Barriers and Facilitators to Clinician Readiness to Provide Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine

Experiences of patients at high risk of opioid overdose accessing emergency department and behavioral health interventions: a qualitative analysis in an urban emergency department

BACKGROUND

Emergency Departments (EDs) have become critical 'touchpoints' for the identification and early engagement of patients at risk of overdose or who have an opioid use disorder (OUD). Our objectives were to examine patients' ED experiences, identify barriers and facilitators of service uptake in ED settings, and explore patients' experiences with ED staff.

METHODS

This qualitative study was part of a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effectiveness of clinical social workers and certified peer recovery specialists in increasing treatment uptake and reducing opioid overdose rates for people with OUD. Between September 2019 and March 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted 19 participants from the trial. Interviews sought to assess participants' ED care experiences across intervention type (i.e., clinical social worker or peer recovery specialist). Participants were purposively sampled across intervention arm (social work, n = 11; peer recovery specialist, n = 7; control, n = 1). Data were analyzed thematically with a focus on participant experiences in the ED and social and structural factors shaping care experiences and service utilization.

RESULTS

Participants reported varied ED experiences, including instances of discrimination and stigma due to their substance use. However, participants underscored the need for increased engagement of people with lived experience in ED settings, including the use of peer recovery specialists. Participants highlighted that ED provider interactions were critical drivers of shaping care and service utilization and needed to be improved across EDs to improve post-overdose care.

CONCLUSIONS

While the ED provides an opportunity to reach patients at risk of overdose, our results demonstrate how ED-based interactions and service provision can impact ED care engagement and service utilization. Modifications to care delivery may improve experiences for patients with OUD or at high risk for overdose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration: NCT03684681.

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.

Variability in opioid use disorder clinical presentations and treatment in the emergency department: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There is strong evidence for emergency department (ED)-initiated treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). However, implementation is variable, and ED management of OUD may differ by clinical presentation. Our aim was to use mixed methods to explore variation in ED-based OUD care by patient clinical presentation and understand barriers and facilitators to ED implementation of OUD treatment across scenarios.

METHODS

We analyzed treatment outcomes in OUD-related visits within three urban, academic EDs from 12/2018 to 7/2020 following the implementation of interventions to increase ED-initiated OUD treatment. We assessed differences in treatment with medications for OUD (MOUDs) by clinical presentation (overdose, withdrawal, others). These data were integrated with results from 5 focus groups conducted with 28 ED physicians and nurses January to April 2020 to provide a richer understanding of clinician perspectives on caring for ED patients with OUD.

RESULTS

Of the 1339 total opioid-related visits, there were 265 (20%) visits for overdose, 123 (9%) for withdrawal, and 951 (71%) for other OUD-related conditions. 23% of patients received MOUDs during their visit or at discharge. Treatment with MOUDs was least common in overdose presentations (6%) and most common in withdrawal presentations (69%, p < 0.001). Buprenorphine was prescribed at discharge in 15% of visits, including 42% of withdrawal visits, 14% of other OUD-related visits, and 5% of overdose visits (p < 0.001). In focus groups, clinicians highlighted variation in ED presentations among patients with OUD. Clinicians also highlighted key aspects necessary for successful treatment initiation including perceived patient receptivity, provider confidence, and patient clinical readiness.

CONCLUSIONS

ED-based treatment of OUD differed by clinical presentation. Clinician focus groups identified several areas where targeted guidance or novel approaches may improve current practices. These results highlight the need for tailored clinical guidance and can inform health system and policy interventions seeking to increase ED-initiated treatment for OUD.

Enhancing Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Through External Coaching

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled trial tested whether external coaching influences addiction treatment providers' utilization of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUDs).

METHODS

This study recruited 75 unique clinical sites in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin, including 61 sites in specialty treatment agencies and 14 behavioral health sites within health systems. The trial used external coaching to increase use of MOUDs in the context of a learning collaborative and compared it with no coaching and no learning collaborative (control condition). Outcome measures of MOUD capacity and utilization were monthly tabulations of licensed buprenorphine slots (i.e., the number of patients who could be treated based on the buprenorphine waiver limits of the site's providers), buprenorphine use, and injectable naltrexone administration.

RESULTS

The coaching and control arms showed no significant difference at baseline. Although buprenorphine slots increased in both arms during the 30-month trial, growth increased twice as fast at the coaching sites, compared with the control sites (average monthly rate of 6.1% vs. 3.0%, respectively, p<0.001). Buprenorphine use showed a similar pattern; the monthly growth rate in the coaching arm was more than twice the rate in the control arm (5.3% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001). Coaching did not have an impact on injectable naltrexone, which grew less than 1% in both arms over the trial period.

CONCLUSIONS

External coaching can increase organizational capacity for and growth of buprenorphine use. Future research should explore the dimensions of coaching practice, dose, and delivery modality to better understand and enhance the coaching function.

Peer recovery coaches and emergency department utilization in patients with substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Although Emergency Departments (ED) frequently provide care for patients with substance use disorders (SUD), there are many barriers to connecting them with appropriate long-term treatment. One approach to subside risk in this population is the Peer Recovery Coach (PRC). PRCs are individuals with a lived experience of the rehabilitation process and are a powerful resource to bridge this gap in care by engaging patients and their families and providing system navigation, self-empowerment for behavior change, and harm reduction strategies. The purpose of this project is to describe an ED-based PRC program, evaluating its feasibility and efficacy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective quality improvement project conducted at 3 suburban hospitals. All patients arriving to the ED were screened with a brief questionnaire in triage and patients identified as a high-risk had referral placed to a PRC if the patient consented. The PRC met with the patient at the ED bedside if possible. The PRC program members collected prospective data on patient engagement with the PRC at 30, 60, and 90 days post ED encounter. Using the EMR we identified the number of subsequent ED visits at 30, 60, and 90 days (for both medical and substance use disorder-related visits) from the index PRC visit.

RESULTS

There were 448 individuals identified and included in this analysis between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020, of which 292 (66%) were male and the mean age was 44 (range 18-80). Most patients identified alcohol as the primary substance they used (289, 65%), followed by heroin/opiates (20%). At 30, 60, and 90 days, there were 110 (25%), 79 (18%), and 71 (16%) patients who were still actively engaged in the program, respectively. Among all patients in the cohort, there was essentially no decrease in mean visits before versus after the PRC engagement visit. However, among patients who had at least one prior ED visit, there were significant differences in mean visits across all visit-types: for patients with 1 prior ED visit, 90 day mean decrease in visits = 1.0 visits (95% CI 0.7-1.2), for patients with 5+ prior ED visits, 90 day mean decrease in visits = 3.6 visits (95% CI 2.4-4.8).

CONCLUSION

We describe the implementation of an ED-based PRC program for patients with substance use disorders. While we demonstrated that it is feasible for the PRC to engage the patient while in the ED, there was poor follow-up with the program outpatient. For patients with at least one previous SUD visit to the ED, there was a statistically significant reduction in ED utilization after engaging with a PRC while in the ED, suggesting this may be a population that could be targeted to link patients to long term care and decrease repeated ED utilization.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing medications for opioid use disorder and naloxone distribution in Veterans Affairs emergency departments

OBJECTIVES

Safer opioid prescribing patterns, naloxone distribution, and medications for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) are an important part of decreasing opioid-related adverse events. Veterans are more likely to experience these adverse events compared to the general population. Despite treatment guidelines and ED-based opioid safety programs implemented throughout Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers, many Veterans with OUD do not receive these harm reduction interventions. Prior research in other health care settings has identified barriers to M-OUD initiation and naloxone distribution; however, little is known about how this may be similar or different for health care professionals in VA ED and urgent care centers.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with VA health care professionals and staff using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed the data addressing barriers and facilitators to M-OUD treatment in the ED and naloxone distribution using descriptive matrix analysis, followed by team consensus.

RESULTS

We interviewed 19 VA staff in various roles. Respondent concerns and considerations regarding the initiation of M-OUD in the ED included M-OUD initiation falling outside of ED's scope of providing acute treatment, lack of VA-approved M-OUD protocols and follow-up procedures, staffing concerns, and educational gaps. Respondents reported that naloxone was important but lacked clarity on who should prescribe it. Some respondents stated that an automated system to prescribe naloxone would be helpful, and others felt that it would not offer needed support and education to patients. Some respondents reported that naloxone would not address opioid misuse, which other respondents felt was a belief due to stigma around substance use and lack of education about treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Our VA-based research highlights similarities of barriers and facilitators, seen in other health care settings, when implementing opioid safety initiatives. Education and training, destigmatizing substance use disorder care, and leveraging technology are important facilitators to increasing access to lifesaving therapies for OUD treatment and harm reduction.

Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine Treatment in a Population with a High Rate of Homelessness: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opioid use disorders. A previous randomized trial comparing emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to standard care showed dramatic improvement in follow-up. This is encouraging, but must be replicated to understand the generalizability of buprenorphine treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the efficacy of an ED-initiated buprenorphine protocol similar to a previous randomized trial in a different population.

METHODS

This ED-based descriptive study described the results of a project implementing an opioid use disorder treatment protocol that included buprenorphine. Patients with opioid use disorder were offered treatment with buprenorphine, a buprenorphine prescription whenever possible, and a follow-up visit to a clinic providing addiction treatment. The primary outcome was engagement in formal addiction treatment 30 days after the index visit.

RESULTS

Of the 210 patients who accepted referral for outpatient medication-assisted treatment, 95 (45.2%) achieved the primary outcome. Two-thirds of these patients received a buprenorphine prescription at discharge; 40% were homeless. A regression analysis revealed one statistically significant predictor of the primary outcome: patients who were housed were 2.49 times more likely to engage in opioid use disorder treatment than patients who were homeless (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this descriptive study of an ED-initiated buprenorphine protocol, follow-up was less than that reported in a previous randomized controlled trial. Two important differences between our study and the randomized trial are the high rate of homelessness and the fact that not every patient received a prescription for buprenorphine. The efficacy of ED-initiated treatment may depend on certain population characteristics.

Perspectives Regarding Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Among Individuals with Mental Illness

Most people with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness do not receive effective medications for treating OUD. To investigate perspectives of adults in a publicly-funded mental health system regarding medications for OUD (MOUD), we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 13 adults with OUD (current or previous diagnosis) receiving mental health treatment. Themes that emerged included: perceiving or using MOUDs as a substitute for opioids or a temporary solution to prevent withdrawal symptoms; negative perceptions about methadone/methadone clinics; and viewing MOUD use as "cheating". Readiness to quit was important for patients to consider MOUDs. All participants were receptive to discussing MOUDs with their mental health providers and welcomed the convenience of receiving care for their mental health and OUD at the same location. In conclusion, clients at publicly-funded mental health clinics support MOUD treatment, signaling a need to expand access and build awareness of MOUDs in these settings.

Methodological approaches to study context in intervention implementation studies: an evidence gap map

BACKGROUND

Within implementation science studies, contextual analysis is increasingly recognized as foundational to interventions' successful and sustainable implementation. However, inconsistencies between methodological approaches currently limit progress in studying context and guidance to standardize the use of those approaches is scant. Therefore, this study's objective was to systematically review and map current methodological approaches to contextual analysis in intervention implementation studies. The results would help us both to systematize the process of contextual analysis and identify gaps in the current evidence.

METHODS

We conducted an evidence gap map (EGM) based on literature data via a stepwise approach. First, using an empirically developed search string, we randomly sampled 20% of all intervention implementation studies available from PubMed per year (2015-2020). Second, we assessed included studies that conducted a contextual analysis. Data extraction and evaluation followed the Basel Approach for CoNtextual ANAlysis (BANANA), using a color-coded rating scheme. Also based on BANANA and on the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework-an implementation framework that pays ample attention to context- we created visual maps of various approaches to contextual analysis.

RESULTS

Of 15, 286 identified intervention implementation studies and study protocols, 3017 were screened for inclusion. Of those, 110 warranted close examination, revealing 22% that reported on contextual analysis. Only one study explicitly applied a framework for contextual analysis. Data were most commonly collected via surveys (n = 15) and individual interviews (n = 13). Ten studies reported mixed-methods analyses. Twenty-two assessed meso-level contextual and setting factors, with socio-cultural aspects most commonly studied. Eighteen described the use of contextual information for subsequent project phases (e.g., intervention development/adaption, selecting implementation strategies). Nine reported contextual factors' influences on implementation and/or effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes current approaches to contextual analysis in implementation science and provides a novel framework for evaluating and mapping it. By synthesizing our findings graphically in figures, we provide an initial evidence base framework that can incorporate new findings as necessary. We strongly recommend further development of methodological approaches both to conduct contextual analysis and to systematize the reporting of it. These actions will increase the quality and consistency of implementation science research.

Effect of Didactic Training on Barriers and Biases to Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: Meeting the Ongoing Needs of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department during the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the wake of COVID-19, morbidity and mortality due to Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) is beginning to emerge as a second wave of deaths of despair. Medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder MAT delivered by Emergency Medicine (EM) providers can decrease mortality due to OUD; however, there are numerous cited barriers to MAT delivery. We examined the impact of MAT training on these barriers among EM residents in an urban, tertiary care facility with a large EM residency. Training included the scripted and standardized content from the Provider Clinical Support System curriculum. Residents completed pre- and post-training surveys on knowledge, barriers, and biases surrounding OUD. We performed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test to detect statistical differences. Of 74 residents, 49 (66%) completed the pre-training survey, and 34 (69%) of these completed the follow-up survey. Residents reported improved preparedness to treat aspects of OUD across all areas queried, reported decreased perception of barriers to providing MAT, and increased comfort prescribing naloxone, counseling patients, prescribing buprenorphine, and treating opioid withdrawal. A didactic training on MAT was associated with residents reporting improved comfort providing buprenorphine and naloxone. As the wake of morbidity and mortality from both COVID and OUD continue to increase, programs should offer dedicated training on MAT.

Models for Implementing Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine With Referral for Ongoing Medication Treatment at Emergency Department Discharge in Diverse Academic Centers

There has been a substantial rise in the number of publications and training opportunities on the care and treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder over the past several years. The American College of Emergency Physicians recently published recommendations for providing buprenorphine to patients with opioid use disorder, but barriers to implementing this clinical practice remain. We describe the models for implementing ED-initiated buprenorphine at 4 diverse urban, academic medical centers across the country as part of a federally funded effort termed "Project ED Health." These 4 sites successfully implemented unique ED-initiated buprenorphine programs as part of a comparison of implementation facilitation to traditional educational dissemination on the uptake of ED-initiated buprenorphine. Each site describes the elements central to the ED process, including screening, treatment initiation, referral, and follow-up, while harnessing organizational characteristics, including ED culture. Finally, we discuss common facilitators to program success, including information technology and electronic medical record integration, hospital-level support, strong connections with outpatient partners, and quality improvement processes.

Effect of Implementation Facilitation to Promote Adoption of Medications for Addiction Treatment in US HIV Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Medications for addiction treatment (MAT) are inconsistently offered in HIV clinics.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation (hereafter referred to as "facilitation"), a multicomponent implementation strategy, on increasing provision of MAT for opioid use disorder (MOUD), alcohol use disorder (MAUD), and tobacco use disorder (MTUD).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Conducted from July 26, 2016, through July 25, 2020, the Working with HIV Clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study used an unblinded, stepped wedge design to sequentially assign each of 4 HIV clinics in the northeastern US to cross over from control (ie, baseline practices) to facilitation (ie, intervention) and then evaluation and maintenance periods every 6 months. Participants were adult patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to September 2022.

Interventions

Multicomponent facilitation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes, assessed using electronic health record data, were provision of MAT among patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder during the evaluation (primary outcome) and maintenance periods compared with the control period.

Results

Among 3647 patients, the mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years, 1814 (50%) were Black, 781 (22%) were Hispanic, and 1407 (39%) were female; 121 (3%) had opioid use disorder, 126 (3%) had alcohol use disorder, and 420 (12%) had tobacco use disorder. Compared with the control period, there was no increase in provision of MOUD with facilitation during the evaluation period (243 patients [27%; 95% CI, 22%-32%] vs 135 patients [28%; 95% CI, 22%-35%]; P = .59) or maintenance period (198 patients [29%; 95% CI, 22%-36%]; P = .48). The change in provision of MAUD from the control period to the evaluation period was not statistically significant (251 patients [8%; 95% CI, 5%-12%] vs 112 patients [13%; 95% CI, 8%-21%]; P = .11); however, the difference increased and became significant during the maintenance period (180 patients [17%; 95% CI, 12%-24%]; P = .009). There were significant increases in provision of MTUD with facilitation during both the evaluation (810 patients [33%; 95% CI, 30%-36%] vs 471 patients [40%; 95% CI, 36%-45%]; P = .005) and maintenance (643 patients [38%; 95% CI, 34%-41%]; P = .047) periods.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, facilitation led to increased provision of MTUD, delayed improvements in MAUD, and no improvements in MOUD in HIV clinics. Enhanced strategies, potentially including clinic and patient incentives, especially for MOUD, may be needed to further increase provision of MAT in HIV clinics.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02907944.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder in Hospice and Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians increasingly care for patients with concurrent painful serious illness and opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid misuse; however, only a minority of HPC clinicians have an X-waiver license or actively use it to prescribe buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

OBJECTIVES

To understand barriers for HPC clinicians to obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD.

METHODS

We performed content analysis on 100 survey responses from members of the national Buprenorphine Peer Support Network, a group of HPC clinicians interested in buprenorphine, on X-waiver status, barriers to obtaining an X-waiver, and barriers to active prescribing.

RESULTS

Of 100 HPC clinicians surveyed, only 26 of 57 HPC clinicians with X-waivers had ever prescribed. Prominent barriers included discomfort managing concurrent pain, buprenorphine, and OUD; concerns about impacts on practice; unsupportive practice culture; insufficient practice support; patient facing challenges; and cumbersome regulatory policies.

CONCLUSION

Despite HPC clinicians' interest in buprenorphine prescribing for OUD, several steps are needed to facilitate the practice, including clinician education tailored to pain and to clinical challenges faced by HPC clinicians, mentorship on buprenorphine use, and cultural and practice changes to dismantle systemic stigma towards addiction. We propose evidence-based steps derived from our survey findings that individual clinicians, HPC leaders, and national HPC organizations can take to improve care for patients with painful serious illness and OUD.

Improving Uptake of Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine: Barriers and Solutions

Emergency departments (ED) are increasingly providing buprenorphine to persons with opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine programs in the ED have strong support from public health leaders and emergency medicine specialty societies and have proven to be clinically effective, cost effective, and feasible. Even so, few ED buprenorphine programs currently exist. Given this imbalance between evidence-based practice and current practice, proven behavior change approaches can be used to guide local efforts to expand ED buprenorphine capacity. In this paper, we use the theory of planned behavior to identify and address the 1) clinician factors, 2) institutional factors, and 3) external factors surrounding ED buprenorphine implementation. By doing so, we seek to provide actionable and pragmatic recommendations to increase ED buprenorphine availability across different practice settings.

Emergency department interventions for opioid use disorder: A synthesis of emerging models

INTRODUCTION

Opioid overdose deaths are increasing, and improving access to evidence-based treatment is necessary. Emergency department (ED) initiation of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) via medications and referral to treatment is one approach that leverages a critical health care entry point for individuals with OUD. Efforts to engage patients in treatment through the ED are growing, but systematic analysis of program features as implemented and challenges across different models remains limited. Lessons from early adopter programs may benefit clinicians and others looking to offer ED-initiated treatment for OUD.

METHODS

We conducted case studies of five ED-based efforts to address OUD across the United States, selected for diversity in structure, approach, and geography. We conducted telephone interviews with 37 individuals (ED physicians, ED nurses, navigators, hospital administrators, community providers, and state policymakers) affiliated with the five programs. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a framework analysis approach, identifying relevant lessons for replication.

RESULTS

These five programs (an academic medical center, two large urban hospitals, a rural community hospital, and a community-based program) successfully implemented ED-initiated MOUD. Often a champion with knowledge of OUD treatment and a reliable connection with outpatient treatment began the program. The approach to patient identification varied from universal screening to relying on patient self-identification. Substance use treatment navigators provide crucial services but can be difficult to pay for within current reimbursement frameworks. Barriers to implementation include lack of knowledge about treatment options and effectiveness, stigma, community treatment capacity limits, and health insurance and reimbursement policies. Facilitators of success include taking a patient-centered, low-barrier approach, having a passionate champion, a strong structure with health system support, and a relationship with community partners. Metrics for success vary across programs. Some programs are expanding to include treating the use of other substances such as alcohol and stimulants.

CONCLUSION

ED-initiated MOUD is feasible across different settings. Research and real world efforts need to promote programs that include OUD treatment as standard in ED treatment.

Practices, attitudes, and confidence related to tobacco treatment interventions in HIV clinics: a multisite cross-sectional survey

Tobacco use disorder (TUD) is a major threat to health among people with HIV (PWH), but it is often untreated. Among HIV clinicians and staff, we sought to characterize practices, attitudes, and confidence addressing TUD among PWH to identify potential opportunities to enhance provision of care. Cross-sectional deidentified, web-based surveys were administered from November 4, 2020 through December 15, 2020 in HIV clinics in three health systems in the United States Northeast. Surveys assessed provider characteristics and experience, reported practices addressing tobacco use, and knowledge and attitudes regarding medications for TUD. Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests were used to examine differences in responses between clinicians and staff who were prescribers versus nonprescribers and to examine factors associated with frequency of prescribing TUD medications. Among 118 survey respondents (56% prescribers), only 50% reported receiving prior training on brief smoking cessation interventions. Examining reported practices identified gaps in the delivery of TUD care, including counseling patients on the impact of smoking on HIV, knowledge of clinical practice guidelines, and implementation of assessment and brief interventions for smoking. Among prescribers, first-line medications for TUD were infrequently prescribed and concerns about medication side effects and interaction with antiretroviral treatments were associated with low frequency of prescribing. HIV clinicians and staff reported addressable gaps in their knowledge, understanding, and practices related to tobacco treatment. Additional work is needed to identify ways to ensure adequate training for providers to enhance the delivery of TUD treatment in HIV clinic settings.

A Brief Educational Intervention to Increase ED Initiation of Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD)

BACKGROUND

Despite the evidence in support of the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of OUD and increasing ability of emergency medicine (EM) clinicians to prescribe it, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine is uncommon. Many EM clinicians lack training on how to manage acute opioid withdrawal or initiate treatment with buprenorphine. We developed a brief buprenorphine training program and assessed the impact of the training on subsequent buprenorphine initiation and knowledge retention.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized control trial enrolling EM clinicians to receive either a 30-min didactic intervention about buprenorphine (standard arm) or the didactic plus weekly messaging and a monetary inducement to administer and report buprenorphine use (enhanced arm). All participants were incentivized to complete baseline, immediate post-didactic, and 90-day knowledge and attitude assessment surveys. Our objective was to achieve first time ED buprenorphine prescribing events in clinicians who had not previously prescribed buprenorphine in the ED and to improve EM-clinician knowledge and perceptions about ED-initiated buprenorphine. We also assessed whether the incentives and reminder messaging in the enhanced arm led to more clinicians administering buprenorphine than those in the standard arm following the training; we measured changes in knowledge of and attitudes toward ED-initiated buprenorphine.

RESULTS

Of 104 EM clinicians enrolled, 51 were randomized to the standard arm and 53 to the enhanced arm. Clinical knowledge about buprenorphine improved for all clinicians immediately after the didactic intervention (difference 19.4%, 95% CI 14.4% to 24.5%). In the 90 days following the intervention, one-third (33%) of all participants reported administering buprenorphine for the first time. Clinicians administered buprenorphine more frequently in the enhanced arm compared to the standard arm (40% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.319), but the difference was not statistically significant. The post-session knowledge improvement was not sustained at 90 days in the enhanced (difference 9.6%, 95% CI - 0.37% to 19.5%) or in the standard arm (difference 3.7%, 95% CI - 5.8% to 13.2%). All the participants reported an increased ability to recognize patients with opioid withdrawal at 90 days (enhanced arm difference .55, 95% CI .01-1.09, standard arm difference .85 95% CI .34-1.37).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief educational intervention targeting EM clinicians can be utilized to achieve first-time prescribing and improve knowledge around buprenorphine and opioid withdrawal. The use of weekly messaging and gain-framed incentivization conferred no additional benefit to the educational intervention alone. In order to further expand evidence-based ED treatment of OUD, focused initiatives that improve clinician competence with buprenorphine should be explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03821103.

User centered clinical decision support to implement initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in the emergency department: EMBED pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

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.

Barriers and facilitators associated with establishment of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in rural Maine

PURPOSE

The opioid epidemic in the United States continues to grow, particularly impacting rural communities served by critical access hospitals (CAHs) in Maine. Buprenorphine is an effective medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) that can be successfully initiated in the emergency department (ED). However, many EDs have not implemented programs to initiate buprenorphine. This study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of buprenorphine programs inCAH EDs.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with ED directors of Maine CAHs regarding barriers and facilitators to developing programs for ED-initiated buprenorphine. Seventeen Maine CAH EDs exist and 11 of their directors agreed to participate and completed interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Four themes and 11 subthemes were identified, including (1) compelled to act-directors' personal experiences with patients facilitated the development of buprenorphine programs in their EDs; (2) leadership and mentorship-peer mentorship from other CAH ED directors facilitated, and senior hospital administrators facilitated, or created a barrier in some cases; (3) stigma-fear that EDs would be overcrowded by drug-seeking patients was a common barrier; and (4) follow-up-finding appropriate outpatient follow-up for OUD patients created the greatest logistical barrier.

DISCUSSION

ED directors' clinical experience with OUD patients, supportive hospital leadership, and peer mentorship facilitated ED-initiated buprenorphine programs in rural Maine CAH EDs. Overcoming stigma, developing community outreach, and appropriate follow-up were the greatest barriers. Future research should focus on enhancing peer mentorship, administrative support, community outreach, and staff education.

Resident attitudes, experiences, and preferences on initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department: A national survey

Objectives

The objective was to describe emergency medicine (EM) resident attitudes, preferences, and experiences around the knowledge and skills around the evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We created an online survey that was distributed by the Emergency Medicine Residents' Association research committee listserv to approximately 6600 resident physicians at all levels of EM residency training. Data were collected between June 2020 and October 2020. This 12-question voluntary, anonymous survey included questions exploring EM resident preferences and experiences around the education and exposure to the evidence-based management of patients with OUD in the ED setting. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

A total of 288 of 6600 invited EM residents (response rate 4.4%) from 127 different EM residency programs across 38 states in the United States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the survey. Most respondents (165/288; 57.3%) reported that it was "very important" for emergency physicians to have training to initiate buprenorphine treatment for patients with OUD. Just under half (140/288; 48.6%) reported they have or will receive X-waiver training during residency and 46.9% (135/288) reported experience prescribing buprenorphine in the ED. The estimated proportions of EM faculty at responding residents' primary teaching hospital with an X-waiver was "most or all" (48/285; 16.8%), "about half" (23/285; 8.1%), "a handful" (79/285; 27.7%), "one or two" (33/285; 11.6%), "none" (19/285; 6.7%), or "not sure" (83/285; 29.1%).

Conclusion

Survey results suggest that resident emergency physicians perceive the evidence-based management of OUD to be relevant to EM residency training and are interested in receiving training on initiating medications for OUD treatment in the ED. Opportunities to improve resident education and clinical use of buprenorphine during ED residency training were identified.

Survey of Barriers and Facilitators to Prescribing Buprenorphine and Clinician Perceptions on the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 Waiver

IMPORTANCE

As opioid-related deaths continue to climb, methods to reduce barriers to prescribing buprenorphine for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) are needed. Recent conversations by state and federal authorities targeting low-threshold buprenorphine aim to reduce some barriers to prescribing buprenorphine; however, what remains unclear is whether removal of the requirement to obtain a waiver for prescribing buprenorphine through the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (an X-waiver) will be enough to increase access to buprenorphine.

OBJECTIVE

To assess barriers and facilitators of obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This mixed-method survey study was conducted between September and December 2020; 607 office-based Texas clinicians were surveyed after they attended a buprenorphine X-waiver training course. All attendees between March 2, 2019, and February 28, 2020, were eligible to receive this survey; 126 responses were received (20% response rate: 81 physicians, 37 nurse practitioners, and 8 physician assistants). Data analysis was performed October 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Surveys measured the extent to which clinicians experienced 9 previously identified barriers during the waiver process and in prescribing buprenorphine. The survey included open-ended items assessing facilitating factors to obtaining a waiver and to prescribing buprenorphine for OUD. The barriers were analyzed using χ2 tests of homogeneity. Qualitative data were analyzed using a constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Among 126 clinicians who responded, 61 (48.4%) had received an X-waiver; of these waivered clinicians, 22 (36%) were prescribing buprenorphine and 39 (64%) were not. "Complexity of X-waiver process," "Perceived lack of professional support and referral network," and "Getting started" were significantly different barriers among waivered and nonwaivered clinicians. Significant differences in barriers experienced between prescribers and nonprescribers were "Getting started" and "Accessing reimbursement for treatment." The most frequently mentioned facilitators involved changes to the waiver training and the need for networks connecting experienced clinicians with those in the initial stages of readiness for prescribing buprenorphine for OUD.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This survey study's results contribute new understanding of facilitators to obtaining the X-waiver and to prescribing buprenorphine. Furthermore, these findings suggest that to increase access to compassionate evidence-based treatment for OUD, clinicians need ongoing support and mentorship from experienced and knowledgeable clinicians. Interventions aimed at improving access to buprenorphine should focus on facilitating such networks to increase the number of clinicians who obtain an X-waiver and prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

The Emergency Department Longitudinal Integrated Care (ED-LINC) intervention targeting opioid use disorder: A pilot randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Opioid use disorder (OUD) and related comorbid conditions are highly prevalent among patients presenting to emergency department (ED) settings. Research has developed few comprehensive disease management strategies for at-risk patients presenting to the ED that both decrease illicit opioid use and improve initiation and retention in medication treatment for OUD (MOUD).

METHODS

The research team conducted a pilot pragmatic clinical trial that randomized 40 patients presenting to a single ED to a collaborative care intervention (n = 20) versus usual care control (n = 20) conditions. Interviewers blinded to patient intervention and control group status followed-up with participants at 1, 3, and 6 months after presentation to the ED. The 3-month Emergency Department Longitudinal Integrated Care (ED-LINC) collaborative care intervention for patients at risk for OUD included: 1) a Brief Negotiated Interview at bedside, 2) overdose education and facilitation of MOUD, 3) longitudinal proactive care management, 4) utilization of the statewide health information exchange platform for 24/7 tracking of recurrent ED utilization, and 5) weekly caseload supervision that incorporated measurement-based care treatment assessment with stepped-up care for patients with recalcitrant symptoms.

RESULTS

Overall, the ED-LINC intervention was feasibly delivered and acceptable to patients. The pilot study achieved >80% follow-up rates at 1, 3, and 6 months. In adjusted longitudinal mixed model regression analyses, no statistically significant differences existed in days of opioid use over the past 30 days for ED-LINC intervention patients when compared to patients receiving usual care (incidence-rate ratio (IRR) 1.50, 95% CI 0.54-4.16). The unadjusted mean number of days of illicit opioid use decreased at the 1-month and 3-month follow-up time points for both groups. ED-LINC intervention patients had increased rates of MOUD initiation compared to control patients (50% versus 30%); intervention versus control comparisons did not achieve statistical significance, although power to detect significant differences in the pilot was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED-LINC intervention for patients with OUD can be feasibly implemented and warrants testing in larger scale, adequately powered randomized pragmatic clinical trial investigations.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT03699085.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

"Just give them a choice": Patients' perspectives on starting medications for opioid use disorder in the ED

OBJECTIVES

Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescribed in the emergency department (ED) have the potential to save lives and help people start and maintain recovery. We sought to explore patient perspectives regarding the initiation of buprenorphine and methadone in the ED with the goal of improving interactions and fostering shared decision making (SDM) around these important treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of people with opioid use disorder (OUD) regarding ED visits and their experiences with MOUD. The interview guide was based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a framework for examining decisional needs and tailoring decisional support, and the research team's experience with MOUD and SDM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process using both the Ottawa Framework and a social-ecological framework. Themes were identified and organized and implications for clinical care were noted and discussed.

RESULTS

Twenty-six participants were interviewed, seven in person in the ED and 19 via video conferencing software. The majority had tried both buprenorphine and methadone, and almost all had been in an ED for an issue related to opioid use. Participants reported social, pharmacological, and emotional factors that played into their decision making. Regarding buprenorphine, they noted advantages such as its efficacy and logistical ease and disadvantages such as the need to wait to start it (risk of precipitated withdrawal) and that one could not use other opioids while taking it. Additionally, participants felt that: (1) both buprenorphine and methadone should be offered; (2) because "one person's pro is another person's con," clinicians will need to understand the facets of the options; (3) clinicians will need to have these conversations without appearing judgmental; and (4) many patients may not be "ready" for MOUD, but it should still be offered.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants were supportive of offering buprenorphine in the ED, many felt that methadone should also be offered. They felt that treatment should be tailored to an individual's needs and circumstances and clarified what factors might be important considerations for people with OUD.

Prehospital Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder by Paramedics: First Year Results of the EMS Buprenorphine Use Pilot

Background: Prehospital initiation of buprenorphine treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) by paramedics is an emerging potential intervention to reach patients at greatest risk for opioid-related death. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) patients who are at high risk for overdose deaths may never engage in treatment as they frequently refuse transport to the hospital after naloxone reversal. The potentially important role of EMS as the initiator for medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the most high-risk patients has not been well described. Setting: This project relies on four interventions: a public access naloxone distribution program, an electronic trigger and data sharing program, an "Overdose Receiving Center," and a paramedic initiated buprenorphine treatment. For the final intervention, paramedics followed a protocol based pilot which had an EMS physician consultation prior to administration. Results: There were 36 patients enrolled in the trial study in the first year who received buprenorphine. Of those patients receiving buprenorphine, only one patient signed out against medical advice on scene. All other patients were transported to an emergency department and their clinical outcome and 7 and 30 day follow ups were determined by the substance use navigator (SUN.) 36 of 36 patients had follow up data obtained in the short term and none experienced any precipitated withdrawal or other adverse outcomes. Patients had a 50% (18/36) rate of treatment retention at 7 days and 36% (14/36) were in treatment at 30 days. Conclusion: In this small pilot project, paramedic initiated buprenorphine in the setting of data sharing and linkage with treatment appears to be a safe intervention with a high rate of ongoing outpatient treatment for risk of fatal opioid overdoses.

Implementation and maintenance of an emergency department naloxone distribution and peer recovery specialist program

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Emergency department (ED)-based naloxone distribution and peer-based behavioral counseling have been shown to be feasible, but little is known about utilization maintenance over time and clinician, patient, and visit level factors influencing implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of an ED overdose prevention program providing take-home naloxone, behavioral counseling, and treatment linkage for patients treated for an opioid overdose at two Rhode Island EDs from 2017 to 2020: one tertiary referral center and a community hospital. Utilizing a Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, we evaluated program reach, adoption, implementation modifiers, and maintenance using logistic and Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Seven hundred forty two patients were discharged after an opioid overdose, comprising 966 visits (median: 32 visits per month; interquartile range: 29, 41). At least one intervention was provided at most (86%, 826/966) visits. Take-home naloxone was provided at 69% of visits (637/919). Over half (51%, 495/966) received behavioral counseling and treatment referral (65%, 609/932). Almost all attending physicians provided take-home naloxone (97%, 105/108), behavioral counseling (95%, 103/108), or treatment referral (95%, 103/108) at least once. Most residents and advanced practice practitioners (APPs) provided take home naloxone (78% residents; 72% APPs), behavioral counseling (76% residents; 67% APPs), and treatment referral (80% residents; 81% APPs) at least once. Most clinicians provided these services for over half of the opioid overdose patients they cared for. Patients were twice as likely to receive behavioral counseling when treated by an attending in combination with a resident and/or APP (adjusted odds ratio: 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68, 3.12) compared to an attending alone. There was no depreciation in use over time.

CONCLUSIONS

ED naloxone distribution, behavioral counseling, and referral to treatment can be successfully integrated into usual emergency care and maintained over time with high reach and adoption. Further work is needed to identify low-cost implementation strategies to improve services use and dissemination across clinical settings.

Sustained Implementation of a Multicomponent Strategy to Increase Emergency Department-Initiated Interventions for Opioid Use Disorder

STUDY OBJECTIVE

There is strong evidence supporting emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, but less is known about how to implement this practice. Our aim was to describe implementation, maintenance, and provider adoption of a multicomponent strategy for opioid use disorder treatment in 3 urban, academic EDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data for adult patients with opioid use disorder-related visits before (March 2017 to November 2018) and after (December 2018 to July 2020) implementation. We describe patient characteristics, clinical treatment, and process measures over time and conducted an interrupted time series analysis using a patient-level multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association of the interventions with buprenorphine use and other outcomes. Finally, we report provider-level variation in prescribing after implementation.

RESULTS

There were 2,665 opioid use disorder-related visits during the study period: 28% for overdose, 8% for withdrawal, and 64% for other conditions. Thirteen percent of patients received medications for opioid use disorder during or after their ED visit overall. Following intervention implementation, there were sustained increases in treatment and process measures, with a net increase in total buprenorphine of 20% in the postperiod (95% confidence interval 16% to 23%). In the adjusted patient-level model, there was an immediate increase in the probability of buprenorphine treatment of 24.5% (95% confidence interval 12.1% to 37.0%) with intervention implementation. Seventy percent of providers wrote at least 1 buprenorphine prescription, but provider-level buprenorphine prescribing ranged from 0% to 61% of opioid use disorder-related encounters.

CONCLUSION

A combination of strategies to increase ED-initiated opioid use disorder treatment was associated with sustained increases in treatment and process measures. However, adoption varied widely among providers, suggesting that additional strategies are needed for broader uptake.

Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine and Referral to Follow-up Addiction Care: A Program Description

INTRODUCTION

Emergency department (ED) initiated opioid use disorder (OUD) care is effective; however, real-world predictors of patient engagement are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This program evaluation examined predictors of ED-based OUD treatment and subsequent engagement.

METHOD

Program evaluation in Boston, MA. Adult patients who met criteria for OUD during an ED visit in 2019 were included. Patients were included if a diagnosis of OUD or opioid-related overdose was associated with the ED visit or if they met previously validated criteria for OUD within the previous 12 months. We assessed predictors of ED-OUD treatment receipt and subsequent engagement, using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set definition of initial encounter within 14 days of discharge and either 2 subsequent encounters or a subsequent buprenorphine prescription within 34 days of the initial encounter. We used generalized estimating equations for panel data.

RESULTS

During 2019, 1946 patients met criteria for OUD. Referrals to Bridge Clinic were made for 207 (11%), buprenorphine initiated for 106 (5%), and home induction buprenorphine kits given to 56 (3%). Following ED discharge, 237 patients (12%) had a visit within 14 days, 122 (6%) had ≥2 additional visits, and 207 (11%) received a subsequent buprenorphine prescription. Young, White, male patients were most likely to receive ED-OUD care. Patients who received ED-OUD care were more likely to have subsequent treatment engagement (adjusted rate ratio: 2.30, 95% confidence intervals: 1.62-3.27). Referrals were made less often than predicted for Black (-49%) or Hispanic/Latinx (-25%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment for OUD in the ED was associated with increased engagement in outpatient addiction care.

Opioid overdose survivors: Medications for opioid use disorder and risk of repeat overdose in Medicaid patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with medically-treated opioid overdose are at high risk for subsequent adverse outcomes, including repeat overdose. Understanding factors associated with repeat overdose can aid in optimizing post-overdose interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal, retrospective cohort study using NJ Medicaid data from 2014 to 2019. Medicaid beneficiaries aged 12-64 with an index opioid overdose from 2015 to 2018 were followed for one year for subsequent overdose. Exposures included patient demographics; co-occurring medical, mental health, and substance use disorders; service and medication use in the 180 days preceding the index overdose; and MOUD following index overdose.

RESULTS

Of 4898 individuals meeting inclusion criteria, 19.6% had repeat opioid overdoses within one year. Index overdoses involving heroin/synthetic opioids were associated with higher repeat overdose risk than those involving prescription/other opioids only (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.22-1.71). Risk was higher for males and those with baseline opioid use disorder diagnosis or ED visits. Only 21.7% received MOUD at any point in the year following overdose. MOUD was associated with a large decrease in repeat overdose risk among those with index overdose involving heroin/synthetic opioids (HR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.20-0.46). Among those receiving MOUD at any point in follow-up, 10.5% (112/1065) experienced repeat overdose versus 22.1% (848/3833) for those without MOUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat overdose was common among individuals with medically-treated opioid overdose. Risk factors for repeat overdose varied by type of opioid involved in index overdose, with differential implications for intervention. MOUD following index opioid overdose involving heroin/synthetic opioids was associated with reduced repeat overdose risk.

Perspectives About Emergency Department Care Encounters Among Adults With Opioid Use Disorder

IMPORTANCE

Emergency departments (EDs) are increasingly initiating treatment for patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking them to ongoing addiction care. To our knowledge, patient perspectives related to their ED visit have not been characterized and may influence their access to and interest in OUD treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the experiences and perspectives regarding ED-initiated health care and OUD treatment among US patients with untreated OUD seen in the ED.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study, conducted as part of 2 studies (Project ED Health and ED-CONNECT), included individuals with untreated OUD who were recruited during an ED visit in EDs at 4 urban academic centers, 1 public safety net hospital, and 1 rural critical access hospital in 5 disparate US regions. Focus groups were conducted between June 2018 and January 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Data collection and thematic analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework with evidence (perspectives on ED care), context (ED), and facilitation (what is needed to promote change) elements.

RESULTS

A total of 31 individuals (mean [SD] age, 43.4 [11.0] years) participated in 6 focus groups. Twenty participants (64.5%) identified as male and most 13 (41.9%) as White; 17 (54.8%) reported being unemployed. Themes related to evidence included patients' experience of stigma and perceived minimization of their pain and medical problems by ED staff. Themes about context included the ED not being seen as a source of OUD treatment initiation and patient readiness to initiate treatment being multifaceted, time sensitive, and related to internal and external patient factors. Themes related to facilitation of improved care of patients with OUD seen in the ED included a need for on-demand treatment and ED staff training.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, patients with OUD reported feeling stigmatized and minimized when accessing care in the ED and identified several opportunities to improve care. The findings suggest that strategies to address stigma, acknowledge and treat pain, and provide ED staff training should be implemented to improve ED care for patients with OUD and enhance access to life-saving treatment.

"This is part of emergency medicine now": A qualitative assessment of emergency clinicians' facilitators of and barriers to initiating buprenorphine

OBJECTIVES

Despite evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of buprenorphine for the treatment of emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), incorporation into clinical practice has been highly variable. We explored barriers and facilitators to the prescription of buprenorphine, as perceived by practicing ED clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of ED clinicians. An interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Theoretical Domains Framework implementation science frameworks. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 ED clinicians from 11 states in the United States. Participants were diverse with regard to years in practice and practice setting. While outer setting barriers such as the logistic costs of getting a DEA-X waiver and lack of clear follow-up for patients were noted by many participants, individual-level determinants driven by emotion (stigma), beliefs about consequences and roles, and knowledge predominated. Participants' responses suggested that implementation strategies should address stigma, local culture, knowledge gaps, and logistic challenges, but that a particular order to addressing barriers may be necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

While some participants were hesitant to adopt a "new" role in treating patients with medications for OUD, many already had and gave concrete strategies regarding how to encourage others to embrace their attitude of "this is part of emergency medicine now."

Barriers and attitudes reported by Canadian emergency physicians regarding the initiation of buprenorphine/naloxone in the emergency department for patients with opioid use disorder

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study is to identify emergency physician reported barriers to initiating patients on buprenorphine/naloxone in the emergency department (ED) for treatment of opioid use disorder. Secondary objectives include (1) physician reported attitudes about initiating buprenorphine/naloxone in the ED, and (2) comparison of barriers reported based on urban versus rural practice setting.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to a convenience sample of attending emergency physicians and resident physicians using the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) research survey email distribution network.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 1299 email accounts registered with the CAEP research survey network. We received 121 responses, which is a response rate of 9.3%. The completion rate was 118/121 (97.5%). Most respondents 113/118 (95.7%) reported at least one barrier that prevents them from initiating buprenorphine/naloxone in the ED. The top three reported barriers were (1) lack of allied health care staff who were trained to assist in starting patients on buprenorphine/naloxone in the ED and to help arrange follow-up, (2) time constraints related to patient education on the appropriate and safe use of buprenorphine/naloxone, and (3) access to follow-up resources. The majority of respondents agreed buprenorphine/naloxone was an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder and that it is important to make changes in their ED to better facilitate this practice. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of physicians reporting each barrier based on urban versus rural practice setting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this convenience sample of physicians working in urban and rural Canadian emergency departments, most physicians perceive barriers that inhibit their ability to initiate buprenorphine/naloxone for patients with opioid use disorder, but overall there is support for making changes to better facilitate this practice.

Thematic Analysis of Reddit Content About Buprenorphine-naloxone Using Manual Annotation and Natural Language Processing Techniques

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major public health crisis for which buprenorphine-naloxone is an effective evidence-based treatment. Analysis of Reddit data yields detailed information about firsthand experiences with buprenorphine-naloxone that has the potential to inform treatment of OUD.

METHODS

We conducted a thematic analysis of posts about buprenorphine-naloxone from a Reddit forum in which Reddit users anonymously discuss topics related to opioid use. We used an application programming interface to retrieve posts about buprenorphine-naloxone, then applied natural language processing to generate meta-information and curate samples of salient posts. We manually categorized posts according to their content and conducted natural language processing-aided analysis of posts about buprenorphine tapering strategies, withdrawal symptoms, and adjunctive substances/behaviors useful in the tapering process.

RESULTS

A total of 16,146 posts from 1933 redditors were retrieved from the /r/suboxone subreddit. Thematic analysis of sample posts (N = 200) revealed descriptions of personal experiences (74%), nonpersonal accounts (24%), and other content (2%). Among redditors who reported tapering to termination (N = 40), 0.063 mg and 0.125 mg were the most common termination doses. Fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbance, and mood disturbance were the most frequent adverse effects, and loperamide and vitamins/dietary supplements the most frequently discussed adverse effects adjunctive substances/behaviors respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussions on Reddit are rich in information about buprenorphine-naloxone. Information derived from analysis of Reddit posts about buprenorphine-naloxone may not be available elsewhere and may help providers improve treatment of people with OUD through better understanding of the experiences of people who have used buprenorphine-naloxone.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine protocols: A national evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder is an evidence-based practice, but limited data exist on BUP initiation practices in real-world settings. We sought to characterize protocols for BUP initiation among a geographically diverse sample of emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

In December 2020, we reviewed prestudy clinical BUP initiation protocols from all EDs participating in CTN0099 Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION (ED-INNOVATION). We abstracted information on processes for identification of treatment-eligible patients, BUP administration, and discharge care.

RESULTS

All participating ED-INNOVATION sites across 22 states submitted protocols; 31 protocols were analyzed. Identification of treatment-eligible patients: Most EDs 22 (71%) relied on clinician judgment to determine appropriateness of BUP treatment with only 7 (23%) requiring decision support tools or diagnosis checklists. Before BUP initiation, 27 (87%) protocols required a documented Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score; 4 (13%) required a clinical diagnosis of withdrawal with optional COWS score. Twenty-seven (87%) recommended a minimum COWS score of 8 for ED-initiated BUP. BUP administration: Initial BUP dose ranged from 2-16 mg (mode = 4). For continued withdrawal symptoms, 27 (87%) protocols recommended an interval of 30-60 minutes between first and second BUP dose. Total BUP dose in the ED ranged from 8 to 32 mg. Discharge care: Twenty-eight (90%) protocols recommended a BUP prescription (mode 16 mg daily) at discharge. Naloxone prescription and/or provision was suggested in 23 (74%) protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

In this geographically diverse sample of EDs, protocols for ED-initiated BUP differed between sites. Future work should evaluate the association between this variation and patient outcomes.

Identifying barriers to emergency department-initiated buprenorphine: A spatial analysis of treatment facility access in Michigan

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone has been shown to improve treatment retention and reduce illicit opioid use; however, its potential may be limited by a lack of accessible community-based facilities. This study compared one state's geographic distribution of EDs to outpatient treatment facilities that provide buprenorphine treatment and identified ED and geographic factors associated with treatment access.

METHODS

Treatment facility data were obtained from the SAMHSA 2018 National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities, and ED data were obtained from the Michigan College of Emergency Physician's 2018 ED directory. Geospatial analysis compared EDs to buprenorphine treatment facilities using 5-, 10-, and 20-mile network buffers.

RESULTS

Among 131 non-exclusively pediatric EDs in Michigan, 57 (43.5%) had a buprenorphine treatment facility within 5 miles, and 66 (50.4%) had a facility within 10 miles. EDs within 10 miles of a Medicaid-accepting, outpatient buprenorphine treatment facility had higher average numbers of beds (41 vs. 15; p < 0.0001) and annual patient volumes (58,616 vs. 17,484; p < 0.0001) compared to those without. Among Michigan counties with EDs, those with at least one buprenorphine facility had larger average populations (286,957 vs. 44,757; p = 0.005) and higher annual rates of opioid overdose deaths (mean 18.3 vs. 13.0 per 100,000; p = 0.02) but were similar in terms of opioid-related hospitalizations and socioeconomic distress.

CONCLUSION

Only half of Michigan EDs are within 10 miles of a buprenorphine treatment facility. Given these limitations, expanding access to ED-initiated buprenorphine in states similar to Michigan may require developing alternative models of care.

Variation in emergency department visit rates for opioid use disorder: Implications for quality improvement initiatives

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Emergency departments (ED) are critical touchpoints for encounters among patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), but implementation of ED initiated treatment and harm reduction programs has lagged. We describe national patient, visit and hospital-level characteristics of ED OUD visits and characterize EDs with high rates of OUD visits in order to inform policies to optimize ED OUD care.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive, cross-sectional study with the 2017 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, using diagnostic and mechanism of injury codes from ICD-10 to identify OUD related visits. NEDS weights were applied to generate national estimates. We evaluated ED visit and clinical characteristics of all OUD encounters. We categorized hospitals into quartiles by rate of visits for OUD per 1000 ED visits and described the visit, clinical, and hospital characteristics across the four quartiles.

RESULTS

In 2017, the weighted national estimate for OUD visits was 1,507,550. Overdoses accounted for 295,954. (19.6%) of visits. OUD visit rates were over 8× times higher among EDs in the highest quartile of OUD visit rate (22.9 per 1000 total ED visits) compared with EDs in the lowest quartile of OUD visit rate (2.7 per 1000 ED visits). Over three fifths (64.2%) of all OUD visits nationwide were seen by the hospitals in the highest quartile of OUD visit rate. These hospitals were predominantly in metropolitan areas (86.2%), over half were teaching hospitals (51.7%), and less than a quarter (23.3%) were Level 1 or Level 2 trauma centers.

CONCLUSION

Targeting initial efforts of OUD care programs to high OUD visit rate EDs could improve care for a large portion of OUD patients utilizing emergency care.

Implementation of buprenorphine initiation and warm handoff protocols in emergency departments: A qualitative study of Pennsylvania hospitals

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (ED) are a critical touchpoint for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). In 2019, Pennsylvania had the fifth highest drug overdose mortality rate in the United States. State efforts have focused on implementing evidence-based ED care protocols, including induction of buprenorphine and warm handoffs to community treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We examined hospital staff's perspectives on the processes, challenges, and facilitators to buprenorphine initiation and warm handoff protocols in the ED.

METHODS

We used a qualitative case study design to focus on six Pennsylvania hospitals. The study selected hospitals using purposive sampling to capture varying hospital size, rurality, teaching status, and phase of protocol implementation. The study staff interviewed hospital staff with key roles in OUD care delivery in the ED, which included administrators, physicians, nurses, recovery support professionals, care coordinators, a social worker, and a pharmacist. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted semi-structured virtual interviews with 21 key informants from June to November 2020. Interviews were transcribed, deductively coded, and analyzed using CFIR domains and constructs to summarize factors influencing implementation of OUD ED care protocols and warm handoff to care protocols, as well as suggestions that emerged between and across cases.

RESULTS

Despite variation in the local context between hospitals, we identified common themes that influenced buprenorphine and warm handoffs across sites. Attention to hospital OUD care through state-level initiatives like the Hospital Quality Improvement Program generated hospital leadership buy-in toward implementing best OUD care practices. Factors at the hospital-level that influenced implementation success included supporting interdisciplinary OUD care champions, addressing knowledge gaps and biases around patients with OUD, having data systems that capture OUD care and integrate clinical protocols, incorporating patient comorbidities and non-medical needs into care, and fostering community provider linkages and capacity for warm handoffs. Although themes were largely consistent among hospital and staff types, protocol implementation was tailored by each hospital's size, patient volume, and hospital and community resources.

CONCLUSIONS

By understanding frontline staff's perspectives around factors that impact OUD care practices in the ED, stakeholders may better optimize implementation efforts.

Long-acting buprenorphine injectables: Opportunity to improve opioid use disorder treatment among rural populations

The opioid epidemic continues with escalating overdose deaths further exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, despite having efficacious medication treatments for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Most persons with OUD remain undiagnosed, without ever receiving MOUD, and even among those who initiate MOUD, retention is infrequently longer than 6 months (Williams et al., 2019). Treatment access remains particularly problematic in rural areas that often have few providers and limited resources (Ghertner, 2019). There are two new injectable long-acting buprenorphine (LAB) formulations recently approved in the United States and abroad (Lofwall et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2017; Haight et al., 2019). They hold promise to improve treatment access and retention by decreasing risks of nonadherence, diversion and misuse and may be particularly attractive during a pandemic in order to minimize provider and pharmacy contacts (Roberts et al., 2020) and help improve access to care in rural areas. There are several ongoing evaluations of LAB injectables in large multi-site randomized clinical trials sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Veterans Administration Office of Research and Development in settings with special populations that exist in both urban and rural settings. Understanding the potential clinical benefits of LAB injectables along the care continuum, particularly for rural areas is essential to successful implementation in the complex healthcare system.

Facilitators and barriers to post-overdose service delivery in Rhode Island emergency departments: A qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (EDs) in the US have increasingly incorporated interventions that seek to reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. However, many of these interventions are underutilized. This study examined ED provider-identified barriers and facilitators to policy-prescribed service provision for patients treated for an opioid overdose in Rhode Island EDs, and opportunities to improve care delivery.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 55 ED providers (management and clinical staff) across Rhode Island EDs from November 2019 to July 2020. Thematic analysis of interviews focused on gaps and best practices in post-overdose care delivery, including social and structural factors driving access to, and uptake of, services.

RESULTS

Participants highlighted how automatic service delivery (opt out vs. opt in) and the integration of peer-based services enhanced post-overdose service provision. However, social and structural factors (e.g. insurance barriers, limited outpatient treatment resources) and gaps in provider knowledge of medications for opioid use disorder created barriers to care. Addressing long ED wait times and establishing dedicated care teams for patients following an overdose were seen as critical to improving ED service delivery.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that post-overdose service delivery within EDs is a useful approach for connecting patients to services, particularly when peer support specialists are involved. However, standardizing service delivery approaches and improving provider education of harm reduction services must be prioritized alongside state-level policy changes to improve access to care for ED patients.

A SMARTTT approach to Treating Tobacco use disorder in persons with HIV (SMARTTT): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use disorder is a leading threat to the health of persons with HIV (PWH) on antiretroviral treatment and identifying optimal treatment approaches to promote abstinence is critical. We describe the rationale, aims, and design for a new study, "A SMART Approach to Treating Tobacco Use Disorder in Persons with HIV (SMARTTT)," a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.

METHODS

In HIV clinics within three health systems in the northeastern United States, PWH with tobacco use disorder are randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with or without contingency management (NRT vs. NRT + CM). Participants with response (defined as exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO)-confirmed smoking abstinence at week 12), continue the same treatment for another 12 weeks. Participants with non-response, are re-randomized to either switch medications from NRT to varenicline or intensify treatment to a higher CM reward schedule. Interventions are delivered by clinical pharmacists embedded in HIV clinics. The primary outcome is eCO-confirmed smoking abstinence; secondary outcomes include CD4 cell count, HIV viral load suppression, and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Index 2.0 score (a validated measure of morbidity and mortality based on laboratory data). Consistent with a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design and grounded in implementation science frameworks, we will conduct an implementation-focused process evaluation in parallel. Study protocol adaptations related to the COVID-19 pandemic have been made.

CONCLUSIONS

SMARTTT is expected to generate novel findings regarding the impact, cost, and implementation of an adaptive clinical pharmacist-delivered intervention involving medications and CM to promote smoking abstinence among PWH. ClinicalTrials.govidentifier:NCT04490057.

Emergency department-based efforts to offer medication treatment for opioid use disorder: What can we learn from current approaches?

BACKGROUND

The opioid epidemic remains a public health crisis and most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive effective treatment. The emergency department (ED) can be a critical entry point for treatment. EDs are developing and implementing ED-based efforts to address OUD to improve access to OUD treatment. This study's objective is to identify features of ED-based OUD treatment programs that relate to program implementation, effectiveness, and sustainability.

METHODS

We obtained data through literature review and semistructured interviews with ED physicians and leaders. The study analyzed these data to develop a framework of key components of ED-based efforts and highlight barriers and facilitators to implementation and program effectiveness.

RESULTS

We identify five key features of ED-based opioid treatment programs that vary across programs and may influence effectiveness and impact: patient identification methods; treatment approaches; program structure; relationship with community partners; and financing and sustainability. Successful implementation of ED-based OUD treatment includes having a champion, a reliable referral network, and systematic tracking and reporting of data for monitoring and feedback.

CONCLUSION

Going forward, attention to these features may help to improve effectiveness. As researchers conduct studies of ED-based care models, they should assess the impact of variation in key features to improve program effectiveness.

Initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in the hospital setting: Practice models, challenges, and legal considerations

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

To provide health-system pharmacists with published examples of strategies utilized to offer buprenorphine to inpatients with opioid use disorder (OUD) along with information on challenges and legal considerations.

SUMMARY

Hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) are a constant source of healthcare for patients with OUD. As a result, hospital practitioners can screen, diagnose, begin treatment, and facilitate transfer of care to the outpatient setting. Offering sublingual buprenorphine in the hospital can bridge the gap before outpatient care is established. Multiple studies have shown that initiating treatment in the ED or during inpatient hospitalization results in 47% to 74% of patients utilizing medication-assisted treatment at day 30 of follow-up, statistically superior to the rates achieved with brief interventions or referral alone. Moreover, initiating buprenorphine treatment in the ED has been shown to decrease healthcare costs. Despite the benefits of offering buprenorphine in the inpatient setting, several challenges must be solved by hospital administration, such as achieving clinician readiness to prescribe buprenorphine, developing relationships with outpatient providers of buprenorphine, and creating an efficient workflow. Treatment of OUD with buprenorphine is heavily regulated on the federal level. Pharmacists can participate in the development of these programs and ensure compliance with applicable laws.

CONCLUSION

As health systems continue to care for patients with OUD, starting buprenorphine in the inpatient setting can improve the transition to outpatient treatment. Several institutions have developed programs with positive results. With an understanding of the typical barriers and relevant laws when initiating buprenorphine in the hospital setting, health-system pharmacists can assist in the development and operation of these initiatives.

Adherence to guideline creation recommendations for suicide prevention in the emergency department: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Suicide rates in the United States rose 35.2% from 1999-2018. As emergency department (ED) providers often have limited training in management of suicidal patients and minimal access to mental health experts, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may improve care for these patients. However, clinical practice guidelines that do not adhere to quality standards for development may be harmful both to patients, if they promote practices based on flawed evidence, and to ED providers, if used in malpractice claims. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine created standards to determine the trustworthiness of CPGs. This review assessed the adherence of suicide prevention CPGs, intended for the ED, to these standards. Secondary objectives were to assess the association of adherence both with first author/organization specialty (ED vs non-ED) and with inclusion of recommendations on substance use, a potent risk factor for suicide.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of available suicide-prevention CPGs for the ED in both peer-reviewed and gray literature. This review followed the PRISMA standards for reporting systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Of 22 included CPGs, the 7 ED-sponsored CPGs had higher adherence to quality standards (3.1 vs 2.4) and included the highest-rated CPG (ICAR²E) identified by this review. Regardless of specialty, nearly all CPGs included some mention of identifying or managing substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

Most suicide prevention CPGs intended for the ED are written by non-ED first authors or organizations and have low adherence to quality standards. Future CPGs should be developed with more scientific rigor, include a multidisciplinary writing group, and be created by authors working in the practice environment to which the CPG applies.

A State Financial Incentive Policy to Improve Emergency Department Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

In 2019, Pennsylvania established a voluntary financial incentive program designed to increase the engagement in addiction treatment for Medicaid patients with opioid use disorder after emergency department (ED) encounters. In this qualitative study involving hospital leaders, the authors examined decisions leading to participation in this program as well as barriers and facilitators that influenced its implementation.

METHODS

Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with leaders from a diverse sample of hospitals and health systems across Pennsylvania. Interviews were planned and analyzed following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. An iterative approach was used to analyze the interviews and determine key themes and patterns regarding implementation of this policy initiative in hospitals.

RESULTS

The authors identified six key themes that reflected barriers and facilitators to hospital participation in the program. Participation in the program was facilitated by community partners capable of arranging outpatient treatment for opioid use disorder, incentive payments focusing hospital leadership on opioid treatment pathways, multidisciplinary planning, and flexibility in adapting pathways for local needs. Barriers to program participation concerned the implementation of buprenorphine prescribing and the measurement of treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A financial incentive policy encouraged hospitals to enact rapid system and practice changes to support treatment for opioid use disorder, although challenges remained in implementing evidence-based treatment-specifically, initiation of buprenorphine-for patients visiting the ED. Analysis of treatment outcomes is needed to further evaluate this policy initiative, but new delivery and payment models may improve systems to treat patients who have an opioid use disorder.