Separate But Not Equal? A Cross-Sectional Study of Segregation by Payor Mix in Academic Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: At some US Academic Health Centers (AHCs), patients with predominantly Medicaid insurance are seen in one clinic and patients with other insurance are seen in another. The extent of this practice and implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of AHCs that have at least two primary care internal medicine clinics that differ substantially in proportion of patients with Medicaid and to compare patient demographic, staffing, and operational features. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine chiefs and clinic directors at 40 randomly selected US AHCs plus the top 10 AHCs in terms of NIH funding. MAIN MEASURE: An AHC was classified as maintaining clinics that differed substantially in the proportion of patients with Medicaid if any two differed by ≥ 40% (absolute). Other criteria were used for pre-specified secondary analyses (e.g., ≥ 30%). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 50 AHCs (78%) participated. Four of 39 (10%; 95% CI, 3 to 24%) had two clinics differing by ≥ 40% in the proportion of patients with Medicaid, eight (21%; 95% CI, 9 to 36%) had clinics differing by ≥ 30%, and 15 (38%; 95% CI, 23 to 55%) had clinics differing by ≥ 20%. Clinics with more patients with Medicaid by any of the three criteria were more likely to employ resident physicians as providers of longitudinal care (with faculty supervision) and more likely to have patients who were Black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Some US AHCs maintain separate clinics defined by the proportion of patients with Medicaid. Clinics with a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid are more likely to employ residents (with faculty oversight), feature residents as providers of longitudinal care, and serve patients who are Black and Hispanic. Further research is needed to understand why some AHCs have primary care clinics distinguishable by insurance mix with the goal of ensuring that racism and discrimination are not root causes.

Change in Alcohol Use Based on Self-Report and a Quantitative Biomarker, Phosphatidylethanol, in People With HIV.

The timeline followback (TLFB) takes more resources to collect than the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C). We assessed agreement of TLFB and AUDIT-C with the biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) and compared changes in TLFB and PEth among persons with HIV (PWH) using secondary data from randomized trials. We calculated operating characteristics and agreement between TLFB (> 1 and > 2 average drinks/day), AUDIT-C ≥ 4 and PEth ≥ 20 among 275 men with HIV. Median age was 57 years, 80% were African-American; and 17% white. Sixty-eight percent had PEth ≥ 20, 46% reported > 2 average drinks/day on TLFB, 61% reported > 1 average drinks/day on TLFB, and 72% had an AUDIT-C ≥ 4. Relative to PEth, sensitivity for AUDIT-C ≥ 4 was 84% (kappa = 0.36), and for TLFB > 1 average drink/day was 76% (kappa = 0.44). Change in alcohol use appeared greater using TLFB measures than PEth. Strategies to robustly assess alcohol use in PWH may require both self-report and biomarkers.

Characterizing the social support and functioning of a low-threshold medication for opioid use disorder treatment cohort at intake.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing morbidity and mortality rates associated with opioid use disorder, a large gap still exists between treatment need and capacity. Low-threshold clinics utilizing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment can increase treatment access but are understudied, and little is known about how patient demographic characteristics are associated with their social support and functioning in these settings. METHODS: We used multivariate regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics and self-reported social support or functioning indicators among patients receiving MOUD in a low-threshold clinic using several validated instruments administered at intake: Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, and Life Events Checklist for DSM-5. Patients initiating MOUD treatment between April 1 and December 31, 2017, with complete surveys were included (N=582). RESULTS: Patients were primarily male (62%), aged 34 or older (53%), non-Hispanic White (79%), separated or not married (86%), and unemployed (64%). Over 20% did not live in a house or apartment in the past month. Women were more likely to "get along" with people outside their family or in social situations and to identify their partner as their source of support. Women, non-White, and older patients were at higher risk of social functioning-disrupting events (physical/sexual assaults or experiencing chronic pain), while employment and housing were protective against exposure to these trauma-related events. However, employment and housing also decreased the odds of talking with others about substance use. The aforementioned results were obtained from multivariate logistic regression models and were significant to p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in support and functioning by demographic characteristics suggests that treatment facilities may benefit from adopting strategies that take baseline disparities in support and functioning into account.

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.

Validating Self-Reported Unhealthy Alcohol Use With Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) Among Patients With HIV.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare self-reported alcohol consumption using Timeline Followback (TLFB) to biomarker-based evidence of significant alcohol use (phosphatidylethanol [PEth] > 20 ng/ml). Using data from patients with HIV (PWH) entering a clinical trial, we asked whether TLFB could predict PEth > 20 ng/ml and assessed the magnitude of association between TLFB and PEth level. METHODS: We defined unhealthy alcohol use as any alcohol use in the presence of liver disease, at-risk drinking, or alcohol use disorder. Self-reported alcohol use obtained from TLFB interview was assessed as mean number of drinks/day and number of heavy drinking days over the past 21 days. Dried blood spot samples for PEth were collected at the interview. We used logistic regression to predict PEth > 20 ng/ml and Spearman correlation to quantify the association with PEth, both as a function of TLFB. RESULTS: Among 282 individuals (99% men) in the analytic sample, approximately two-thirds (69%) of individuals had PEth > 20 ng/ml. The proportion with PEth > 20 ng/ml increased with increasing levels of self-reported alcohol use; of the 190 patients with either at-risk drinking or alcohol use disorder based on self-report, 82% had PEth > 20 ng/ml. Discrimination was better with number of drinks per day than heavy drinking days (AUC: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.85] vs. 0.74 [95% CI: 0.68 to 0.80]). The number of drinks per day and PEth were significantly and positively correlated across all levels of alcohol use (Spearman's R ranged from 0.29 to 0.56, all p values < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of PWH entering a clinical trial, mean numbers of drinks per day discriminated individuals with evidence of significant alcohol use by PEth. PEth complements self-report to improve identification of self-reported unhealthy alcohol use among PWH.

Addiction Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine: The Evolution of Addiction Physician Specialists.

Addiction Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine are two physician subspecialities recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that focus on providing care for patients with substance use disorders. Their shared and distinct historical roots are reviewed, and their respective ABMS board examination content areas and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) fellowship training program requirements are compared. Addiction Psychiatry, a subspecialty under the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, began certifying diplomates in 1993, currently has 1202 active diplomates, and certifies around 150 diplomates every 2 years through 50 ACGME-accredited fellowships. Addiction Medicine, a subspecialty under the American Board of Preventive Medicine, began certifying diplomates in 2018, has 2604 diplomates with more expected before the practice pathway closes (anticipated in 2021), after which a fellowship training becomes required. Currently there are 78 accredited Addiction Medicine fellowships and more under development. The fields display substantial overlap between their respective examination content areas and fellowship training requirements, covering similar knowledge and skills for evaluation and treatment of substance use disorders and psychiatric and medical comorbidities across the full range of clinical settings, from general medical to addiction specialty settings. Key differences include that Addiction Psychiatry is open only to Board-certified psychiatrists and places extra emphasis on psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological management strategies. Addiction Medicine is open to any ABMS primary specialty, including psychiatry. Opportunities for collaboration are discussed as both fields pursue the common goal of providing a well-trained workforce of physicians to meet the public health challenge presented by addiction. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

Stitching a solution to the addiction epidemic: A longitudinal addiction curricular thread across four years of medical training.

BACKGROUND: Despite the enormous burden and public health impact, addiction continues to be one of the most under-treated chronic diseases primarily because of the lack of adequately trained work force of medical providers. To address this issue, medical schools should greatly expand education on addiction. Methods: The six-step Kern model of curriculum development was used as a framework to create an addiction curriculum which includes didactic activities, workshop exercises, practice-based learning activities, clinical simulations, and clinical experiences. Results: The authors and other members of the addiction thread committee conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, developed curriculum goals and objectives, and worked with course and clerkship directors to develop and enhance educational strategies and implement a longitudinal curricular thread woven across all four years of medical school curriculum. Conclusion: Development and implementation of a comprehensive addiction curriculum is feasible, and this model could lay the ground work for implementation at other institutions.

Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Dependence with Continuation in Primary Care: Outcomes During and After Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone with continuation in primary care was found to increase engagement in addiction treatment and reduce illicit opioid use at 30 days compared to referral only or a brief intervention with referral. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 months following ED interventions. DESIGN: Evaluation of treatment engagement, drug use, and HIV risk among a cohort of patients from a randomized trial who completed at least one long-term follow-up assessment. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 290/329 patients (88% of the randomized sample) were included. The followed cohort did not differ significantly from the randomized sample. INTERVENTIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine with 10-week continuation in primary care, referral, or brief intervention were provided in the ED at study entry. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported engagement in formal addiction treatment, days of illicit opioid use, and HIV risk (2, 6, 12 months); urine toxicology (2, 6 months). KEY RESULTS: A greater number of patients in the buprenorphine group were engaged in addiction treatment at 2 months [68/92 (74%), 95% CI 65-83] compared with referral [42/79 (53%), 95% CI 42-64] and brief intervention [39/83 (47%), 95% CI 37-58; p < 0.001]. The differences were not significant at 6 months [51/92 (55%), 95% CI 45-65; 46/70 (66%) 95% CI 54-76; 43/76 (57%) 95% CI 45-67; p = 0.37] or 12 months [42/86 (49%) 95% CI 39-59; 37/73 (51%) 95% CI 39-62; 49/78 (63%) 95% CI 52-73; p = 0.16]. At 2 months, the buprenorphine group reported fewer days of illicit opioid use [1.1 (95% CI 0.6-1.6)] versus referral [1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.3)] and brief intervention [2.0 (95% CI 1.5-2.6), p = 0.04]. No significant differences in illicit opioid use were observed at 6 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in HIV risk or rates of opioid-negative urine results at any time. CONCLUSIONS: ED-initiated buprenorphine was associated with increased engagement in addiction treatment and reduced illicit opioid use during the 2-month interval when buprenorphine was continued in primary care. Outcomes at 6 and 12 months were comparable across all groups.

An interventionist adherence scale for a specialized brief negotiation interview focused on treatment engagement for opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: No psychometrically validated instrument for evaluating the extent to which interventionists correctly implement brief interventions designed to motivate treatment engagement for opioid use disorders has been reported in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI) Adherence Scale for Opioid Use Disorders (BAS-O). METHODS: In the context of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of 3 models of emergency department care for opioid use disorders, the authors developed and subsequently examined the psychometric properties of the BAS-O, a 38-item scale that required raters to answer whether or not ("Yes" or "No") each of the critical actions of the BNI was correctly implemented by the research interventionist. BAS-O items pertained to the BNI's 4 steps: (1) Raise the Subject, (2) Provide Feedback, (3) Enhance Motivation, and (4) Negotiate and Advise. A total of 215 audio-recorded BNI and 88 control encounters were rated by 3 trained raters who were independent of the study team and blind to study hypotheses, treatment, and assignment. RESULTS: The results indicated the BAS-O has fair to excellent psychometric properties, in terms of good internal consistency, excellent interrater reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity, and fair predictive validity. A 13-item, 2-factor solution accounted for nearly 80% of the variance, where factor 1 addressed "Autonomy and Planning" (7 items) and factor 2 addressed "Motivation and Problems" (6 items). However, predictive validity was found for only one of the BAS-O factor items (i.e., Telling patients that treatment will address a range of issues related to their opioid use disorder). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the BAS-O is a psychometrically valid measure of adherence to the specialized BNI for motivating treatment engagement in patients with opioid use disorders, thus providing a brief (13-item), objective method of evaluating BNI skill performance.

Overdose Education and Naloxone Rescue Kits for Family Members of Individuals Who Use Opioids: Characteristics, Motivations, and Naloxone Use.

BACKGROUND: In response to the overdose epidemic, a network of support groups for family members in Massachusetts has been providing overdose education and naloxone rescue kits (OEN). The aims of this study were to describe the characteristics, motivations, and benefits of family members who receive OEN and to describe the frequency of naloxone used during an overdose rescue. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multisite study surveyed attendees of community support groups for family members of opioid users where OEN training was offered using a 42-item self-administered survey that included demographics, relationship to the individual using opioids, experience with overdose, motivations to receive OEN, and naloxone rescue kit use. RESULTS: Of 126 attendees who completed surveys at 8 sites, most attendees were white (95%), female (78%), married or partnered (74%), parents of an individual using opioids (85%), and providing financial support for the individual using opioids (52%). The OEN trainees (79%) were more likely than attendees not trained (21%) to be parents of an individual using opioids (91% vs. 65%, P < .05), to provide financial support to an individual using opioids (58% vs. 30%, P < .05), and to have witnessed an overdose (35% vs. 12%, P = .07). The major motivations to receive training were wanting a kit in their home (72%), education provided at the meeting (60%), and hearing about benefits from others (57%). Sixteen parents reported witnessing their child overdose, and 5 attendees had used naloxone successfully during an overdose rescue. CONCLUSIONS: Support groups for families of people who use opioids are promising venues to conduct overdose prevention trainings because attendees are motivated to receive training and will use naloxone to rescue people when witnessing an overdose. Further study is warranted to understand how to optimize this approach to overdose prevention in the community setting.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS: After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P < .001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P < .001 for both time and intervention effects; P = .02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P = .17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P = .66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Predictors of abstinence from heavy drinking during treatment in COMBINE and external validation in PREDICT.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to use tree-based methods (Zhang and Singer, 2010, Recursive Partitioning and Applications, 2nd ed. Springer, New York) to identify predictors of abstinence from heavy drinking in COMBINE (Anton et al. JAMA 2006; 295:2003), the largest study of pharmacotherapy for alcoholism in the United States to date, and to validate these results in PREDICT (Mann et al. Addict Biol 2012; 18:937), a parallel study conducted in Germany. METHODS: We compared a classification tree constructed according to purely statistical criteria to a tree constructed according to a combination of statistical criteria and clinical considerations for prediction of no heavy drinking during treatment in COMBINE. We considered over 100 baseline predictors. The tree approach was compared to logistic regression. The trees and a deterministic forest identified the most important predictors of no heavy drinking for direct testing in PREDICT. RESULTS: The tree built using both clinical and statistical considerations consisted of 4 splits based on consecutive days of abstinence (CDA) prior to randomization, age, family history of alcoholism, and confidence to resist drinking in response to withdrawal and urges. The tree based on statistical considerations with 4 splits also split on CDA and age but also on gamma-glutamyl transferase level and drinking goal. Deterministic forest identified CDA, age, and drinking goal as the most important predictors. Backward elimination logistic regression among the top 18 predictors identified in the deterministic forest analyses identified only age and CDA as significant main effects. Longer CDA and goal of complete abstinence were associated with better outcomes in both data sets. CONCLUSIONS: The most reliable predictors of abstinence from heavy drinking were CDA and drinking goal. Trees provide binary decision rules and straightforward graphical representations for identification of subgroups based on response and may be easier to implement in clinical settings.

Perspectives of Clinicians and Staff at Community-Based Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Settings on Linkages With Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine Programs.

Importance: An increasing number of emergency departments (EDs) are initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking patients to ongoing community-based treatment, yet community-based clinician and staff perspectives regarding this practice have not been characterized. Objective: To explore perspectives and experiences regarding ED-initiated buprenorphine among community-based clinicians and staff in geographically distinct regions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study reports findings from Project ED Health, a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study designed to evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation on ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral to ongoing medication treatment. Clinicians and staff from community-based treatment programs were identified by urban academic EDs as potential referral sites for ongoing OUD treatment in 4 cities across the US in a formative evaluation as having the capability to continue medication treatment. Focus groups were held from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, to examine community OUD treatment clinician and staff perspectives on accepting patients who have received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to August 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework, focusing on domains including evidence, context, and facilitation. Results: A total of 103 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.3 [12.0] years; 76 female and 64 White) participated in 14 focus groups (groups ranged from 3-22 participants). Participants shared negative attitudes toward buprenorphine and variable attitudes toward ED-initiated buprenorphine. Prominent barriers included the community site treatment capacity and structure as well as payment and regulatory barriers. Perceived factors that could facilitate this model included additional substance use disorder training for ED staff, referrals and communication, greater inclusion of peer navigators, and addressing sociostructural marginalization that patients faced. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of community-based clinicians and staff positioned to deliver OUD treatment, participants reported many barriers to successful linkages for patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Strategies to improve these linkages included educating communities and programs, modeling low-barrier philosophies, and using additional staff trained in addiction as resources to improve transitions from EDs to community partners.

Perspectives on and experiences of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine among clinical pharmacists: A multi-site qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical pharmacists are well positioned to enhance efforts to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Among clinical pharmacists in urban EDs, we sought to characterize barriers and facilitators for ED-initiated buprenorphine to inform future implementation efforts and enhance access to this highly effective OUD treatment. METHODS: This study was conducted as a part of Project ED Health (CTN-0069, NCT03023930), a multisite effectiveness-implementation study aimed at promoting ED-initiated buprenorphine that was conducted between April 2017 and July 2020. Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to assess perspectives on the relationship between 3 elements: evidence for buprenorphine, the ED context, and facilitation needs to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. The study used an iterative coding process to identify overlapping themes within these 3 domains. RESULTS: The study conducted eight focus groups/interviews across four geographically disparate EDs with 15 pharmacist participants. We identified six themes. Themes related to evidence included (1) varied levels of comfort and experience among pharmacists with ED-initiated buprenorphine that increased over time and (2) a perception that patients with OUD have unique challenges that require guidance to optimize ED care. With regards to context, clinical pharmacists identified: (3) their ability to clarify scope of ED care in the context of unique pharmacology, formulations, and regulations of buprenorphine to ED staff, and that (4) their presence promotes successful program implementation and quality improvement. Participants identified facilitation needs including: (5) training to promote practice change and (6) ways to leverage already existing pharmacy resources outside of the ED. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacists play a unique and critical role in the efforts to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. We identified 6 themes that can inform pharmacist-specific interventions that could aid in the successful implementation of this practice.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

A brief intervention reduces hazardous and harmful drinking in emergency department patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Brief interventions have been shown to reduce alcohol use and improve outcomes in hazardous and harmful drinkers, but evidence to support their use in emergency department (ED) patients is limited. The use of research assessments in studies of brief interventions may contribute to uncertainty about their effectiveness. Therefore we seek to determine (1) if an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview or a Brief Negotiation Interview with a booster reduces alcohol consumption compared with standard care; and (2) the impact of research assessments on drinking outcomes using a standard care-no-assessment group. METHODS: We randomized 889 adult ED patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. A total of 740 received an emergency practitioner-performed Brief Negotiation Interview (n=297), a Brief Negotiation Interview with a 1-month follow-up telephone booster (Brief Negotiation Interview with booster) (n=295), or standard care (n=148). We also included a standard care with no assessments (n=149) group to examine the effect of assessments on drinking outcomes. Primary outcomes analyzed with mixed-models procedures included past 7-day alcohol consumption and 28-day binge episodes at 6 and 12 months, collected by interactive voice response. Secondary outcomes included negative health behaviors and consequences collected by telephone surveys. RESULTS: The reduction in mean number of drinks in the past 7 days from baseline to 6 and 12 months was significantly greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 20.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} 18.8 to 22.0] to 11.6 [95% CI 9.7 to 13.5] to 13.0 [95% CI 10.5 to 15.5]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 19.8 [95% CI 18.3 to 21.4] to 12.7 [95% CI 10.8 to 14.6] to 14.3 [95% CI 11.9 to 16.8]) than in standard care (from 20.9 [95% CI 18.7 to 23.2] to 14.2 [95% CI 11.2 to 17.1] to 17.6 [95% CI 14.1 to 21.2]). The reduction in 28-day binge episodes was also greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (from 7.5 [95% CI 6.8 to 8.2] to 4.4 [95% CI 3.6 to 5.2] to 4.7 [95% CI 3.9 to 5.6]) and Brief Negotiation Interview (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.5 to 7.9] to 4.8 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.6] to 5.1 [95% CI 4.2 to 5.9]) than in standard care (from 7.2 [95% CI 6.2 to 8.2] to 5.7 [95% CI 4.5 to 6.9] to 5.8 [95% CI 4.6 to 7.0]). The Brief Negotiation Interview with booster offered no significant benefit over the Brief Negotiation Interview alone. There were no differences in drinking outcomes between the standard care and standard care-no assessment groups. The reductions in rates of driving after drinking more than 3 drinks from baseline to 12 months were greater in the Brief Negotiation Interview (38% to 29%) and Brief Negotiation Interview with booster (39% to 31%) groups than in the standard care group (43% to 42%). CONCLUSION: Emergency practitioner-performed brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption and episodes of driving after drinking in hazardous and harmful drinkers. These results support the use of brief interventions in ED settings.

Integrating addiction medicine into graduate medical education in primary care: the time has come.

Substance use disorders create an enormous burden of medical, behavioral, and social problems and pose a major and costly public health challenge. Despite the high prevalence of substance use and its consequences, physicians often do not recognize these conditions and, as a result, provide inadequate patient care. At the center of this failure is insufficient training for physicians about substance use disorders. To address this deficit, the Betty Ford Institute convened a meeting of experts who developed the following 5 recommendations focused on improving training in substance abuse in primary care residency programs in internal medicine and family medicine: 1) integrating substance abuse competencies into training, 2) assigning substance abuse teaching the same priority as teaching about other chronic diseases, 3) enhancing faculty development, 4) creating addiction medicine divisions or programs in academic medical centers, and 5) making substance abuse screening and management routine care in new models of primary care practice. This enhanced primary care residency training should represent a major step forward in improving patient care.