Search

Objective: To evaluate whether access to buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) was associated with the coronavirus disease pandemic, the relaxation of training requirements to obtain an X-Waiver to prescribe buprenorphine (April 2021), and the removal of the X-Waiver (December 2022). Patients and Methods: The OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which includes claims from Commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees, was used to evaluate trends in prescription fills from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023. We compared fill patterns of buprenorphine for OUD with acamprosate to treat alcohol use disorder and naltrexone to treat alcohol use disorder or OUD. We evaluated trends in the rate ratio (RR) of overall fills; RR by days supply; distribution of fills by daily dose; and distribution of fills by prescriber type. Results: Coronavirus disease (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) was associated with a slightly increased rate of fills for Commercial enrollees but not overall or for Medicare Advantage enrollees. There were also no significant increases (P>0.05) associated with the change in training requirements or removal of the X-Waiver. Over the study period, there was an increasing share of fills for 16+ mg for Commercial enrollees, and buprenorphine prescribers were more likely to be advanced practice nurses or physician assistants. Conclusion: We did not find meaningful improvement in access in response to coronavirus disease or the changes in the X-Waiver. These findings suggest that interventions beyond removing the X-Waiver may be needed to improve buprenorphine access.

Abstract Background Untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem. Buprenorphine is an evidence-based treatment for OUD that can be initiated in and prescribed from emergency departments (EDs) and office settings. Adoption of buprenorphine initiation among ED clinicians is low. The EMBED pragmatic clinical trial investigated the effectiveness of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool to promote ED clinicians’ behavior related to buprenorphine initiation in the ED. While the CDS intervention was not associated with increased rates of buprenorphine treatment for patients with OUD at intervention ED sites, attending physicians at intervention EDs were more likely to initiate buprenorphine at least once over the duration of the study compared to those in the usual care arms (44.4% vs 34.0%, P = 0.01). This suggests the CDS intervention may be associated with increased adoption of buprenorphine initiation. As a secondary aim, we sought to identify the determinants of CDS adoption, implementation, and maintenance in a variety of ED settings and geographic locations. Methods We purposively sampled and conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with clinicians across EMBED trial sites randomized to the intervention arm from five healthcare systems. Interviews elicited clinician experiences regarding buprenorphine initiation and CDS use. Interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis informed by the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). We used a hybrid approach (a priori codes informed by PRISM and emergent codes) for codebook development. ATLAS.ti (version 9.0) was used for data management. Coded data were analyzed within individual interview transcripts and across all interviews to identify major themes. This process involved (1) combining, comparing, and making connections between codes; (2) writing analytic memos about observed patterns; and (3) frequent team meetings to discuss emerging patterns. Results Twenty-eight interviews were conducted. Major themes that influenced the successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the EMBED intervention and ED-initiated BUP were organizational culture and commitment, clinician training and support, the ability to connect patients to ongoing treatment, and the ability to tailor implementation to each ED. These findings informed the identification of implementation strategies (framed using PRISM domains) to enhance the ED initiation of buprenorphine. Conclusion The findings from this qualitative analysis can provide guidance to build better systems to promote the adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine.

Abstract Objective To evaluate trends in emergency care sensitive conditions (ECSCs) from pre‐COVID (March 2018–February 2020) through Omicron (December 2021–February 2022). Methods This cross‐sectional analysis evaluated trends in ECSCs using claims (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) from commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees. Emergency department (ED) visits for ECSCs (acute appendicitis, aortic aneurysm/dissection, cardiac arrest/severe arrhythmia, cerebral infarction, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, opioid overdose, pre‐eclampsia) were reported per 100,000 person months from March 2018 to February 2022 by pandemic wave. We calculated the percent change for each pandemic wave compared to the pre‐pandemic period. Results There were 10,268,554 ED visits (March 2018−February 2022). The greatest increases in ECSCs were seen for pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest/severe arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, and pre‐eclampsia. For commercial enrollees, pulmonary embolism visit rates increased 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.6%–26.9%) during Waves 2−3, 37.2% (95% CI, 29.1%–45.8%] during Delta, and 27.9% (95% CI, 20.3%–36.1%) during Omicron, relative to pre‐pandemic rates. Cardiac arrest/severe arrhythmia visit rates increased 4.0% (95% CI, 0.2%–8.0%) during Waves 2−3; myocardial infarction rates increased 4.9% (95% CI, 2.1%–7.8%) during Waves 2−3. Similar patterns were seen in Medicare Advantage enrollees. Pre‐eclampsia visit rates among reproductive‐age female enrollees increased 31.1% (95% CI, 20.9%–42.2%), 23.7% (95% CI, 7.5%,–42.3%), and 34.7% (95% CI, 16.8%–55.2%) during Waves 2−3, Delta, and Omicron, respectively. ED visits for other ECSCs declined or exhibited smaller increases. Conclusions ED visit rates for acute cardiovascular conditions, pulmonary embolism and pre‐eclampsia increased despite declines or stable rates for all‐cause ED visits and ED visits for other conditions. Given the changing landscape of ECSCs, studies should identify drivers for these changes and interventions to mitigate them.

Physician turnover places a heavy burden on the healthcare industry, patients, physicians, and their families. Having a mechanism in place to identify physicians at risk for departure could help target appropriate interventions that prevent departure. We have collected physician characteristics, electronic health record (EHR) use patterns, and clinical productivity data from a large ambulatory based practice of non-teaching physicians to build a predictive model. We use several techniques to identify possible intervenable variables. Specifically, we used gradient boosted trees to predict the probability of a physician departing within an interval of 6 months. Several variables significantly contributed to predicting physician departure including tenure (time since hiring date), panel complexity, physician demand, physician age, inbox, and documentation time. These variables were identified by training, validating, and testing the model followed by computing SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanation) values to investigate which variables influence the model’s prediction the most. We found these top variables to have large interactions with other variables indicating their importance. Since these variables may be predictive of physician departure, they could prove useful to identify at risk physicians such who would benefit from targeted interventions.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280251.].

Introduction The burden of mental health-related visits to emergency departments (EDs) is growing, and agitation episodes are prevalent with such visits. Best practice guidance from experts recommends early assessment of at-risk populations and pre-emptive intervention using de-escalation techniques to prevent agitation. Time pressure, fluctuating work demands, and other systems-related factors pose challenges to efficient decision-making and adoption of best practice recommendations during an unfolding behavioural crisis. As such, we propose to design, develop and evaluate a computerised clinical decision support (CDS) system, Early Detection and Treatment to Reduce Events with Agitation Tool (ED-TREAT). We aim to identify patients at risk of agitation and guide ED clinicians through appropriate risk assessment and timely interventions to prevent agitation with a goal of minimising restraint use and improving patient experience and outcomes.Methods and analysis This study describes the formative evaluation of the health record embedded CDS tool. Under aim 1, the study will collect qualitative data to design and develop ED-TREAT using a contextual design approach and an iterative user-centred design process. Participants will include potential CDS users, that is, ED physicians, nurses, technicians, as well as patients with lived experience of restraint use for behavioural crisis management during an ED visit. We will use purposive sampling to ensure the full spectrum of perspectives until we reach thematic saturation. Next, under aim 2, the study will conduct a pilot, randomised controlled trial of ED-TREAT at two adult ED sites in a regional health system in the Northeast USA to evaluate the feasibility, fidelity and bedside acceptability of ED-TREAT. We aim to recruit a total of at least 26 eligible subjects under the pilot trial.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval by the Yale University Human Investigation Committee was obtained in 2021 (HIC# 2000030893 and 2000030906). All participants will provide informed verbal consent prior to being enrolled in the study. Results will be disseminated through publications in open-access, peer-reviewed journals, via scientific presentations or through direct email notifications.Trial registration number NCT04959279; Pre-results.