Emergency department naloxone rescue kit dispensing and patient follow-up

"I Don't Go Overboard": Perceptions of Overdose Risk and Risk Reduction Strategies among People Who Use Drugs in Rhode Island

Background: North America experiencing an unprecedented overdose epidemic, with data estimating almost 110,000 overdose deaths occurring in 2022 in the United States (US). To address fatal overdoses in the US, community organizations and local health departments in some jurisdictions have expanded community distribution of naloxone, and increased overdose prevention education, and other harm reduction supplies and services (e.g., fentanyl test strips, drug checking programs) to reduce harm for people who use drugs (PWUD). Objectives: Understanding how PWUD manage overdose risk within the context of these expanded services is important for ensuring public health services are meeting their needs. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 25 PWUD who were accessing harm reduction services in Rhode Island. Data were imported into NVivo where they were coded and analyzed thematically. Results: Our findings demonstrate the complexity of managing overdose risk in the context of a fentanyl drug supply. While most participants were concerned about overdosing, they sought to manage overdose risk through their own harm reduction practices (e.g., testing their drugs, going slow) and drug purchasing dynamics, even when using alone. Conclusions: Study findings point to the need to implement and scale-up community-level interventions to better support PWUD within the context of the current US overdose crisis.

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.

The impact of access to addiction specialist on attitudes, beliefs and hospital-based opioid use disorder related care: A survey of hospitalist physicians

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations for complications related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Hospitalists care for most hospitalized patients in the United States, yet little is known about their attitudes, beliefs, and clinical practices regarding OUD-related care.

Methods: We distributed an online survey to hospitalists in the United States to measure how access to addiction specialists affected attitudes and beliefs regarding hospital-based OUD care, OUD screening practices, naloxone prescribing, and buprenorphine initiation.

Results: Among 262 respondents, 67.9% (n = 178) reported having access to addiction specialists. While 84.5% (n = 221) reported often or always caring for patients with OUD, 48.2% (n = 126) rarely or never screened for OUD, 57.1% (n = 149) rarely or never prescribed or recommended naloxone as harm reduction, and 88.9% (n = 233) rarely or never initiated buprenorphine. In multivariable analyses, compared to hospitalists without access to addiction specialists, hospitalist with access to addiction specialists were more likely to feel supported to screen and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 - 9.1; ρ < 0.001), to be aware of local treatment resources (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 - 6.3; ρ < 0.001), and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.7 - 5.6; ρ < 0.001).

Conclusions: Many hospitalists do not provide life-saving treatment to patients with OUD. Access to addiction specialists may increase provision of OUD-related care by hospitalists.

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.

Refusal to accept emergency medical transport following opioid overdose, and conditions that may promote connections to care

BACKGROUND

Opioid overdose is a leading cause of death in the United States. Emergency medical services (EMS) encounters following overdose may serve as a critical linkage to care for people who use drugs (PWUD). However, many overdose survivors refuse EMS transport to hospitals, where they would presumably receive appropriate follow-up services and referrals. This study aims to (1) identify reasons for refusal of EMS transport after opioid overdose reversal; (2) identify conditions under which overdose survivors might be more likely to accept these services; and (3) describe solutions proposed by both PWUD and EMS providers to improve post-overdose care.

METHODS

The study comprised 20 semi-structured, qualitative in-depth interviews with PWUD, followed by two semi-structured focus groups with eight EMS providers.

RESULTS

PWUD cited intolerable withdrawal symptoms; anticipation of inadequate care upon arrival at the hospital; and stigmatizing treatment by EMS and hospital providers as main reasons for refusal to accept EMS transport. EMS providers corroborated these descriptions and offered solutions such as titration of naloxone to avoid harsh withdrawal symptoms; peer outreach or community paramedicine; and addressing provider burnout. PWUD stated they might accept EMS transport after overdose reversal if they were offered ease for withdrawal symptoms, at either a hospital or non-hospital facility, and treated with respect and empathy.

CONCLUSION

Standard of care by EMS and hospital providers following overdose reversal should include treatment for withdrawal symptoms, including buprenorphine induction; patient-centered communication; and effective linkage to prevention, treatment, and harm reduction services.

A systematic review of opioid overdose interventions delivered within emergency departments

BACKGROUND

People with opioid use disorders are at higher risk of fatal opioid overdose and attend emergency departments (ED) more frequently compared to the general population. This review aimed to synthesise evidence on the ED-based delivery of opioid overdose prevention interventions.

METHODS

Using the PRISMA guidelines, four databases (Medline; Embase; Scopus; PsycINFO) were searched for peer-reviewed articles on ED based interventions to prevent opioid overdose, published January 1998 to October 2018.

RESULTS

The 13 identified studies were grouped into four main intervention types. Seven focused on provision of take-home naloxone (THN) and overdose education. These described the successful delivery of THN by ED staff; in collaboration with community partners; and barriers to delivery. Three studies examined medication safety interventions. These generally delivered positive outcomes on overdose-risk knowledge, but not consistently on behaviour change. One study examined buprenorphine-naloxone treatment initiation within the ED, finding positive outcomes on reported illicit drug use and treatment engagement compared to those randomised to brief intervention and referral, or referral only. Two studies explored psychosocial interventions, including motivational interviewing, which demonstrated lower non-medical prescription opioid use at follow up compared to control.

CONCLUSIONS

ED provision of a range of opioid overdose prevention interventions is feasible, acceptable to patients and ED personnel. Interventions require adequate staffing/role responsibility for sustainable implementation. Most evidence was for THN, with an emerging evidence base for other intervention types reducing opioid-overdose risks in ED settings. Further research on implementation and sustainability may assist in translation of effective interventions into the ED setting.