Search

Importance: Emergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine is safe and effective but underutilized in practice. Understanding the factors affecting adoption of this practice could inform more effective interventions., Objective: To quantify the factors, including social contagion, associated with the adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of the EMBED (Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine For Opioid Use Disorder) trial, a multicentered, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention targeting ED initiation of buprenorphine. The trial occurred from November 2019 to May 2021. The study was conducted at ED clusters across health care systems from the northeast, southeast, and western regions of the US and included attending physicians, resident physicians, and advanced practice practitioners. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to June 2023., Exposures: This analysis included both the intervention and nonintervention groups of the EMBED trial. Graph methods were used to construct the network of clinicians who shared in the care of patients for whom buprenorphine was initiated during the trial before initiating the practice themselves, termed exposure., Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazard modeling with time-dependent covariates was performed to assess the association of the number of these exposures with self-adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine while adjusting for clinician role, health care system, and intervention site status., Results: A total of 1026 unique clinicians in 18 ED clusters across 5 health care systems were included. Analysis showed associations of the cumulative number of exposures to others initiating buprenorphine with the self-practice of buprenorphine initiation. This increased in a dose-dependent manner (1 exposure: hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.48; 5 exposures: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.66-4.89; 10 exposures: HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.47-8.58). Intervention site status was associated with practice adoption (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18). Health care system and clinician role were also associated with practice adoption., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a multicenter, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support tool for buprenorphine initiation, the number of exposures to ED initiation of buprenorphine and the trial intervention were associated with uptake of ED initiation of buprenorphine. Although systems-level approaches are necessary to increase the rate of buprenorphine initiation, individual clinicians may change practice of those around them., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03658642.

Background: Opioid overdose deaths have disproportionately impacted Black and Hispanic populations, in part due to disparities in treatment access. Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a resource for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), many of whom have difficulty accessing outpatient addiction programs. However, inequities in ED treatment for OUD remain poorly understood., Methods: This secondary analysis examined racial and ethnic differences in buprenorphine access using data from EMBED, a study of 21 EDs across five health care systems evaluating a clinical decision support system for initiating ED buprenorphine. The primary outcome was receipt of buprenorphine, ED administered or prescribed. Hospital type (academic vs. community) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Hierarchical models with cluster effects for site and clinician were used to assess buprenorphine receipt by race and ethnicity., Results: Black patients were less likely to receive buprenorphine (6.4% [51/801] vs. White patients 8.5% [268/3154], odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.78). This association persisted after adjusting for age, insurance, gender, clinician X-waiver, hospital type, and urbanicity (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.84) but not when discharge diagnosis was included (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-1.02). Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine (14.8% [122/822] vs. non-Hispanic patients, 11.6% [475/4098]) in unadjusted (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09-1.83) and adjusted models (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.83) but not including discharge diagnosis (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99-1.77). Odds of buprenorphine were similar in academic and community EDs by race (interaction p = 0.97) and ethnicity (interaction p = 0.64)., Conclusions: Black patients with OUD were less likely to receive buprenorphine whereas Hispanic patients were more likely to receive buprenorphine in academic and community EDs. Differences were attenuated with discharge diagnosis, as fewer Black and non-Hispanic patients were diagnosed with opioid withdrawal. Barriers to medication treatment are heterogenous among patients with OUD; research must continue to address the multiple drivers of health inequities at the patient, clinician, and community level., (© 2023 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Objective: To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder., Design: Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED)., Setting: 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform., Participants: 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder., Intervention: A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral., Main Outcome Measures: Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework., Results: 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01)., Conclusions: User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Adoption of emergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder (OUD) into routine emergency care has been slow, partly due to clinicians' unfamiliarity with this practice and perceptions that it is complicated and time-consuming. To address these barriers and guide emergency clinicians through the process of BUP initiation, we implemented a user-centered computerized clinical decision support system (CDS). This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of implementation and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the intervention to increase the rate of ED-initiated BUP., Methods: An interrupted time series study was conducted in an urban, academic ED from April 2018 to February 2019 (preimplementation phase), March 2019 to August 2019 (implementation phase), and September 2019 to December 2019 (maintenance phase) to study the effect of the intervention on adult ED patients identified by a validated electronic health record (EHR)-based computable phenotype consisting of structured data consistent with potential cases of OUD who would benefit from BUP treatment. The intervention offers flexible CDS for identification of OUD, assessment of opioid withdrawal, and motivation of readiness to start treatment and automates EHR activities related to ED initiation of BUP (including documentation, orders, prescribing, and referral). The primary outcome was the rate of ED-initiated BUP. Secondary outcomes were launch of the intervention, prescription for naloxone at ED discharge, and referral for ongoing addiction treatment., Results: Of the 141,041 unique patients presenting to the ED over the preimplementation and implementation phases (i.e., the phases used in primary analysis), 906 (574 preimplementation and 332 implementation) met OUD phenotype and inclusion criteria. The rate of BUP initiation increased from 3.5% (20/574) in the preimplementation phase to 6.6% (22/332) in the implementation phase (p = 0.03). After the temporal trend of the number of physician's with X-waiver training and other covariates were adjusted for, the relative risk of BUP initiation rate was 2.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 12.0, p = 0.18). Similarly, the number of unique attendings who initiated BUP increased modestly 7/53 (13.0%) to 13/57 (22.8%, p = 0.10) after offering just-in-time training during the implementation period. The rate of naloxone prescribed at discharge also increased (6.5% preimplementation and 11.5% implementation; p < 0.01). The intervention received a system usability scale score of 82.0 (95% CI = 76.7 to 87.2)., Conclusion: Implementation of user-centered CDS at a single ED was feasible, acceptable, and associated with increased rates of ED-initiated BUP and naloxone prescribing in patients with OUD and a doubling of the number of unique physicians adopting the practice. We have implemented this intervention across several health systems in an ongoing trial to assess its effectiveness, scalability, and generalizability., (© 2020 The Authors. Academic Emergency Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM).)

Background: In order to streamline the emergency department (ED) referral process in a multi-network automated opioid treatment referral program, we performed a needs assessment of community providers for Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) in the EMergency department-initiated BuprenorphinE for opioid use Disorder (EMBED) trial network., Methods: A needs assessment was conducted in two phases: (1) key stakeholder meetings and (2) a survey of community sites offering MOUD. Stakeholder meetings were conducted with five key stakeholder groups: 1) ED clinicians and staff, 2) community sites offering MOUD, 3) the investigative team, 4) health system IT staff, and 5) medical ethics experts. Meetings continued until each stakeholder group stated that their priorities and needs were understood. Major categories of needs were extracted pragmatically based on recurrence across stakeholder groups. Informed by needs expressed by IT and MOUD site stakeholders, nineteen MOUD sites were surveyed to better characterize information needs of community sites offering MOUD when receiving an ED referral., Results: Three major categories of needs for referral system were identified: 1) The system to be automated, flexible and allow multiple channels of referral, 2) Referral metrics are retrievable in a HIPAA compliant manner, 3) Patients are scheduled into community sites offering MOUD as urgently as possible. Of the MOUD sites surveyed, 68.4% (13/19) responded. Based on the responses, specific patient identifiers were required for most MOUD site referrals, and encrypted emails and EHR were the preferred methods of communication for the handoff. 53.8% (7/13) of the sites were able to accept patients within 3 days with only 1 site requiring >7 days., Conclusion: These findings can inform IT solutions to address the discordant priorities of the ED (rapid and flexible referral process) and the community sites offering (referrals minimize variability and overbooking). To prevent drop-out in the referral cascade, our findings emphasize the need for increased availability and accessibility to MOUD on demand and protected communication channels between EDs and community providers of MOUD., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The goal of this trial is to determine whether implementation of a user-centred clinical decision support (CDS) system can increase adoption of initiation of buprenorphine (BUP) into the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD)., Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial is planned to be carried out in 20 emergency departments (EDs) across five healthcare systems over 18 months. The intervention consists of a user-centred CDS integrated into ED clinician electronic workflow and available for guidance to: (1) determine whether patients presenting to the ED meet criteria for OUD, (2) assess withdrawal symptoms and (3) ascertain and motivate patient willingness to initiate treatment. The CDS guides the ED clinician to initiate BUP and facilitate follow-up. The primary outcome is the rate of BUP initiated in the ED. Secondary outcomes are: (1) rates of receiving a referral, (2) fidelity with the CDS and (3) rates of clinicians providing any ED-initiated BUP, referral for ongoing treatment and receiving Drug Addiction Act of 2000 training. Primary and secondary outcomes will be analysed using generalised linear mixed models, with fixed effects for intervention status (CDS vs usual care), prespecified site and patient characteristics, and random effects for study site., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the Western Institutional Review Board. No identifiable private information will be collected from patients. A waiver of informed consent was obtained for the collection of data for clinician prescribing and other activities. As a minimal risk implementation study of established best practices, an Independent Study Monitor will be utilised in place of a Data Safety Monitoring Board. Results will be reported in ClinicalTrials.gov and published in open-access, peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and shared with the clinicians at participating sites via a broadcast email notification of publications., Trial Registration Number: NCT03658642; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)