National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network Meeting Report: Managing Patients Exposed to Xylazine-Adulterated Opioids in Emergency, Hospital and Addiction Care Settings.

Used as a veterinary sedative and not approved for human use, xylazine has been increasingly linked with opioid overdose deaths in the United States. A growing number of people have been exposed to xylazine in the illicit opioid supply (especially fentanyl) or in other drugs, particularly in some areas of the Northeast. Xylazine is an α-2 adrenergic agonist that decreases sympathetic nervous system activity. When combined with fentanyl or heroin, it is purported to extend the duration of the opioid's sedative effect and to cause dependence and an associated withdrawal syndrome; however, data to support these concerns are limited. Despite the escalating frequency of detection of xylazine in people with nonfatal and fatal opioid overdose, direct links to these outcomes have not been identified. Because the strongest causal link is to fentanyl coexposure, ventilatory support and naloxone remain the cornerstones of overdose management. Xylazine is also associated with severe tissue injury, including skin ulcers and tissue loss, but little is known about the underlying mechanisms. Nonetheless, strategies for prevention and treatment are emerging. The significance and clinical effects of xylazine as an adulterant is focused on 4 domains that merit further evaluation: fentanyl-xylazine overdose, xylazine dependence and withdrawal, xylazine-associated dermal manifestations, and xylazine surveillance and detection in clinical and nonclinical settings. This report reflects the Proceedings of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for the Clinical Trials Network convening of clinical and scientific experts, federal staff, and other stakeholders to describe emerging best practices for treating people exposed to xylazine-adulterated opioids. Participants identified scientific gaps and opportunities for research to inform clinical practice in emergency departments, hospitals, and addiction medicine settings.

Mapping Buprenorphine Access at Philadelphia Pharmacies.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine is not reliably stocked in many pharmacies, and pharmacy-level barriers may deter patients from opioid use disorder care. We surveyed all outpatient pharmacies in Philadelphia to describe variation in buprenorphine access and developed a map application to aid in identifying pharmacies that stock the medication. METHODS: Using a dataset from the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, we conducted a telephone survey of operating outpatient pharmacies (N = 422) about their buprenorphine stocking and dispensing practices. We used ArcGIS Pro 3.0.3 to join US Census Bureau ZIP code-level race and ethnicity data, conduct descriptive analyses, and create a map application. RESULTS: We collected data from 351 pharmacies (83% response rate). Two hundred thirty-eight pharmacies (68%) indicated that they regularly stock buprenorphine; 6 (2%) would order it when a prescription is sent. Ninety-one (26%) said that they do not stock or order buprenorphine, and 16 (5%) were unsure. We identified 137 "easier access" pharmacies (39%), meaning they regularly stock buprenorphine, dispense to new patients, and have no dosage maximums. Zip codes with predominantly White residents had a median (interquartile range) of 3 (2-4) "easier access" pharmacies, and those with predominantly Black residents a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-4.5). Nine zip codes had no "easier access" pharmacies, and 3 had only one; these 3 zip codes are areas with predominantly Black residents. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine access is not equitable across Philadelphia and a quarter of pharmacies choose not to carry the medication. Our map application may be used to identify pharmacies in Philadelphia that stock buprenorphine.

Trends in Before Medically Advised Discharges for Patients With Opioid Use Disorder, 2016-2020.

This study examines discharge trends for opioid-related admissions from 2016-2020 with a focus on admissions with opioid use disorder and an injection-related infection.

Mobile service delivery in response to the opioid epidemic in Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: The harms of opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV infection disproportionately impact marginalized populations, especially people experiencing homelessness and people who inject drugs (PWID). Mobile OUD service delivery models are emerging to increase access and reduce barriers to OUD care. While there is growing interest in these models, there is limited research about the services they provide, how they operate, and what barriers they face. We characterize the capacity, barriers, and sustainment of mobile OUD care services in a large city with a high incidence of OUD and HIV. METHODS: From May to August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership from all seven mobile OUD care units (MOCU) providing a medication for OUD or other substance use disorder services in Philadelphia. We surveyed leaders about their unit's services, staffing, operating location, funding sources, and linkages to care. Leaders were asked to describe their clinical approach, treatment process, and the barriers and facilitators to their operations. Interview recordings were coded using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: MOCUs are run by small, multidisciplinary teams, typically composed of a clinician, one or two case managers, and a peer recovery specialist or outreach worker. MOCUs provide a range of services, including medications for OUD, wound care, medical services, case management, and screening for infectious diseases. No units provide methadone, but all units provide naloxone, six write prescriptions for buprenorphine, and one unit dispenses buprenorphine. The most frequently reported barriers include practical challenges of working on a MOCU (e.g. lack of space, safety), lack of community support, and patients with substantial medical and psychosocial needs. Interviewees reported concerns about funding and specifically as it relates to providing their staff with adequate pay. The most frequently reported facilitators include positive relationships with the community, collaboration with other entities (e.g. local nonprofits, the police department, universities), and having non-clinical staff (e.g. outreach workers, peer recovery specialists) on the unit. CONCLUSIONS: MOCUs provide life-saving services and engage marginalized individuals with OUD. These findings highlight the challenges and complexities of caring for PWID and demonstrate a need to strengthen collaborations between MOCU providers and the treatment system. Policymakers should consider programmatic funding for permanent mobile OUD care services.

Association of Urine Fentanyl Concentration With Severity of Opioid Withdrawal Among Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fentanyl is involved in most US drug overdose deaths and its use can complicate opioid withdrawal management. Clinical applications of quantitative urine fentanyl testing have not been demonstrated previously. The aim of this study was to determine whether urine fentanyl concentration is associated with severity of opioid withdrawal. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 3 emergency departments in an urban, academic health system from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: This study included patients with opioid use disorder, detectable urine fentanyl or norfentanyl, and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) recorded within 6 hours of urine drug testing. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure was urine fentanyl concentration stratified as high (>400 ng/mL), medium (40-399 ng/mL), or low (<40 ng/mL). The primary outcome was opioid withdrawal severity measured with COWS within 6 hours before or after urine specimen collection. We used a generalized linear model with γ distribution and log-link function to estimate the adjusted association between COWS and the exposures. FINDINGS: For the 1127 patients in our sample, the mean age (SD) was 40.0 (10.7), 384 (34.1%) identified as female, 332 (29.5%) reported their race/ethnicity as non-Hispanic Black, and 658 (58.4%) reported their race/ethnicity as non-Hispanic White. For patients with high urine fentanyl concentrations, the adjusted mean COWS (95% confidence interval) was 4.4 (3.9-4.8) compared with 5.5 (5.1-6.0) among those with medium and 7.7 (6.8-8.7) among those with low fentanyl concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Lower urine fentanyl concentration was associated with more severe opioid withdrawal, suggesting potential clinical applications for quantitative urine measurements in evolving approaches to fentanyl withdrawal management.

LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients. DESIGN: Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS. INTERVENTION: Providers were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses. MAIN MEASURES: All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS. KEY RESULTS: A total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03862001.

Impact of Universal Screening and Automated Clinical Decision Support for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Emergency Departments: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine improves outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder; however, adoption varies widely. To reduce variability, we implemented a nurse-driven triage screening question in the electronic health record to identify patients with opioid use disorder, followed by targeted electronic health record prompts to measure withdrawal and guide next steps in management, including initiation of treatment. Our objective was to assess the impact of screening implementation in 3 urban, academic EDs. METHODS: We conducted a quasiexperimental study of opioid use disorder-related ED visits using electronic health record data from January 2020 to June 2022. The triage protocol was implemented in 3 EDs between March and July 2021, and 2 other EDs in the health system served as controls. We evaluated changes in treatment measures over time and used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes in the 3 intervention EDs with those in the 2 controls. RESULTS: There were 2,462 visits in the intervention hospitals (1,258 in the preperiod and 1,204 in the postperiod) and 731 in the control hospitals (459 in the preperiod and 272 in the postperiod). Patient characteristics within the intervention and control EDs were similar across the time periods. Compared with the control hospitals, the triage protocol was associated with a 17% greater increase in withdrawal assessment, using the Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) (95% CI 7 to 27). Buprenorphine prescriptions at discharge also increased by 5% (95% CI 0% to 10%), and naloxone prescriptions increased by 12% points (95% CI 1% to 22%) in the intervention EDs relative to controls. CONCLUSION: An ED triage screening and treatment protocol led to increased assessment and treatment of opioid use disorder. Protocols designed to make screening and treatment the default practice have promise in increasing the implementation of evidence-based treatment ED opioid use disorder care.

"I wouldn't need Narcan for myself, but I can have it for somebody else:" perceptions of harm reduction among hospitalized patients with OUD.

BACKGROUND: Extant literature is limited on adoption of evidence-based harm reduction strategies in hospitals. We explored patient perceptions of incorporating harm reduction supplies and education in hospital care with patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). METHODS: Qualitative descriptive study of hospitalized patients with OUD in Philadelphia, PA using semi-structured interviews conducted between April and August of 2022. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from 21 interviews with hospitalized patients with OUD: (1) Applicability and Acceptability of Harm Reduction Practices for Oneself; (2) Applicability and Acceptability of Harm Reduction Practices for Others; (3) Perceptions of Harm Reduction Conversations. Most participants were familiar with harm reduction but varied in their perceptions of its relevance for their lives. We noted differences in how participants viewed the applicability and acceptably of harm reduction practices that they perceived as intended to help others (e.g., naloxone) versus intended to help themselves (e.g., syringes). Most participants reported that meaningful conversations about drug use did not happen with their care team but that these conversations would have been acceptable if they were conducted in a way consistent with their individual substance use goals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' interest and perceived acceptability of harm reduction services during hospitalization varied by individual patient factors and the perceived user of specific interventions. Given their positive potential, harm reduction practices should be incorporated in hospitals, but this must be done in a way that is acceptable to patients. Our findings reveal ways to integrate concepts from a harm reduction approach within a traditional medical model. More work is needed to understand the impact of such integration.

"Come try it out. Get your foot in the door:" Exploring patient perspectives on low-barrier treatment for opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Low-barrier treatment is an emerging strategy for opioid use disorder (OUD) care that prioritizes access to evidence-based medication while minimizing requirements that may limit treatment access in more traditional delivery models, particularly for marginalized patients. Our objective was to explore patient perspectives about low-barrier approaches, with a focus on understanding barriers to and facilitators of engagement from the patient point of view. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients accessing buprenorphine treatment from a multi-site, low-barrier mobile treatment program in Philadelphia, PA from July-December 2021. We analyzed interview data using thematic content analysis and identified key themes. RESULTS: The 36 participants were 58% male, 64% Black, 28% White, and 31% Latinx. 89% were enrolled in Medicaid, and 47% were unstably housed. Our analysis revealed three main facilitators of treatment in the low-barrier model. These included 1) program structure that met participant needs, such as flexibility, rapid medication access and robust case management services; 2) harm reduction approach that included acceptance of patient goals other than abstinence and provision of harm reduction services on-site; and 3) strong interpersonal connections with team members, including those with lived experience. Participants contrasted these experiences with other care they had received in the past. Barriers related to lack of structure, limitations of street-based care, and limited support for co-occurring needs, particularly mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key patient perspectives on low-barrier approaches for OUD treatment. Our findings can inform future program design to increase treatment access and engagement for individuals poorly served by traditional delivery models.

Adapting psychotherapy in collaborative care for treating opioid use disorder and co-occurring psychiatric conditions in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) and psychiatric conditions commonly co-occur yet are infrequently treated with evidence-based therapeutic approaches, resulting in poor outcomes. These conditions, separately, present challenges to treatment initiation, retention, and success. These challenges are compounded when individuals have OUD and psychiatric conditions. METHOD: Recognizing the complex needs of these individuals, gaps in care, and the potential for primary care to bridge these gaps, we developed a psychotherapy program that integrates brief, evidence-based psychotherapies for substance use, depression, and anxiety, building on traditional elements of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). In this article, we describe this psychotherapy program in a primary care setting as part of a compendium of collaborative services. RESULTS: Patients receive up to 12 sessions of evidence-based psychotherapy and case management based on a structured treatment manual that guides treatment via Motivational Enhancement; Cognitive Behavioral Therapies for depression, anxiety, and/or substance use disorder; and/or Behavioral Activation components. DISCUSSION: Novel, integrated treatments are needed to advance service delivery for individuals with OUD and psychiatric conditions and these programs must be rigorously evaluated. We describe our team's efforts to test our psychotherapy program in a large primary care network as part of an ongoing three-arm randomized controlled trial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Safety and preliminary outcomes of short-acting opioid agonist treatment (sOAT) for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently leave the hospital as patient directed discharges (PDDs) because of untreated withdrawal and pain. Short-acting opioids can complement methadone, buprenorphine, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain, however little evidence exists for this approach. We described the safety and preliminary outcomes of short-acting opioid agonist treatment (sOAT) for hospitalized patients with OUD at an academic hospital in Philadelphia, PA. METHODS: From August 2021 to March 2022, a pharmacist guided implementation of a pilot sOAT protocol consisting of escalating doses of oxycodone or oral hydromorphone scheduled every four hours, intravenous hydromorphone as needed, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain. All patients were encouraged to start methadone or buprenorphine treatment for OUD. We abstracted data from the electronic health record into a secure platform. The primary outcome was safety: administration of naloxone, over-sedation, or a fall. Secondary outcomes were PDDs and respective length of stay (LOS), discharges on methadone or buprenorphine, and discharges with naloxone. We compared secondary outcomes to hospitalizations in the 12 months prior to the index hospitalization among the same cohort. RESULTS: Of the 23 cases, 13 (56.5%) were female, 19 (82.6%) were 40 years or younger, and 22 (95.7%) identified as White. Twenty-one (91.3%) regularly injected opioids and four (17.3%) were enrolled in methadone or buprenorphine prior to hospitalization. sOAT was administered at median doses of 200-320 morphine milligram equivalents per 24-h period. Naloxone administration was documented once in the operating room, over-sedation was documented once after unsanctioned opioid use, and there were no falls. The PDD rate was 44% with median LOS 5 days (compared to PDD rate 69% with median LOS 3 days for prior admissions), 65% of sOAT cases were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone (compared to 33% for prior admissions), and 65% of sOAT cases were discharged with naloxone (compared to 19% for prior admissions). CONCLUSIONS: Pilot implementation of sOAT was safe. Compared to prior admissions in the same cohort, the PDD rate was lower, LOS for PDDs was longer, and more patients were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone and with naloxone, however efficacy for these secondary outcomes remains to be established.

Precipitated opioid withdrawal after buprenorphine administration in patients presenting to the emergency department: A case series.

Objectives: Buprenorphine is a highly effective medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder, but it can cause precipitated withdrawal (PW) from opioids. Incidence, risk factors, and best approaches to management of PW are not well understood. Our objective was to describe adverse outcomes after buprenorphine administration among emergency department (ED) patients and assess whether they met the criteria for PW. Methods: This study is a case series using retrospective chart review in a convenience sample of patients from 3 hospitals in an urban academic health system. This study included patients who were reported by clinicians as potential cases of PW. Relevant clinical data were abstracted from the electronic health record using a structured retrospective chart review instrument. Results: A total of 13 cases were included and classified into the following 3 categories: (1) PW after buprenorphine administration consistent with guidelines (n = 5), (2) PW after deviating from guidelines (n = 4), and (3) protracted opioid withdrawal with no increase in Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale score (n = 4). A total of 11 patients had urine drug testing positive for fentanyl, and 11 patients received additional doses of buprenorphine for symptom management. Of the patients, 5 had self-directed hospital discharges, and 6 were ultimately discharged with prescriptions for buprenorphine. Conclusions: Cases of adverse outcomes after buprenorphine administration in the ED and hospital meet criteria for PW, although some cases may have represented protracted opioid withdrawal. Further investigation into the incidence, risk factors, management of PW as well as patient perspectives is needed to expand and sustain the use of buprenorphine in EDs and hospitals.

Variability in opioid use disorder clinical presentations and treatment in the emergency department: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence for emergency department (ED)-initiated treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, implementation is variable, and ED management of OUD may differ by clinical presentation. Our aim was to use mixed methods to explore variation in ED-based OUD care by patient clinical presentation and understand barriers and facilitators to ED implementation of OUD treatment across scenarios. METHODS: We analyzed treatment outcomes in OUD-related visits within three urban, academic EDs from 12/2018 to 7/2020 following the implementation of interventions to increase ED-initiated OUD treatment. We assessed differences in treatment with medications for OUD (MOUDs) by clinical presentation (overdose, withdrawal, others). These data were integrated with results from 5 focus groups conducted with 28 ED physicians and nurses January to April 2020 to provide a richer understanding of clinician perspectives on caring for ED patients with OUD. RESULTS: Of the 1339 total opioid-related visits, there were 265 (20%) visits for overdose, 123 (9%) for withdrawal, and 951 (71%) for other OUD-related conditions. 23% of patients received MOUDs during their visit or at discharge. Treatment with MOUDs was least common in overdose presentations (6%) and most common in withdrawal presentations (69%, p < 0.001). Buprenorphine was prescribed at discharge in 15% of visits, including 42% of withdrawal visits, 14% of other OUD-related visits, and 5% of overdose visits (p < 0.001). In focus groups, clinicians highlighted variation in ED presentations among patients with OUD. Clinicians also highlighted key aspects necessary for successful treatment initiation including perceived patient receptivity, provider confidence, and patient clinical readiness. CONCLUSIONS: ED-based treatment of OUD differed by clinical presentation. Clinician focus groups identified several areas where targeted guidance or novel approaches may improve current practices. These results highlight the need for tailored clinical guidance and can inform health system and policy interventions seeking to increase ED-initiated treatment for OUD.

Motivation to Carry Naloxone: A Qualitative Analysis of Emergency Department Patients.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to explore perspectives of patients who received naloxone in the emergency department (ED) about (1) naloxone carrying and use following an ED visit and (2) motivation for performing these behaviors. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews of patients prescribed naloxone at ED discharge. SETTINGS: Three urban academic EDs in Philadelphia, PA. PARTICIPANTS: 25 participants completed the in-depth, semi-structured interviews and demographic surveys. Participants were majority male, African American, and had previously witnessed or experienced an overdose. METHODS: Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. We used a hybrid inductive-deductive approach that included prespecified and emergent themes. RESULTS: We found that naloxone carrying behavior was variable and influenced by four main motivators: (1) naloxone access; (2) personal experience and salience of naloxone, (3) comfort with naloxone administration, and (4) societal influences on naloxone carrying. In particular, those with personal history of overdose or close friends or family at risk were motivated to carry naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study reported several important motivators for naloxone carrying after an ED visit, including ease of naloxone access and comfort, perceived risk of experiencing or encountering an overdose, and social influences on naloxone carrying behaviors. EDs, health systems, and public health officials should consider these factors influencing motivation when designing future interventions to increase access, carrying, and use of naloxone.

Patient perspectives on naloxone receipt in the emergency department: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are important venues for the distribution of naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose, but less is known about patient perceptions on naloxone or best practices for patient education and communication. Our aim was to conduct an in-depth exploration of knowledge and attitudes toward ED naloxone distribution among patients who received a naloxone prescription. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 25 adult participants seen and discharged from three urban, academic EDs in Philadelphia, PA, with a naloxone prescription between November 2020 and February 2021. Interviews focused on awareness of naloxone as well as attitudes and experiences receiving naloxone in the ED. We used thematic content analysis to identify key themes reflecting patient attitudes and experiences. RESULTS: Of the 25 participants, 72% had previously witnessed an overdose and 48% had personally experienced a non-fatal overdose. Nineteen participants (76%) self-disclosed a history of substance use or overdose, and one reported receiving an opioid prescription during their ED visit and no history of substance use. In interviews, we identified wide variability in participant levels of knowledge about overdose risk, the role of naloxone in reducing risk, and naloxone access. A subset of participants was highly engaged with community harm reduction resources and well versed in naloxone access and use. A second subset was familiar with naloxone, but largely obtained it through healthcare settings such as the ED, while a final group was largely unfamiliar with naloxone. While most participants expressed positive attitudes about receiving naloxone from the ED, the quality of discussions with ED providers was variable, with some participants not even aware they were receiving a naloxone prescription until discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone prescribing in the ED was acceptable and valued by most participants, but there are missed opportunities for communication and education. These findings underscore the critical role that EDs play in mitigating risks for patients who are not engaged with other healthcare or community health providers and can inform future work about the effective implementation of harm reduction strategies in ED settings.

Integrating peer support services into primary care-based OUD treatment: Lessons from the Penn integrated model.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major public health emergency in the United States. In 2020, 2.7 million individuals had an OUD. Medication for opioid use disorder is the evidence-based, standard of care for treating OUD in outpatient settings, especially buprenorphine because it is effective and has low toxicity. Buprenorphine is increasingly prescribed in primary care, a setting that provides greater anonymity and convenience than substance use disorder treatment centers. Yet two-thirds of people who begin buprenorphine treatment discontinue within the first six months. Treatment dropout elevates the risks of return to use, infections, higher levels of medical care and related costs, justice system involvement, and death. One promising form of retention support is peer service programs. Peers combine their lived experience of substance use and recovery with formal training to help patients engage and persist in OUD treatment. They provide a range of services, including health education, encouragement and empathy, coping skills, recovery modeling, and concrete assistance in overcoming the situational barriers to retention. However, guidance is needed to define the peer role in primary care, the specific tasks peers should perform, the competencies those tasks require, training and professional development needs, and peer performance standards. Guidance also is needed to integrate peers into the care team, allocate and coordinate responsibilities among care team members, manage peer operations and workflow, and facilitate effective team communication. Here we describe a peer support program in the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS or Penn Medicine) network of primary care practices. This paper details the program's core components, values, and activities. We also report the organizational challenges, unresolved questions, and lessons for the field in administering a peer support program to meet the needs of patients served by a large, urban medical system with an extensive suburban and rural catchment area. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT04245423.

Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: A Physician Survey.

PURPOSE: To describe barriers to lung cancer screening (LCS) among family medicine and general internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and assess the association of barriers with discussion and referral for screening. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS AND SETTINGS: Random sample of primary care physicians (PCPs) in California. MEASURES: PCP practices for discussion and referral for LCS and ratings of LCS barriers. ANALYSIS: We performed exploratory factor analysis to identify four barrier constructs: (1) Physician Visit-Level Barriers to screening referral; (2) Physician System and Evidence Barriers; (3) Patient Cost Barrier; and (4) Other Patient Barriers. We then performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for physician and practice characteristics to assess the association between the physician-reported barriers and whether PCPs discussed or referred for LCS. RESULTS: 368 physicians responded (response rate 42%). Most worked in large metropolitan areas (80%) and large health systems (59%). After adjusting for physician and practice characteristics, we found that physician-reporting of System and Evidence Barriers was associated with lower odds of discussion or referral for LDCT (aOR .18, 95% CI 0.09-0.37), while physician-reported Visit-Level Barriers were associated with increased odds discussion or referral (aOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.30-5.04). CONCLUSIONS: While physicians reported numerous barriers to LCS, we found that barriers were differentially associated with discussion or referral for screening. As new LCS guidelines broaden screening eligibility, it is critical to address these barriers to achieve higher rates of evidence-based LCS.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Naloxone Acquisition and Carrying With an Automated Text Messaging System After Emergency Department Discharge in Philadelphia.

Importance: A central tenet of harm reduction and prevention of opioid overdose deaths is the distribution and use of naloxone. Patient-centered methods that investigate naloxone acquisition and carrying can guide opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution efforts. Objective: To assess patients' self-reported naloxone acquisition and carrying after an emergency department (ED) encounter using automated text messaging. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study investigated self-reported patient behaviors involving naloxone after ED discharge in a large, urban academic health system in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Adult patients who were prescribed or dispensed naloxone and who had a mobile phone number listed in the electronic health record provided informed consent after ED discharge, and data were collected prospectively using text messaging from October 10, 2020, to March 19, 2021. Patients who did not respond to the survey or who opted out were excluded. Exposure: Automated text message-based survey after ED discharge for patients who were prescribed or dispensed naloxone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported naloxone acquisition, carrying, and use. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographic characteristics. Results: Of 205 eligible patients, 41 (20.0%) completed the survey; of those patients, the mean (SD) age was 39.5 (13.7) years, and 21 (51.2%) were women. Fifteen (36.6%) had a personal history of being given naloxone after an overdose. As indicated by the ED record, 27 participants (65.9%) had naloxone dispensed in the ED, and 36 (87.8%) self-reported acquiring naloxone during or after their ED visit. Twenty-four participants (58.5%) were not carrying naloxone in the week before their ED visit. Twenty participants (48.8%) were carrying naloxone after the ED visit, and 27 (65.9%) reported planning to continue carrying naloxone in the future. Of the 24 individuals (58.5%) not carrying naloxone before their ED encounter, 13 (54.2%) reported planning to continue carrying naloxone in the future. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients dispensed or prescribed naloxone from the ED, most reported acquiring naloxone on or after discharge. The ED remains a key point of access to naloxone for individuals at high risk of opioid use and overdose, and text messaging could be a method to engage and motivate patient-reported behaviors in enhancing naloxone acquisition and carrying.

Substance Use and Overdose in Public Libraries: Results from a Five-State Survey in the US.

In the U.S., overdoses have become a health crisis in both public and private places. We describe the impact of the overdose crisis in public libraries across five U.S. states, and the front-line response of public library workers. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, inviting one worker to respond at each public library in five randomly selected states (CO, CT, FL, MI, and VA), querying participants regarding substance use and overdose in their communities and institutions, and their preparedness to respond. We describe substance use and overdose patterns, as well as correlates of naloxone uptake, in public libraries. Participating library staff (N = 356) reported witnessing alcohol use (45%) and injection drug use (14%) in their libraries in the previous month. Across states surveyed, 12% of respondents reported at least one on-site overdose in the prior year, ranging from a low of 10% in MI to a high of 17% in FL. There was wide variation across states in naloxone uptake at libraries, ranging from 0% of represented libraries in FL to 33% in CO. Prior on-site overdose was associated with higher odds of naloxone uptake by the library (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7). Although 24% of respondents had attended a training regarding substance use in the prior year, over 90% of respondents wanted to receive additional training on the topic. Public health professionals should partner with public libraries to expand and strengthen substance use outreach and overdose prevention efforts.