Integrating buprenorphine treatment into a public healthcare system: the San Francisco Department of Public Health's office-based Buprenorphine Pilot Program.

Despite well-documented efficacy, US physicians have been relatively slow to embrace the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence. In order to introduce and support the use of buprenorphine across the San Francisco Department of Public Health system of care, the Buprenorphine Pilot Program was initiated in 2003. Program treatment sites included a centralized buprenorphine induction clinic and program pharmacy, and three community-based treatment sites; two primary care clinics and a private dual diagnosis group practice. The target patient population consisted of opioid-dependent patients typically seen in an urban, public health setting, including individuals experiencing extreme poverty, homelessness/unstable housing, unemployment, polysubstance abuse/dependence, coexisting mental health disorders, and/or little psychosocial support. This program evaluation reviews patient characteristics, treatment retention, substance use over time, patient impressions, and provider practices for the 57 patients admitted between 9/1/03 and 8/31/05. At baseline, over 80% of patients were injecting heroin, over 40% were homeless, and over one-third were using cocaine. Outcomes included an overall one-year retention rate of 61%, a rapid and dramatic decline in opioid use, very positive patient impressions of the program and of buprenorphine, and significant shifts in provider practices over time.

Opioid-prescribing practices and provider confidence recognizing opioid analgesic abuse in HIV primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Pain syndromes are common in HIV-infected patients, who also are commonly affected by opioid-use disorders. Although opioids can treat pain, prescribers must consider the consequences of iatrogenic or missed addiction diagnoses. METHODS: In an anonymous online survey, we asked a national sample of HIV providers about their demographics, experience, and patients, and their practices and attitudes about chronic opioid therapy, addiction, and confidence recognizing opioid analgesic abuse. RESULTS: One hundred six providers reported 28% of their patients had chronic pain; 21% received opioid analgesics; 37% were HIV infected by injecting drug use; and 12% were addicted to prescription opioids. Few providers followed recommended guidelines for chronic opioid therapy in nonmalignant pain. Mean provider confidence was 6.3 on a scale of 10. Higher confidence was associated with provider sex (P < 0.05), patient volume (P < 0.03), discussing substance use, (P < 0.05), urine toxicology (P < 0.01), prescribing longer acting opioids (P = 0.005), and prescribing buprenorphine (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: HIV providers seldom follow recommended guidelines for opioid prescribing and have limited confidence in their ability to recognize opioid analgesic abuse. Clinical practices developed to reduce misuse and increase early detection and treatment of opioid dependence are associated with higher confidence. The implementation of guidelines to improve the quality of opioid prescribing in HIV clinics may aid in the diagnosis of addictive disorders and prevent their adverse outcomes.

Taking an evidence-based model of depression care from research to practice: making lemonade out of depression.

OBJECTIVE: The Improving Mood-Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment (IMPACT) trial [randomized controlled trial (RCT)] found that collaborative care management of depression in older primary care patients was significantly more effective than the usual care. We examined how an adapted version of IMPACT is working in the "real-world" setting of an HMO 3 years after the conclusion of the trial. METHOD: Two hundred ninety-seven adults treated according to IMPACT protocol "poststudy" (PS) at a large group model HMO were compared to the 141 participants (historical control) in the intervention arm of the RCT at the same site. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to compare depression severity at baseline and 6 months. We also compared treatment contacts, use of antidepressants and psychotherapy and total health care costs. RESULTS: The RCT and PS groups were equivalent regarding baseline depression scores (14.5 vs. 14.2, P=.72), 6-month scores (5.6 vs. 6.3, P=.28) and percent experiencing 50% improvement in depression (68% vs. 70%, P=.83). Antidepressant use was similar (85% and 90%, P=.57). Treatment contacts were fewer in PS than RCT (14 vs. 20, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: An adapted version of the IMPACT program implemented at a large HMO achieved similar clinical improvements in depression as the clinical trial despite a lower number of intervention contacts.