confirmation testing. Samples that confirmed positive for acetyl fentanyl and/or fentanyl and/or norfentanyl were considered true positives. RESULTS: Of 11,873 urine samples, 10.4% of samples screened fentanyl positive and 8.8% were confirmed fentanyl positive. The positive predictive value of a positive urine fentanyl screen was 85.7%. Of 4398 unique patients, 13.2% had at least 1 test confirmed positive for nonprescription fentanyl. Patients with a confirmed fentanyl positive drug test were more likely to have positive urine drug test for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methadone, and opiates, and less likely to have oxycodone or buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: At an urban safety-net hospital, nonprescription fentanyl use was common and was associated with greater use of other substances favoring routine fentanyl testing. Although the positive predictive value of the screening test was high, confirmation testing detected substantial numbers of false positives, especially in older patients. Therefore, fentanyl confirmation testing should be used when results will change treatment approach and patient education.