Search

Background: Expanding access to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, including methadone, is imperative to address the US overdose crisis. In June 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced new regulations allowing all opioid treatment programs (OTPs) to deploy mobile medication units, or methadone vans, to dispense OUD medication treatment outside of clinic walls, ending a 13-year moratorium. We conducted a qualitative study evaluating one opioid treatment program's experience, including benefits and challenges with implementing a methadone van, to inform future policy and clinical practice., Methods: We recruited staff and patients receiving OUD medication treatment from an OTP in San Francisco, CA. The OTP had one operating van before March 2020 and began operating an additional van in response to COVID-19-related efforts to de-populate clinic settings. We interviewed 10 providers and 20 patients from August to November 2020. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews using modified grounded theory methodologies., Results: Both patients and providers perceived significant benefits with receiving OUD medications using methadone vans. Patients preferred dosing at the van over the clinic because they were able to "get in and out" faster. Both staff and patients appreciated being able to use phone counseling to connect with counselors which helped reduce in-person visits and streamline workflows. Providers also noted van implementation challenges, including daily van set up, urine drug testing, and delivering counseling to patients who lacked phones., Conclusions: Eased restrictions on methadone van implementation represent a new strategy for expanding OUD treatment access. In our qualitative study, patients and staff were satisfied with methadone van implementation, though the OTP still faced implementation challenges. Audio-only counseling and other workflow solutions helped facilitate implementation, and several policy considerations like maintaining audio-only counseling flexibilities are key to ensuring future van success. Methadone vans offer the potential to expand treatment uptake, while prioritizing patient-centered care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians' bias related to patients' race and substance use history play a role in pain management. However, patients' or clinicians' understandings about discriminatory practices and the structural factors that contribute to and exacerbate these practices are underexamined. We report on perceptions of discrimination from the perspectives of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and a history of substance use and their clinicians within the structural landscape of reductions in opioid prescribing in the United States., Methods: We interviewed 46 clinicians and 94 patients, using semi-structured interview guides, from eight safety-net primary care clinics across the San Francisco Bay Area from 2013 to 2020. We used a modified grounded theory approach to code and analyze transcripts., Results: Clinicians discussed using opioid prescribing guidelines with the goals of increased opioid safety and reduced bias in patient monitoring. While patients acknowledged the validity of clinicians' concerns about opioid safety, they indicated that clinicians made assumptions about opioid misuse towards Black patients and patients suspected of substance use. Clinicians discussed evidence of discrimination in opioid prescribing at the clinic-wide level; racialized stereotypes about patients likely to misuse opioids; and their own struggles to overcome discriminatory practices regarding CNCP management., Conclusion: While clinicians and patients acknowledged opioid safety concerns, the practical application of opioid prescribing guidelines impacted how patients perceived and engaged with CNCP care particularly for patients who are Black and/or report a history of substance use. We recommend healthcare system and clinic-level interventions that may remediate discriminatory practices and associated disparities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflicts declared., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: People using opioids alone in private settings are at elevated risk of dying in the event of an overdose. In San Francisco, single room occupancy (SRO) tenants are 19 times more likely to die of overdose than non-SRO residents. The "SRO Project" pilot aimed to reduce fatal overdoses in SROs by recruiting and training tenants to distribute naloxone and provide overdose education in their buildings. We explore the implementation and program impacts of the SRO Project pilot in two permanent supportive housing SROs., Methods: We conducted eight months of ethnographic fieldwork (May 2021 - Feb 2022), including 35 days observing SRO Project pilot activities, and semi-structured interviews with 11 housing staff and 8 tenant overdose prevention specialists ('specialists'). Data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to characterize program impacts, implementation strengths, and implementation challenges from the perspective of specialists and housing staff., Findings: We found that the SRO project increased awareness, access to, and understanding of naloxone; facilitated other mutual-aid practices; supported privacy and autonomy of tenants regarding their drug use; and improved rapport, communication and trust between tenants and housing staff. Strengths of the implementation process included involvement of tenants with diverse social locations and skill sets and, at one site, a team-based approach that fostered program innovation, tenant solidarity and a sense of collective ownership over the project. Program implementation was challenged by frequent turnover and capacity constraints of housing staff, particularly during overnight shifts when overdose risks were greatest. Additional challenges arose due to the psychosocial burden of overdose response work, gendered violence, issues with compensation methods, and scope creep in specialists' roles., Conclusion: This evaluation contributes further evidence regarding the effectiveness of tenant-led naloxone distribution and overdose education in permanent supportive and SRO housing environments. Findings indicate program implementation and sustainability can be improved by expanding tenant specialist training, compensating specialists in cash, and building stronger psychosocial support for tenants responding to overdoses in their homes., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest Emily Valadoa was the program manager for the SRO Project and is employed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Laura Guzman is the interim executive director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition and served as the Senior Director of Capacity Building & Mobilization with the DOPE Project., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. Methods: We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Results: Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Conclusion: Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.