Recruiting and Retaining a Diverse and Skilled Addiction Treatment Workforce.

National drug overdose deaths have been rising for decades, with particularly significant increases in recent years among populations of color. There is an urgent need for timely, accessible substance use disorder treatment, but workforce shortages across roles and settings impede the ability of the treatment system to meet the rising and evolving demand. In this Commentary, the authors discuss reasons for workforce shortages across roles, and offer recommendations for 8 areas of investment to grow and sustain a substance use and addiction care workforce prepared to address the overdose crisis in a racially equitable manner.

A Cost Model for a Low-Threshold Clinic Treating Opioid Use Disorder.

The US fee-for-service payment system under-reimburses clinics offering access to comprehensive treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD). The funding shortfall limits a clinic's ability to expand and improve access, especially for socially marginalized patients with OUD. New payment models, however, should reflect the high variation in cost for using a clinic's clinical and voluntary psychosocial and recovery support services. The authors applied time-driven activity-based costing, a patient-level, micro-costing approach, to estimate the cost at an outpatient clinic that delivers medication for opiate used disorder (MOUD) and voluntary psychosocial and recovery support services. Much of the cost variation could be explained by classifying patients into three archetypes: (1) light touch (1-3 visits): no significant co-occurring psychiatric illness, stable housing, and easy to connect for ongoing OUD treatment in a traditional outpatient setting; (2) standard (average of 8 visits): initially requires an integrated team-based care model but soon stabilizes for transition to community-based outpatient care; (3) quad morbidity (> 20 visits): multiple co-occurring substance use disorders, unhoused, co-occurring medical and psychiatric complexity, and limited social supports. With the cost of the initial visit set at an indexed value of 100, an average light touch patient had a cost of 352, a standard patient was 718, and a quad morbidity patient was 1701. The cost structure revealed by this analysis provides the foundation for alternative payment models that would enable new MOUD clinics, staffed with multi-disciplinary care teams, and located for convenient access by high-risk patients, to be established and sustained.

Rapid Methadone Induction in a General Hospital Setting: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient methadone guidelines recommend starting at a low dose and titrating slowly. As fentanyl prevalence and opioid-related mortality increases, there is a need for individuals to rapidly achieve a therapeutic methadone dose. Hospitalization offers a monitored setting for methadone initiation, however dosing practices and safety are not well described. METHODS: Retrospective, observational analysis of hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder seen by an inpatient addiction consult team in an academic medical center who were newly initiated on methadone between 2016 and 2022. We calculated initial daily dose, maximum daily dose, timing interval of dose escalation, whether patients were connected to an opioid treatment program (OTP) prior to discharge, whether adverse effects or safety events occurred during the hospitalization, and whether such events were definitely or probably related versus possibly related or unrelated to methadone. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included. The mean initial daily methadone dose administered was 32 mg (range: 10-90 mg). The mean maximum dose reached was 76.8 mg (range 30-165 mg). The mean number of days from initial to peak dose was 5.6 days (range 1-19 days). Overall, 30% of patients experienced a safety event, most commonly sedation. Only 4 safety events were deemed probably or definitely related to methadone. In regression analyses, there was no significant difference between starting doses among patients with or without sedation but there was a relationship between last dose and the likelihood of any possibly related event, with those ending at a dose of 100 mg or higher having a higher likelihood event, compared to those ending at lower doses (47.8% vs 12.4%, P < .001). Seventy-six percent were connected to OTP before discharge. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized patients initiating methadone, rapid dose titration was infrequently associated with related safety events and most were connected to community-based methadone treatment before discharge.

Attitudes Toward Injection Practices Among People Who Inject Drugs Utilizing Medical Services: Opportunities for Harm Reduction Counseling in Health Care Settings.

Hospitals are an important setting to provide harm reduction services to people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to characterize PWID's injection practices, the perceived risk and benefits of those practices, and the immediate IDU risk environment among individuals seeking medical care. Surveys were administered to 120 PWID seeking medical services at an urban hospital. Poisson regression was used to examine the effect of perceived risk or importance of injection practices on the rate of engaging in those practices. The mean participant reported "often" reusing syringes and "occasionally" cleaning their hands or skin prior to injection. 78% of participants reported that syringes were extremely risky to share, which was associated with lower likelihood of sharing them (ARR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.95). 38% of participants reported it was extremely important to use a new syringe for each injection, and these participants were more likely to report never reusing syringes >5 times (ARR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.11-2.35). Other factors that may influence injection practices-including fear of arrest, withdrawal, lack of access to supplies, and injecting outdoors-were common among participants. In conclusion, practices that place PWID at risk of injury and infection are common, and risk-benefit perception is associated with some, but not all, injection practices. Injecting in challenging environments and conditions is common. Therefore, harm reduction counseling in medical settings must be accompanied by other strategies to reduce risk, including facilitating access to supplies. Ultimately, structural interventions, such as affordable housing, are needed to address the risk environment.

The Incidence and Disparities in Use of Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Notes for Patients With Substance Use Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The language used to describe people with substance use disorder impacts stigma and influences clinical decision making. This study evaluates the presence of stigmatizing language (SL) in clinical notes and detects patient- and provider-level differences. METHODS: All free-text notes generated in a large health system for patients with substance-related diagnoses between December 2020 and November 2021 were included. A natural language processing algorithm using the National Institute on Drug Abuse's "Words Matter" list was developed to identify use of SL in context. RESULTS: There were 546,309 notes for 30,391 patients, of which 100,792 (18.4%) contained SL. A total of 18,727 patients (61.6%) had at least one note with SL. The most common SLs used were "abuse" and "substance abuse." Nurses were least likely to use SL (4.1%) while physician assistants were most likely (46.9%). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have SL in their notes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.17; 95% confidence internal [CI], 1.11-1.23), younger patients aged 18 to 24 were less likely to have SL than patients 45 to 54 years (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61), Asian patients were less likely to have SL than White patients (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), and Hispanic patients were less likely to have SL than non-Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with substance-related diagnoses had at least one note containing SL. There were also several patient characteristic disparities associated with patients having SL in their notes. The work suggests that more clinician interventions about use of SL are needed.

Preliminary feasibility of integrating tobacco treatment into SUD peer recovery coaching: a mixed-methods study of peer recovery coaches.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) have high prevalence of cigarette smoking and difficulty quitting. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs; individuals with lived SUD experience) facilitate SUD behavior change in recoverees but it is unknown if/how they address tobacco treatment in SUD recovery coaching. We assessed PRC's tobacco-related practices and attitudes about tobacco treatment in SUD recovery. METHODS: The Tobacco use In Peer-recovery Study (TIPS) was a cross-sectional mixed-methods pilot survey (January-March 2022) of the 26 PRCs employed by a Massachusetts-based healthcare system's 12 SUD treatment clinics/programs. PRCs completed a quantitative survey (n = 23/26; 88%) and a telephone-based qualitative interview (n = 20/26; 77%). RESULTS: One-third of PRCs reported current smoking, 50% reported former smoking, and 18% never smoked. Among PRCs, 61% reported accompanying recoverees outdoors to smoke, 26% smoked with recoverees, 17% had provided cigarettes to recoverees, 32% used smoking to help build peer-relationships, and 74% rated smoking as socially acceptable in SUD treatment. PRCs reported regularly talking to recoverees about tobacco treatment (65%), believed they should have a role in helping recoverees quit smoking (52%), and were interested in tobacco treatment training (65%). A majority of both nonsmoking and current smoking PRCs (73% vs. 57%) regularly talked to recoverees about quitting smoking. CONCLUSION: PRCs' attitudes about integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery coaching were generally positive and PRCs reported they could have a role in helping recoverees with tobacco treatment. Barriers to integrating tobacco treatment into SUD recovery include use of cigarettes as a peer-recovery tool and high prevalence and social acceptability of smoking in SUD recovery.

Substance use disorder bridge clinics: models, evidence, and future directions.

BACKGROUND: The opioid overdose and polysubstance use crises have led to the development of low-barrier, transitional substance use disorder (SUD) treatment models, including bridge clinics. Bridge clinics offer immediate access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and other SUD treatment and are increasingly numerous. However, given relatively recent implementation, the clinical impact of bridge clinics is not well described. METHODS: In this narrative review, we describe existing bridge clinic models, services provided, and unique characteristics, highlighting how bridge clinics fill critical gaps in the SUD care continuum. We discuss available evidence for bridge clinic effectiveness in care delivery, including retention in SUD care. We also highlight gaps in available data. RESULTS: The first era of bridge clinic implementation has yielded diverse models united in the mission to lower barriers to SUD treatment entry, and preliminary data indicate success in patient-centered program design, MOUD initiation, MOUD retention, and SUD care innovation. However, data on effectiveness in linking to long-term care are limited. CONCLUSIONS: Bridge clinics represent a critical innovation, offering on-demand access to MOUD and other services. Evaluating the effectiveness of bridge clinics in linking patients to long-term care settings remains an important research priority; however, available data show promising rates of treatment initiation and retention, potentially the most important metric amidst an increasingly dangerous drug supply.

Individuals Reporting Past 3-month Smoked Stimulant Use Are Placed at Risk for Infection and Injury Amid COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking stimulants, such as methamphetamine and "crack" cocaine, can spread infections, including hepatitis C and COVID-19, and lead to injuries, particularly when individuals share or use makeshift pipes. The purpose of the study was to assess the practices of people who inhale ("smoke") stimulants to guide future clinical harm reduction efforts. METHODS: Anonymous surveys were administered to participants reporting inhalation of crack cocaine and/or methamphetamine in the past 3 months. Participants were eligible if they sought services from an outreach team staffed by a municipal syringe service program (SSP) or if they were patients at a low-threshold substance use disorder treatment program, the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 68 total participants, 30% of whom were recruited in the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic and 70% through SSP outreach. Unsafe smoking practices were reported by 93% of participants. Among the 46% of participants surveyed who both smoked and injected stimulants, 61% of those participants stated that they injected instead of smoked stimulants because of lack of access to pipes. Amid COVID-19, 35% of participants adopted safer smoking practices. Most participants reported that they would be more likely to attend an SSP or health center if pipes were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalational practices that place participants at risk of injury and illness are common. Providing safer smoking equipment may promote health and engage individuals in care.

Multidisciplinary team approach to confront the challenge of drug use-associated infective endocarditis.

OBJECTIVES: Drug use-associated infective endocarditis is a rapidly growing clinical problem. Although operative outcomes are generally satisfactory, reinfection secondary to recurrent substance use is distressingly common, negatively affects long-term survival, generates practical and ethical challenges, and creates potential conflict among care team members. We established a Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment team including surgeons, infectious disease, and addiction medicine experts specifically focused on the unique complexities of drug use-associated infective endocarditis. METHODS: We reviewed the impact of Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment team involvement on quantitative measures of quality of care, including length of stay, time to addiction medicine consultation, time to surgery, and discharge on appropriate medications for opioid use disorder, as well as operative mortality. Standard statistical tests were used, including the Fisher exact test, t test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Qualitative assessment was made of the impact on clinicians, including communication and mutual understanding. RESULTS: Comparing the pre-Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment cohort with the post-Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment cohort, patients in the post-Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment cohort who underwent surgery had a significantly lower time from admission to addiction medicine consultation (3.8 vs 1.0 days P < .001) and clinically relevant increase in discharge on medications for opioid use disorder (48% vs 67% P = .35). Additionally, involved members of the team thought communication was improved. CONCLUSIONS: The Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment team improved engagement with addiction medicine consultation and appropriate discharge care. Given the impact of relapse of injection drug use on long-term outcomes, interventions such as this offer potentially powerful tools for the treatment of this complex patient population.

Subcutaneous Extended-release Buprenorphine Depot Misdiagnosed as an Abscess Resulting in Incision and Drainage and Disruption of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment.

Monthly extended-release buprenorphine subcutaneous injection (BUP-XR) is a newer treatment formulation for use in moderate to severe opioid use disorder. After injection into the subcutaneous tissue of the abdomen, the medication forms a depot to allow for slow release of buprenorphine. As such, a small yet visible and palpable nodule is normal and is expected to decrease in size over the following weeks to months. Given the newness of this medication, it is possible that not all healthcare providers are familiar with this formulation, nor will they interpret the BUP-XR depot as normal findings. Herein, we provide a case report where a patient's BUP-XR depot was misdiagnosed as an abscess, resulting in incision and drainage and disruption of life-saving opioid use disorder treatment. To prevent cases like this in the future, it is important that providers administering BUP-XR properly educate patients on what to expect during treatment with BUP-XR and when to seek care for potential abnormalities. In addition, it is critical that healthcare providers working in other treatment settings are aware of how to properly evaluate BUP-XR injection sites.

Predictors of engagement and retention in care at a low-threshold substance use disorder bridge clinic.

INTRODUCTION: People with substance user disorder (SUD) have frequent intersections with the health care system; however, engagement and retention in SUD care remain low, particularly for marginalized populations. Low-threshold treatment models that aim to eliminate barriers to care are one proposed intervention to increase access and equity in SUD treatment. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cohort study of patients treated at a low-threshold bridge clinic from 2016 to 2021. The study's primary aim was to describe patient characteristics associated with engagement, defined as two or more completed visits, and treatment retention at 60 days, defined as a completed visit 45-to-75 days after first visit. A secondary outcome was transfer to ongoing treatment after bridge clinic. The study analyzed multivariable models assessing demographic and clinical predictors for each outcome using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The study found that 1857 patients completed 2730 care episodes. The mean age was 38.7 years old, 70 % were male, 30 % female, 79 % White, 7 % Black, 9 % Latinx, and 97 % spoke English. Opioid use disorder (OUD) was the most common type of SUD, seen among 84 % of episodes, followed by alcohol (30 %), and stimulant use disorder (28 %). Seventy percent of bridge clinic episodes of care resulted in engagement, 38 % were retained at 60 days, and 28 % had transfer to care documented. In adjusted analyses, engagement was lower for Black patients compared to White patients and higher for patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone. Retention for Black patients was also lower compared to White patients and higher for patients who were unhoused and patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone. Transfer of care was more likely among patients who received buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: At a low-threshold bridge clinic 70 % of patients successfully engaged in care and 38 % were retained at two months. While OUD and AUD were most prevalent, stimulant use was common in this population. Patients who received buprenorphine or naltrexone had higher engagement, and retention, and those receiving buprenorphine also had higher care transfer. Black patients had lower rates of engagement and retention. Treatment providers need to adopt low-threshold SUD care models to eliminate racial disparities and address the needs of people using stimulants.

Redefining Child Protection: Addressing the Harms of Structural Racism and Punitive Approaches for Birthing People, Dyads, and Families Affected by Substance Use.

There has been growing attention on the effect of substance use, including opioid use disorder, on pregnant and birthing people and their infants. Although effective medication treatment for opioid use disorder is the standard of care, racial disparities are evident in access during pregnancy. Structural racism affects treatment access and approaches to reporting to child welfare services. Black people and their newborns are more likely to be drug tested in medical settings, and Black newborns are more likely to be reported to child welfare services. Child welfare models often focus on substance use as being the dominant issue that drives risk for abuse or neglect of a child, and current reporting practices, which vary by state, contribute to these disparities. This commentary proposes an alternate way of thinking about family-based support. We suggest changes to law, institutional policy, clinical care, and ideology. Specifically, we propose realigning around shared goals of supporting the birthing person-infant dyad and recognizing that substance use is not synonymous with abuse or neglect; creating an anonymous notification process outside of the child welfare system to meet federal data-collection requirements; limiting perinatal drug testing and requiring written, informed consent for parental and neonatal testing; and developing integrated care teams and hospital settings and policies that support dyadic care.

Trends in buprenorphine treatment disparities during the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts.

Background: Racial, sex, and age disparities in buprenorphine treatment have previously been demonstrated. We evaluated trends in buprenorphine treatment disparities before and after the onset of the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts. Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from an integrated health system comparing 12-months before and after the March 2020 Massachusetts COVID state of emergency declaration, excluding March as a washout period. Among patients with a clinical encounter during the study periods with a diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid poisoning, we extracted outpatient buprenorphine prescription rates by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and language. Generating univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, we calculated the probability of receiving buprenorphine. Results: Among 4,530 patients seen in the period before the COVID emergency declaration, 57.9% received buprenorphine. Among 3,653 patients seen in the second time period, 55.1% received buprenorphine. Younger patients (<24) had a lower likelihood of receiving buprenorphine in both time periods (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR), 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75 before vs. aPR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96 after). Male patients had a greater likelihood of receiving buprenorphine compared to female patients in both time periods (aPR: 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11 vs. aPR: 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). Racial disparities emerged in the time period following the COVID pandemic, with non-Hispanic Black patients having a lower likelihood of receiving buprenorphine compared to non-Hispanic white patients in the second time period (aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99). Conclusions: Following the onset of the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts, ongoing racial, age, and gender disparities were evident in buprenorphine treatment with younger, Black, and female patients less likely to be treated with buprenorphine across an integrated health system.

Evaluating disparities in prescribing of naloxone after emergency department treatment of opioid overdose.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who initially survive opioid-related overdose are at high risk for subsequent mortality. Our health system aimed to evaluate the presence of disparities in prescribing naloxone following opioid overdose. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients seen in our health system, which comprises two academic centers and eight community hospitals. Eligible patients had at least one visit to any of our hospital's emergency departments (EDs) with a diagnosis code indicating opioid-related overdose between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021. The primary outcome measure was prescription of nasal naloxone after at least one visit for opioid-related overdose during the study period. RESULTS: The health system had 1348 unique patients who presented 1593 times to at least one of the EDs with opioid overdose. Of included patients, 580 (43.2%) received one or more prescriptions for naloxone. The majority (68.9%, n = 925) were male. For race/ethnicity, 74.5% (1000) were Non-Hispanic White, 8.0% (n = 108) were Non-Hispanic Black, and 13.0% (n = 175) were Hispanic/Latinx. Compared with the reference age group of 16-24 years, only those 65+ were less likely to receive naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.84). The study found no difference for gender (male aOR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97-1.57 compared to female). Hispanic/Latinx patients were more likely to receive a prescription when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.22-2.44), while no difference occurred between Non-Hispanic Black compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 0.87-1.98). CONCLUSIONS: Naloxone prescribing after overdose in our system was suboptimal, with fewer than half of patients with an overdose diagnosis code receiving this lifesaving and evidence-based intervention. Patients who were Hispanic/Latinx were more likely to receive naloxone than other race and ethnicity groups, and patients who were older were less likely to receive it. Health systems need ongoing equity-informed implementation of programs to expand access to naloxone to all patients at risk.

Diagnosis and Management of Infective Endocarditis in People Who Inject Drugs: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

The incidence of injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis has been increasing rapidly over the last decade. Patients with drug use-associated infective endocarditis present an increasingly common clinical challenge with poor long-term outcomes and high reinfection and readmission rates. Their care raises issues unique to this population, including antibiotic selection and administration, indications for and ethical issues surrounding surgical intervention, and importantly management of the underlying substance use disorder to minimize the risk of reinfection. Successful treatment of these patients requires a broad understanding of these concerns. A multidisciplinary, collaborative approach providing a holistic approach to treating both the acute infection along with effectively addressing substance use disorder is needed to improve short-term and longer-term outcomes.

Creation of a Multidisciplinary Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment (DUET) Team: Initial Patient Characteristics, Outcomes, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend multidisciplinary models to manage infective endocarditis, yet often do not address the unique challenges of treating people with drug use-associated infective endocarditis (DUA-IE). Our center is among the first to convene a Drug Use Endocarditis Treatment (DUET) team composed of specialists from Infectious Disease, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cardiology, and Addiction Medicine. METHODS: The objective of this study was to describe the demographics, infectious characteristics, and clinical outcomes of the first cohort of patients cared for by the DUET team. This was a retrospective chart review of patients referred to the DUET team between August 2018 and May 2020 with DUA-IE. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were presented to the DUET team between August 2018 and May 2020. The cohort was young, with a median age of 35, and injected primarily opioids (82.5% heroin/fentanyl), cocaine (52.6%), and methamphetamine (15.8%). Overall, 14 individuals (24.6%) received cardiac surgery, and the remainder (75.4%) were managed with antimicrobial therapy alone. Nearly 65% of individuals were discharged on medication for opioid use disorder, though less than half (36.8%) were discharged with naloxone and only 1 patient was initiated on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Overall, the cohort had a high rate of readmission (42.1%) within 90 days of discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary care models such as the DUET team can help integrate nuanced decision-making from numerous subspecialties. They can also increase the uptake of addiction medicine and harm reduction tools, but further efforts are needed to integrate harm reduction strategies and improve follow-up in future iterations of the DUET team model.