Search

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) care engagement rates in primary care (PC) settings are often low. Little is known about PC team experiences when delivering OUD treatment and potential factors that influence their capacity to engage patients in treatment. Exploring PC team experiences may inform needed supports that can optimize OUD care delivery and improve outcomes for patients with OUD., Objective: We explored multidisciplinary PC team perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging patients in OUD treatment., Design: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews., Participants: Primary care clinical teams., Approach: We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 35) with PC team members involved in OUD care delivery, recruited using a combination of criterion and maximal variation sampling. Data collection and analysis were informed by existing theoretical literature about patient engagement, specifically that patient engagement is influenced by factors across individual (patient, provider), interpersonal (patient-provider), and health system domains. Interviews were professionally transcribed and doubled-coded using a coding schema based on the interview guide while allowing for emergent codes. Coding was iteratively reviewed using a constant comparison approach to identify themes and verified with participants and the full study team., Key Results: Analysis identified five themes that impact PC team ability to engage patients effectively, including limited patient contact (e.g., phone, text) in between visits, varying levels of provider confidence to navigate OUD treatment discussions, structural factors (e.g., schedules, productivity goals) that limited provider time, the role of team-based approaches in lessening discouragement and feelings of burnout, and lack of shared organizational vision for reducing harms from OUD., Conclusions: While the capacity of PC teams to engage patients in OUD care is influenced across multiple levels, some of the most promising opportunities may involve addressing system-level factors that limit PC team time and collaboration and promoting organizational alignment on goals for OUD treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are prevalent in the USA yet remain dramatically undertreated. To address this care gap, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved revisions to the Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education (GME) in Internal Medicine, effective July 1, 2022, requiring addiction medicine training for all internal medicine (IM) residents. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a clinical training site for many academic institutions that sponsor IM residencies. This focus group project evaluated VHA IM residency site directors' perspectives about providing addiction medical education within VHA IM training sites., Objective: To better understand the current state, barriers to, and facilitators of IM resident addiction medicine training at VHA sites., Design: This was a qualitative evaluation based on semi-structured video-based focus groups., Participants: Participants were VHA IM site directors based at a VHA hospital or clinic throughout the USA., Approach: Focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured group interview guide. Two investigators coded each focus group independently, then met to create a final adjudicated coding scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes., Key Results: Forty-three participants from 38 VHA sites participated in four focus groups (average size: 11 participants). Six themes were identified within four pre-defined categories. Current state of training: most VHA sites offered no formal training in addiction medicine for IM residents. Barriers: addiction experts are often located outside of IM settings, and ACGME requirements were non-specific. Facilitators: clinical champions help support addiction training. Desired next steps: participants desired incentives to train or hire local champions and a pre-packaged didactic curriculum., Conclusions: Developing competent clinical champions and leveraging VHA addiction specialists from non-IM settings would create more addiction training opportunities for IM trainees at VHA sites. These insights can likely be applied to IM training at non-VHA sites., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine population-based screening for drug use, yet screening for opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care occurs rarely, and little is known about barriers primary care teams face., Objective: As part of a multisite randomized trial to provide OUD and behavioral health treatment using the Collaborative Care Model, we supported 10 primary care clinics in implementing routine OUD screening and conducted formative evaluation to characterize early implementation experiences., Design: Qualitative formative evaluation., Approach: Formative evaluation included taking detailed observation notes at implementation meetings with individual clinics and debriefings with external facilitators. Observation notes were analyzed weekly using a Rapid Assessment Process guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with iterative feedback from the study team. After clinics launched OUD screening, we conducted structured fidelity assessments via group interviews with each site to evaluate clinic experiences with routine OUD screening. Data from observation and structured fidelity assessments were combined into a matrix to compare across clinics and identify cross-cutting barriers and promising implementation strategies., Key Results: While all clinics had the goal of implementing population-based OUD screening, barriers were experienced across intervention, individual, and clinic setting domains, with compounding effects for telehealth visits. Seven themes emerged characterizing barriers, including (1) challenges identifying who to screen, (2) complexity of the screening tool, (3) staff discomfort and/or hesitancies, (4) workflow barriers that decreased screening follow-up, (5) staffing shortages and turnover, (6) discouragement from low screening yield, and (7) stigma. Promising implementation strategies included utilizing a more universal screening approach, health information technology (HIT), audit and feedback, and repeated staff trainings., Conclusions: Integrating population-based OUD screening in primary care is challenging but may be made feasible via implementation strategies and tailored practice facilitation that standardize workflows via HIT, decrease stigma, and increase staff confidence regarding OUD., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Consensus guidelines recommend multimodal chronic pain treatment with increased use of non-pharmacological treatment modalities (NPM), including as first-line therapies. However, with many barriers to NPM uptake in US healthcare systems, NPM use may vary across medical care settings. Military veterans are disproportionately affected by chronic pain. Many veterans receive treatment through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), an integrated healthcare system in which specific policies promote NPM use., Objective: To examine whether veterans with chronic pain who utilize VHA healthcare were more likely to use NPM than veterans who do not utilize VHA healthcare., Design: Cross-sectional nationally representative study., Participants: US military veterans (N = 2,836)., Main Measures: In the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, veterans were assessed for VHA treatment, chronic pain (i.e., past 3-month daily or almost daily pain), symptoms of depression and anxiety, substance use, and NPM (i.e., physical therapy, chiropractic/spinal manipulation, massage, psychotherapy, educational class/workshop, peer support groups, or yoga/tai chi)., Key Results: Chronic pain (45.2% vs. 26.8%) and NPM use (49.8% vs. 39.4%) were more prevalent among VHA patients than non-VHA veterans. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, psychiatric symptoms, physical health indicators, and use of cigarettes or prescription opioids, VHA patients were more likely than non-VHA veterans to use any NPM (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.07-2.16) and multimodal NPM (aOR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.12-2.87) than no NPM. Among veterans with chronic pain, VHA patients were more likely to use chiropractic care (aOR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.12-3.22), educational class/workshop (aOR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.35-6.73), or psychotherapy (aOR = 4.28, 95% CI = 1.69-10.87)., Conclusions: Among veterans with chronic pain, past-year VHA use was associated with greater likelihood of receiving NPM. These findings may suggest that the VHA is an important resource and possible facilitator of NPM. VHA policies may offer guidance for expanding use of NPM in other integrated US healthcare systems., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of this secondary analysis was to identify prodynorphin (PDYN) genetic markers moderating the therapeutic response to treatment of cocaine dependence with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone®; BUP)., Methods: Cocaine-dependent participants (N = 302) were randomly assigned to a platform of injectable, extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) and one of three daily medication arms: 4 mg BUP (BUP4), 16 mg BUP (BUP16), or placebo (PLB) for 8 weeks (Parent Trial Registration: Protocol ID: NIDA-CTN-0048, Clinical Trials.gov ID: NCT01402492). DNA was obtained from 277 participants. Treatment response was determined from weeks 3 to 7 over each 1-week period by the number of cocaine-positive urines per total possible urines., Results: In the cross-ancestry group, the PLB group had more cocaine-positive urines than the BUP16 group (P = 0.0021). The interactions of genetic variant × treatment were observed in the rs1022563 A-allele carrier group where the BUP16 group (N = 35) had fewer cocaine-positive urines (P = 0.0006) than did the PLB group (N = 26) and in the rs1997794 A-allele carrier group where the BUP16 group (N = 49) had fewer cocaine-positive urines (P = 0.0003) than did the PLB group (N = 58). No difference was observed in the rs1022563 GG or rs1997794 GG genotype groups between the BUP16 and PLB groups. In the African American-ancestry subgroup, only the rs1022563 A-allele carrier group was associated with treatment response., Conclusion: These results suggest that PDYN variants may identify patients who are best suited to treatment with XR-NTX plus buprenorphine for cocaine use disorder pharmacotherapy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Hepatitis C and HIV are associated with opioid use disorders (OUD) and injection drug use. Medications for OUD can prevent the spread of HCV and HIV., Objective: To describe the prevalence of documented OUD, as well as receipt of office-based medication treatment, among primary care patients with HCV or HIV., Design: Retrospective observational cohort study using electronic health record and insurance data., Participants: Adults ≥ 18 years with ≥ 2 visits to primary care during the study (2014-2016) at 6 healthcare systems across five states (CO, CA, OR, WA, and MN)., Main Measures: The primary outcome was the diagnosis of OUD; the secondary outcome was OUD treatment with buprenorphine or oral/injectable naltrexone. Prevalence of OUD and OUD treatment was calculated across four groups: HCV only; HIV only; HCV and HIV; and neither HCV nor HIV. In addition, adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of OUD treatment associated with HCV and HIV (separately) were estimated, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and site., Key Results: The sample included 1,368,604 persons, of whom 10,042 had HCV, 5821 HIV, and 422 both. The prevalence of diagnosed OUD varied across groups: 11.9% (95% CI: 11.3%, 12.5%) for those with HCV; 1.6% (1.3%, 2.0%) for those with HIV; 8.8% (6.2%, 11.9%) for those with both; and 0.92% (0.91%, 0.94%) among those with neither. Among those with diagnosed OUD, the prevalence of OUD medication treatment was 20.9%, 16.0%, 10.8%, and 22.3%, for those with HCV, HIV, both, and neither, respectively. HCV was not associated with OUD treatment (AOR = 1.03; 0.88, 1.21), whereas patients with HIV had a lower probability of OUD treatment (AOR = 0.43; 0.26, 0.72)., Conclusions: Among patients receiving primary care, those diagnosed with HCV and HIV were more likely to have documented OUD than those without. Patients with HIV were less likely to have documented medication treatment for OUD.

Background: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence., Methods: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit., Results: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO)., Conclusions: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

Opioid dependence is largely an undertreated medical condition in the United States. The introduction of buprenorphine has created the potential to expand access to and use of opioid agonist treatment in generalist settings. Physicians, however, often have limited training and experience providing this type of care. Some physicians believe having a mentoring relationship with an experienced provider during their initial introduction to the use of buprenorphine would ease implementation. Our goal was to describe the development, implementation, resources, and evaluation of the Physician Clinical Support System-Buprenorphine (PCSS-B), a federally funded program to improve access to and quality of treatment with buprenorphine. We provide a description of the PCSS-B, a national network of 88 trained physician mentors with expertise in buprenorphine treatment and skills in clinical education. We provide information regarding the use the PCSS-B core services including telephone, email and in-person support, a website, clinical guidances, a warmline and outreach to primary care and specialty organizations. Between July 2005 and July 2009, 67 mentors and 4 clinical experts reported providing mentoring services to 632 participants in 48 states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,455 contacts were provided through email (45%), telephone (34%) and in-person visits (20%). Seventy-six percent of contacts addressed a clinical issue. Eighteen percent of contacts addressed a logistical issue. The number of contacts per participant ranged from 1-125. Between August 2005 and April 2009 there were 72,822 visits to the PCSS-B website with 179,678 pages viewed. Seven guidances were downloaded more than 1000 times. The warmline averaged more than 100 calls per month. The PCSS-B model provides support for a mentorship program to assist non-specialty physicians in the provision of buprenorphine and may serve as a model for dissemination of other types of care.

Background: Methadone is effective treatment for opioid addiction, but regulations restrict its use. Methadone medical maintenance treats stabilized methadone patients in a medical setting, but only experimental programs have been studied., Objective: To evaluate the implementation of the first methadone medical maintenance program established outside a research setting., Design: One-year program evaluation., Setting: A public hospital and a community opioid treatment program., Participants: Methadone patients with >1 year of clinical stability. Eleven generalist physicians and 4 hospital pharmacists., Interventions: Regulatory exemptions were requested. Physicians and pharmacists were trained. Patients were transferred to the medical setting and permitted 1-month supplies of methadone., Measurements: Patient eligibility and willingness to enroll, treatment retention, urine toxicology results, change in addiction severity and functional status, medical services provided, patient and physician satisfaction, and physician attitudes toward methadone maintenance., Results: Regulatory exemptions were obtained after a 14-month process, and the program was cited in federal policy as acceptable for widespread implementation. Forty-nine of 684 patients (7.2%) met stability criteria, and 30 enrolled. Twenty-eight were retained for 1 year, and 2 transferred to other programs. Two patients had opioid-positive urine tests and were managed in the medical setting. Previously unmet medical needs were addressed, and the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) medical composite score improved over time (P=.02). Patient and physician satisfaction were high, and physician attitudes toward methadone maintenance treatment became more positive (P=.007)., Conclusions: Methadone medical maintenance is complex to arrange but feasible outside a research setting, and can result in good clinical outcomes.