In-Hospital Methadone Enrollment: a Novel Program to Facilitate Linkage from the Hospital to the Opioid Treatment Program for Vulnerable Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Methadone ameliorates opioid withdrawal among hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). To continue methadone after hospital discharge, patients must enroll in an opioid treatment program (OTP) per federal regulations. Uncontrolled opioid withdrawal is a barrier to linkage from hospital to OTP. AIM: Describe a federally compliant In-Hospital Methadone Enrollment Team (IN-MEET) that enrolls hospitalized patients with OUD into an OTP with facilitated hospital to OTP linkage. SETTING: Seven hundred-bed university hospital in Aurora, CO. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A physician dually affiliated with a hospital's addiction consultation service and a community OTP completes an in-hospital, face-to-face medical assessment required by federal law and titrates methadone to comfort. An OTP-affiliated nurse with hospital privileges completes a psychosocial evaluation and provides case management by arranging transportation and providing weekly telephone check-ins. PROGRAM EVALUATION METRICS: IN-MEET enrollments completed, hospital to OTP linkage, and descriptive characteristics of patients who completed IN-MEET enrollments compared to patients who completed community OTP enrollments. RESULTS: Between April 2019 and April 2023, our team completed 165 IN-MEET enrollments. Among a subset of 73 IN-MEET patients, 56 (76.7%) presented to the OTP following hospital discharge. Compared to community OTP enrolled patients (n = 1687), a higher percentage of IN-MEET patients were older (39.7 years, standard deviation [SD] 11.2 years vs. 36.1 years, SD 10.6 years) and were unhoused (n = 43, 58.9% vs. n = 199, 11.8%). Compared to community OTP enrolled patients, a higher percentage of IN-MEET patients reported heroin or fentanyl as their primary substance (n = 53, 72.6% vs. n = 677, 40.1%), reported methamphetamine as their secondary substance (n = 27, 37.0% vs. n = 380, 22.5%), and reported they injected their primary substance (n = 46, 63.0% vs. n = 478, 28.3%). CONCLUSION: IN-MEET facilitates hospital to OTP linkage among a vulnerable population. This model has the potential to improve methadone access for hospitalized patients who may not otherwise seek out treatment.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Initiation and Continuation: a Qualitative Study of Patients Who Received Addiction Consultation and Hospital-Based Providers.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide OUD treatment to hospitalized patients, but barriers to initiating and continuing medications for OUD remain. We examined facilitators and barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation from the perspective of patients and healthcare workers in the context of an ACS. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we sought input using key informant interviews and focus groups from patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization and from hospitalists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurses who work in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using a directed content analysis. FINDINGS: We conducted 20 key informant interviews with patients, nine of whom were interviewed following hospital discharge and 12 of whom were interviewed during a rehospitalization. We completed six focus groups and eight key informant interviews with hospitalists and hospital-based medical staff (n = 62). Emergent themes related to hospital-based OUD treatment included the following: the benefit of an ACS to facilitate OUD treatment engagement; expanded use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal; the triad of hospitalization, self-efficacy, and easily accessible, patient-centered treatment motivates change in opioid use; adequate pain control and stabilization of mental health conditions among patients with OUD contributed to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) continuation; and stable housing and social support are prerequisites for OAT uptake and continuation. CONCLUSION: Modifiable factors which facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation include availability of in-hospital addiction expertise to offer easily accessible, patient-centered treatment and the use of methadone or buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal. Further research and public policy efforts are urgently needed to address reported barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation which include unstable housing, poorly controlled chronic medical and mental illness, and lack of social support.

The Development and Implementation of a Hospitalist-Directed Addiction Medicine Consultation Service to Address a Treatment Gap.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalizations related to the consequences of substance use are rising yet most hospitalized patients with substance use disorder do not receive evidence-based addiction treatment. Opportunities to leverage the hospitalist workforce could close this treatment gap. AIM: To describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a hospitalist-directed addiction consultation service (ACS) to provide in-hospital addiction treatment. SETTING: Six hundred fifty-bed university hospital in Aurora, Colorado. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Hospitalists completed buprenorphine waiver training, participated in a 13-part addiction lecture series, and completed a minimum of 40 hours of online addiction training. Hospitalists participated in shadow shifts with an addiction-trained physician. Dedicated addiction social workers developed relationships with local addiction treatment services. PROGRAM EVALUATION METRICS: Physician-related metrics included education, training, and clinical time spent in addiction practice. Patient and encounter-related metrics included a description of ACS care provision. RESULTS: Eleven hospitalists completed an average of 95 hours of addiction-related didactics. Once addiction training was complete, hospitalists spent an average of 30 days over 12 months staffing a weekday ACS. Between October 2019 and November 2020, the ACS completed 1620 consultations on 1350 unique patients. Alcohol was the most common substance (n = 1279; 79%), followed by tobacco (979; 60.4%), methamphetamines/amphetamines (n = 494; 30.5%), and opioids (n = 400; 24.7%). Naltrexone was the most frequently prescribed medication (n = 350; 21.6%), followed by acamprosate (n = 93; 5.7%), and buprenorphine (n = 77, 4.8%). Trauma was a frequent discharge diagnoses (n = 1564; 96.5%). Leaving prior to treatment completion was commonly noted (n = 120, 7.4%). The ACS completed 47 in-hospital methadone enrollments. DISCUSSION: The hospitalist-directed ACS is a promising clinical initiative that could be implemented to expand hospital-based addiction treatment. Future research is needed to understand challenges to disseminating this model into other hospital settings, and to evaluate intended and unintended effects of broad implementation.

Experiences with an addiction consultation service on care provided to hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder: a qualitative study of hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, and social workers.

Background: In response to the opioid epidemic, addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide dedicated hospital-based addiction treatment to patients with substance use disorder. We assessed hospitalist and medical staff perceptions of how the presence of 2 hospitals' ACS impacted care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We inquired about ongoing challenges in caring for this patient population.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of hospital-based providers utilizing focus groups and key informant interviews for data collection. Transcripts were analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Emergent themes were identified through an iterative, multidisciplinary team-based process using a directed content analysis approach.Results: Hospitalists (n = 20), nurses (n = 13), social workers (n = 11), and pharmacists (n = 18) from a university hospital and a safety-net hospital in Colorado participated in focus groups or key informant interviews. In response to the availability of an ACS, hospitalists described increased confidence using methadone and buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal, which they perceived as contributing to improved patient outcomes and greater job satisfaction. Participants expressed concern about inconsistent care provided to patients with OUD that varied by the admitting team's specialty and the physician's background and training. Nurses and hospitalists reported frustrations with achieving adequate pain control among patients with OUD. Last, pharmacists reported practice variations when physicians dosed buprenorphine for acute pain among patients with OUD. A lack of standardized dosing led to concerns of inadequate analgesia or return to opioid use following hospital discharge.Conclusions: An ACS reportedly supports hospitalists and medical staff to best care for hospitalized patients with OUD. Notably, care provided to patients with OUD may not be uniform depending on various physician-level factors. Future work to address the concerns reported by study participants may include education for OUD treatment, early involvement of the ACS, and incorporation of buprenorphine prescribing algorithms to standardize care.

The impact of access to addiction specialist on attitudes, beliefs and hospital-based opioid use disorder related care: A survey of hospitalist physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for complications related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Hospitalists care for most hospitalized patients in the United States, yet little is known about their attitudes, beliefs, and clinical practices regarding OUD-related care.Methods: We distributed an online survey to hospitalists in the United States to measure how access to addiction specialists affected attitudes and beliefs regarding hospital-based OUD care, OUD screening practices, naloxone prescribing, and buprenorphine initiation.Results: Among 262 respondents, 67.9% (n = 178) reported having access to addiction specialists. While 84.5% (n = 221) reported often or always caring for patients with OUD, 48.2% (n = 126) rarely or never screened for OUD, 57.1% (n = 149) rarely or never prescribed or recommended naloxone as harm reduction, and 88.9% (n = 233) rarely or never initiated buprenorphine. In multivariable analyses, compared to hospitalists without access to addiction specialists, hospitalist with access to addiction specialists were more likely to feel supported to screen and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 - 9.1; ρ < 0.001), to be aware of local treatment resources (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 - 6.3; ρ < 0.001), and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.7 - 5.6; ρ < 0.001).Conclusions: Many hospitalists do not provide life-saving treatment to patients with OUD. Access to addiction specialists may increase provision of OUD-related care by hospitalists.

Association Between In-Clinic Opioid Administration and Discharge Opioid Prescription in Urgent Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments increasingly use nonopioid analgesics to manage acute pain and minimize opioid-related harms. Urgent care centers are expanding to lower costs and provide efficient access to healthcare. General internists increasingly work in these acute care settings. Much is known about opioid prescribing in the primary care, inpatient, and emergency department setting. Little is known about opioid prescribing in the urgent care setting and associated outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between in-clinic opioid administration and opioid receipt at clinic discharge and on progression to chronic opioid use among urgent care patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, 20 years or older and not on opioid medications, who presented for care to an urgent care clinic within a safety-net healthcare system from June 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: We examined the association between the in-clinic administration of oral or intravenous opioids and opioid receipt at clinic discharge. We also examined the association between in-clinic opioid administration and progression to chronic opioid use after six months. KEY RESULTS: The study sample included 34,978 patients, of which 13.8% (n = 4842) received in-clinic opioids and 86.2% (n = 30,136) did not receive in-clinic opioids. After adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, and pain diagnosis, patients who received in-clinic opioids were more likely to receive opioids at discharge compared to patients who did not receive in-clinic opioids (aOR = 12.30, 95% CI 11.44-13.23). Among a selected cohort of patients, in-clinic opioid administration was associated with progression to chronic opioid use (aOR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.66-2.71). CONCLUSIONS: In-clinic opioid administration was strongly associated with opioid receipt at discharge and progression to chronic opioid use. Increased use of nonopioid analgesics in urgent care could likely reduce this association and limit opioids available for diversion, overdose, and death.

The Void in Clinician Counseling of Cannabis Use.

As more states legalize cannabis for medical use, people increasingly use cannabis to treat medical conditions. Well-documented harms of cannabis use include increased risk of fatal auto accidents, neurocognitive deficits, and increased risk of addiction. Observational data supports the use of cannabis for pain, nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy, and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms. Given potential harms versus benefits of cannabis use, how should physicians counsel patients regarding their cannabis use? This paper briefly reviews the evidence supporting medical cannabis use for pain. We consider cannabis use as a harm reduction strategy for pain management. We encourage routine, longitudinal assessments of cannabis use among patients. We discuss the commercialization of cannabis for financial gain, contributing to potent and addictive cannabis. We highlight the concerning phenomena of cannabis dispensary workers as proxy clinicians. Finally, we present three strategies to reduce public harms associated with potent cannabis use including required testing and reporting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol concentrations, rigorous study of high-potency cannabis available for purchase in dispensaries across the USA, and large-scale efforts to measure cannabis consumption in medical records so prospective, longitudinal studies can be conducted to correlate consumption measures with medical and psychiatric outcomes.

A population-based survey to assess the association between cannabis and quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: As more states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, people increasingly use cannabis to treat medical conditions and associated symptoms. The prevalence and utility of cannabis for cancer-related symptoms may be clarified by examining cannabis use among patients with a common cancer diagnosis. We aimed to determine the prevalence of cannabis use among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and its associations with quality of life (QoL) and cancer-related symptomatology. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patient-reported QoL outcomes and behaviors, including cannabis use, was conducted within the Patient Outcomes To Advance Learning network's (PORTAL) CRC Cohort. The cohort included a population-based sample of healthcare system members ≥18 years old diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum from 2010 through 2016. We assessed the association between cannabis use and QoL using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. RESULTS: Of the 1784 respondents, 293 (16.4%) reported cannabis use following CRC diagnosis. Current tobacco smokers were more likely to use cannabis compared to former or never tobacco smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56 to 4.70). Greater alcohol use (> 4 drinks per month versus ≤4 drinks per month) was associated with cannabis use (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.85). There was an association between cannabis use and cancer stage at diagnosis, with stage 3 or 4 CRC patients more likely to use cannabis than stage 1 or 2 CRC patients (aOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.25). After adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, stage and site of CRC diagnosis, and prescription opioid use, people who used cannabis had significantly lower QoL than people who did not use cannabis (difference of - 6.14, 95% CI - 8.07 to - 4.20). CONCLUSION: Among CRC survivors, cannabis use was relatively common, associated with more advanced stages of disease, associated with tobacco and alcohol use, and not associated with better QoL. Clinicians should inquire about cannabis use among their patients and provide evidence-based recommendations for cancer-related symptoms.

Development and evaluation of a standardized research definition for opioid overdose outcomes.

Background: Increasing epidemiologic and intervention research is being conducted on opioid overdose, a serious and potentially fatal outcome. However, there is little consensus on how to verify opioid overdose outcomes for research purposes. To ensure reproducibility, minimize misclassification, and permit data harmonization across studies, standardized and consistent overdose definitions are needed. The aims were to develop a case criteria classification scheme based on information commonly available in medical records and to compare it with reviewing physician clinical impression and simple encounter documentation. Methods: In 2 large health systems, we developed a case criteria classification scheme for opioid overdose based on prior literature, expert opinion, and pilot testing with sample medical records. We then identified emergency department and hospital encounters (n = 259) with at least 1 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code representing a broad range of opioid and non-opioid related poisonings. Physicians conducted structured medical record reviews to identify the proposed case criteria and generate a clinical impression, and trained abstractors verified documentation. We then compared the case criteria classification scheme with clinical impression and encounter documentation. Results: We developed a quantitative opioid overdose case criteria classification scheme that included 3 sets of major criteria and 9 minor criteria (supporting documentation). For the encounters identified using poisoning codes, the proportion verified as opioid overdoses using the case criteria classification scheme, clinical impression, and encounter documentation ranged from 50.4% to 52.7% at one site and 55.5% to 67.2% at the second site. Discrepancies across approaches and sites related to differences in available records and documentation of clinical signs of overdose. Conclusions: We propose a novel case criteria classification scheme for opioid overdose that could be used to rigorously and consistently define overdose across multiple research settings. However, prior to widespread use, further refinement and validation are needed.

Prediction Model for Two-Year Risk of Opioid Overdose Among Patients Prescribed Chronic Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone is a life-saving opioid antagonist. Chronic pain guidelines recommend that physicians co-prescribe naloxone to patients at high risk for opioid overdose. However, clinical tools to efficiently identify patients who could benefit from naloxone are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an overdose predictive model which could be used in primary care settings to assess the need for naloxone. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Derivation site was an integrated health system in Colorado; validation site was a safety-net health system in Colorado. PARTICIPANTS: We developed a predictive model in a cohort of 42,828 patients taking chronic opioid therapy and externally validated the model in 10,708 patients. MAIN MEASURES: Potential predictors and outcomes (nonfatal pharmaceutical and heroin overdoses) were extracted from electronic health records. Fatal overdose outcomes were identified from state vital records. To match the approximate shelf-life of naloxone, we used Cox proportional hazards regression to model the 2-year risk of overdose. Calibration and discrimination were assessed. KEY RESULTS: A five-variable predictive model showed good calibration and discrimination (bootstrap-corrected c-statistic = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.78) in the derivation site, with sensitivity of 66.1% and specificity of 66.6%. In the validation site, the model showed good discrimination (c-statistic = 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.80) and less than ideal calibration, with sensitivity and specificity of 82.2% and 49.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients on chronic opioid therapy, the predictive model identified 66-82% of all subsequent opioid overdoses. This model is an efficient screening tool to identify patients who could benefit from naloxone to prevent overdose deaths. Population differences across the two sites limited calibration in the validation site.

"Those Conversations in My Experience Don't Go Well": A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Provider Experiences Tapering Long-term Opioid Medications.

Objective: Given the risks of long-term opioid therapy, patients may benefit from tapering these medications. There is little evidence to guide providers' approach to this process. We explored primary care providers' experiences discussing and implementing opioid tapering with patients on long-term opioid therapy. Design: Qualitative study using six semistructured, in-person focus groups. Subject: Primary care providers (N = 40). Setting: Six academically affiliated primary care clinics in university, urban safety net, and Veterans Health Administration medical centers in Colorado. Methods: Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive approach in ATLAS.ti. Emergent themes were identified through an iterative, multidisciplinary team-based process. Results: We identified 1) strategies for identifying candidates for opioid tapering, 2) barriers to opioid tapering, and 3) facilitators of opioid tapering. Strategies for identifying candidates for opioid tapering included evidence of high-risk behavior, serious adverse events, opioid-related side effects, and patient preference. Barriers included the providers' emotional burden, inadequate resources, and a lack of trust between patient and provider. Facilitators of opioid tapering included empathizing with the patient's experience, preparing patients for opioid tapering, individualizing implementation of opioid tapering, and supportive guidelines and policies. Conclusions: While discussing and implementing opioid tapering present significant challenges, primary care providers described key facilitators. These findings suggest a need to develop and test the effectiveness of resources to support patient-centered opioid tapering and locally developed policies to support and standardize providers' approaches to opioid prescribing.

Opioid Prescribing at Hospital Discharge Contributes to Chronic Opioid Use.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid therapy for chronic pain treatment has increased. Hospital physicians, including hospitalists and medical/surgical resident physicians, care for many hospitalized patients, yet little is known about opioid prescribing at hospital discharge and future chronic opioid use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among 'opioid naïve' patients. Opioid naïve patients had not filled an opioid prescription at an affiliated pharmacy 1 year preceding their hospital discharge. We also set out to quantify the risk of chronic opioid use and opioid refills 1 year post discharge among opioid naïve patients with and without opioid receipt at discharge. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: From 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, 6,689 opioid naïve patients were discharged from a safety-net hospital. MAIN MEASURE: Chronic opioid use 1 year post discharge. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of opioid naïve patients (n = 1,688) had opioid receipt within 72 hours of discharge. Patients with opioid receipt were more likely to have diagnoses including neoplasm (6.3% versus 3.5%, p < 0.001), acute pain (2.7% versus 1.0 %, p < 0.001), chronic pain at admission (12.1% versus 3.3%, p < 0.001) or surgery during their hospitalization (65.1% versus 18.4%, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Patients with opioid receipt were less likely to have alcohol use disorders (15.7% versus 20.7%, p < 0.001) and mental health disorders (23.9% versus 31.4%, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Chronic opioid use 1 year post discharge was more common among patients with opioid receipt (4.1% versus 1.3%, p < 0.0001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Opioid receipt was associated with increased odds of chronic opioid use (AOR = 4.90, 95% CI 3.22-7.45) and greater subsequent opioid refills (AOR = 2.67, 95% CI 2.29-3.13) 1 year post discharge compared to no opioid receipt. CONCLUSION: Opioid receipt at hospital discharge among opioid naïve patients increased future chronic opioid use. Physicians should inform patients of this risk prior to prescribing opioids at discharge.

Patients' Perspectives on Tapering of Chronic Opioid Therapy: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE : There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit and growing evidence of the risks of chronic opioid therapy (COT). Opioid dose reduction, or opioid tapering, may reduce these risks but may also worsen pain and quality of life. Our objective was to explore patients' perspectives on opioid tapering. DESIGN : Qualitative study using in-person, semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PATIENTS : English-speaking, adult primary care patients (N = 24) in three Colorado health care systems. METHODS : Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti. We used a team-based, mixed inductive and deductive approach guided by the Health Belief Model. We iteratively refined emergent themes with input from a multidisciplinary team. RESULTS : Participants had a mean age of 52 years old, were 46% male and 79% white. Six participants (25%) were on COT and not tapering, 12 (50%) were currently tapering COT, and 6 (25%) had discontinued COT. Emergent themes were organized in four domains: risks, barriers, facilitators, and benefits. Patients perceived a low risk of overdose and prioritized the more immediate risk of increased pain with opioid tapering. Barriers included a perceived lack of effectiveness of nonopioid options and fear of opioid withdrawal. Among patients with opioid tapering experience, social support and a trusted health care provider facilitated opioid tapering. These patients endorsed improved quality of life following tapering. CONCLUSIONS : Efforts to support opioid tapering should elicit patients' perceived barriers and seek to build on relationships with family, peers, and providers to facilitate tapering. Future work should identify patient-centered, feasible strategies to support tapering of COT.

The Association Between Stimulant, Opioid, and Multiple Drug Use on Behavioral Health Care Utilization in a Safety-Net Health System.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies show an association between drug use and health care utilization. The relationship between specific drug type and emergent/urgent, inpatient, outpatient, and behavioral health care utilization has not been examined. We aimed to determine if multiple drug use was associated with increased utilization of behavioral health care. METHODS: To assess health care utilization, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who accessed health care at a safety-net medical center and affiliated clinics. Using electronic health records, we categorized patients who used stimulants, opioids, or multiple drugs based on urine toxicology screening tests and/or International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9). Remaining patients were categorized as patients without identified drug use. Health care utilization by drug use group and visit type was determined using a negative binomial regression model. Associations were reported as incidence rate ratios. Utilization was described by rates of health care-related visits for inpatient, emergent/urgent, outpatient, and behavioral health care among patients who used drugs, categorized by drug types, compared with patients without identified drug use. RESULTS: Of 95,198 index visits, 4.6% (n=4340) were by patients who used drugs. Opioid and multiple drug users had significantly higher rates of behavioral health care visits than patients without identified drug use (opioid incidence rate ratio [IRR]=7.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-13.8; multiple drug use IRR=5.6, 95% CI: 3.3-9.7). Patients who used stimulants were less likely to use behavioral health services (IRR=1.3, 95% CI: 0.9-2.0) when compared with opioid and multiple drug users, but were more likely to use inpatient (IRR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.4-1.8) and emergent/urgent care (IRR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.3-1.5) services as compared with patients without identified drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated medical and mental health care and drug treatment may reduce utilization of costly health care services and improve patient outcomes. How to capture and deliver primary care and behavioral health care to patients who use stimulants needs further investigation.

A Review of Opioid Overdose Prevention and Naloxone Prescribing: Implications for Translating Community Programming Into Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: As physicians have increased opioid prescribing, overdose deaths from pharmaceutical opioids have substantially increased in the United States. Naloxone hydrochloride (naloxone), an opioid antagonist, is the standard of care for treatment of opioid induced respiratory depression. Since 1996, community-based programs have offered overdose prevention education and distributed naloxone for bystander administration to people who use opioids, particularly heroin. There is growing interest in translating overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) into conventional medical settings for patients who are prescribed pharmaceutical opioids. For this review, we summarized and classified existing publications on overdose education and naloxone distribution to identify evidence of effectiveness and opportunities for translation into conventional medical settings. METHODS: For this review, we searched English language PubMed for articles on naloxone based on primary data collection from humans, including feasibility studies, program evaluations, surveys, qualitative studies, and studies comparing the effectiveness of different routes of naloxone administration. We also included cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS: We identified 41 articles that represented 5 categories: evaluations of OEND programs, effects of OEND programs on experiences and attitudes of participants, willingness of medical providers to prescribe naloxone, comparisons of different routes of naloxone administration, and the cost-effectiveness of naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research suggests that people who are at risk for overdose and other bystanders are willing and able to be trained to prevent overdoses and administer naloxone. Counseling patients about the risks of opioid overdose and prescribing naloxone is an emerging clinical practice that may reduce fatalities from overdose while enhancing the safe prescribing of opioids.

How Do I Manage Acute Pain for Patients Prescribed Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder?

AbstractA growing number of patients are prescribed buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). Consequently, clinicians are likely to encounter hospitalized patients with acute surgical or nonsurgical pain who are also prescribed buprenorphine for OUD. This scenario evokes the clinical question of how to adequately manage acute pain among hospitalized patients receiving buprenorphine for OUD. This article reviews buprenorphine's pharmacology, describes various buprenorphine products used to treat pain and OUD, and provides pain management recommendations for patients prescribed buprenorphine in the setting of acute surgical and nonsurgical pain.

Unintended consequences of methadone regulation for opioid use disorder treatment among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, there are no federal restrictions on the use of methadone to manage opioid withdrawal symptoms when patients are hospitalized with a medical or surgical condition other than addiction. In contrast, in an outpatient setting, methadone for opioid use disorder (OUD) is highly regulated by federal and state governments and can only be dispensed from an opioid treatment program (OTP). Discrepancies in regulatory requirements across these settings may lead to barriers in care for patients with OUD. OBJECTIVE: Identify how methadone regulation impacts the care of patients with OUD during hospitalization, care transitions, and in the OTP setting. METHODS: We completed 26 interviews with clinicians and social workers working on hospital-based addiction consultation services across the United States. Study findings are the result of a secondary content analysis of interviews to identifying the word "methadone" and construct themes resulting from the data. RESULTS: We identified three major themes related to "methadone" for OUD treatment, all of which impacted patient care: (1) limited OTP hours leads to tenuous or delayed hospital discharges; (2) inadequate information-sharing between hospitals and OTPs leads to delays in care; and (3) methadone regulations create treatment barriers for the most vulnerable patients. CONCLUSION: Strict methadone regulations have resulted in unintended consequences for patients with OUD in the hospital setting, during care transitions, and in the OTP setting. Recent and ongoing federal efforts to reform methadone provision may improve some of the reported challenges, but significant hurdles remain in providing safe, equitable care to hospitalized patients with OUD.

The Impact of Completing X-Waiver Training and Clinical Addiction Exposure on Internal Medicine Residents Treating Patients With Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Treating opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine or methadone significantly reduces overdose and all-cause mortality. Prior studies demonstrate that clinicians and residents reported a lack of preparedness to diagnose or treat OUD. Little is known about how clinical exposure or buprenorphine X-waiver training impacts OUD care delivery by resident physicians. OBJECTIVE: Distinguish the effects of X-waiver training and clinical exposure with OUD on resident's knowledge, attitudes, feelings of preparedness, and practices related to OUD treatment provision. METHODS: From August 2021 to April 2022, we distributed a cross-sectional survey to internal medicine residents at a large academic training program. We analyzed associations between self-reported clinical exposure and X-waiver training across 4 domains: knowledge about best practices for OUD treatment, attitudes about patients with OUD, preparedness to treat OUD, and clinical experience with OUD. RESULTS: Of the 188 residents surveyed, 91 responded (48%). A majority of respondents had not completed X-waiver training (60%, n = 55) while many had provided clinical care to patients with OUD (65%, n = 59). Most residents had favorable attitudes about OUD treatment (97%). Both residents with clinical exposure to treating OUD and X-waiver training, and residents with clinical exposure without X-waiver training, felt more prepared to treat OUD (P < .0008) compared to residents with neither clinical exposure or X-waiver training or only X-waiver training. CONCLUSIONS: Residents with clinical exposure to treating OUD are more prepared to treat patients with OUD than those without clinical exposure. Greater efforts to incorporate clinical exposure to the treatment of OUD and education in internal medicine residency programs is imperative to address the opioid epidemic.

Barriers to initiate buprenorphine and methadone for opioid use disorder treatment with postdischarge treatment linkage.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are an essential site of care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine and methadone are underutilized in the hospital. OBJECTIVES: Characterize barriers to in-hospital buprenorphine or methadone initiation to inform implementation strategies to increase OUD treatment provision. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey of hospital-based clinicians' perceptions of OUD treatment from 12 hospitals conducted between June 2022 and August 2022. MEASURES: Survey questions were grouped into six domains: (1) evidence to treat OUD, (2) hospital processes to treat OUD, (3) buprenorphine or methadone initiation, (4) clinical practices to treat OUD, (5) leadership prioritization of OUD treatment, and (6) job satisfaction. Likert responses were dichotomized and associations between "readiness" to initiate buprenorphine or methadone and each domain were assessed. RESULTS: Of 160 respondents (60% response rate), 72 (45%) reported higher readiness to initiate buprenorphine compared to methadone, 55 (34%). Respondents with higher readiness to initiate medications for OUD were more likely to perceive that evidence supports the use of buprenorphine and methadone to treat OUD (p < .001), to perceive fewer barriers to treat OUD (p < .001), to incorporate OUD treatment into their clinical practice (p < .001), to perceive leadership support for OUD treatment (p < .007), and to have great job satisfaction (p < .04). Clinicians reported that OUD treatment protocols with treatment linkage, increased education, and addiction specialist support would facilitate OUD treatment provision. CONCLUSION: Interventions that incorporate protocols to initiate medications for OUD, include addiction specialist support and education, and ensure postdischarge OUD treatment linkage could facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment provision.