Effects of a multifaceted implementation intervention to increase utilization of pharmacological treatments for alcohol use disorders in the US Veterans Health Administration

Receipt of Medications for Alcohol Use Disorder in the Veterans Health Administration: Comparison of Rates at the Intersections of Racialized and Ethnic Identity With Both Sex and Transgender Status

OBJECTIVES

Medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUDs) are recommended for patients with alcohol use disorder yet are underprescribed. Consistent with Minority Stress and Intersectionality theories, persons with multiple sociodemographically marginalized identities (eg, Black women) often experience greater barriers to care and have poorer health outcomes. We use data from the Veterans Health Administration to assess disparities in Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved MAUDs and all effective MAUDs between the following groups: racialized and ethnic identity, sex, transgender status, and their intersections.

METHODS

Among all Veterans Health Administration outpatients between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2017, with documented alcohol screenings and an International Classification of Diseases diagnosis for alcohol use disorder in the 0-365 days prior (N = 308,238), we estimated the prevalence and 95% confidence intervals of receiving FDA-approved MAUDs and any MAUDs in the following year and compared them using χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Analyses are unadjusted to present true prevalence and group differences.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence for MAUDs was low (FDA-MAUDs = 8.7%, any MAUDs = 20.0%). Within sex, Black males had the lowest rate of FDA-MAUDs (7.3%, [7.1-7.5]), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native females had the highest (18.4%, [13.8-23.0]). Among those identified as transgender, Asian and Black transgender persons had the lowest rates of FDA-MAUDs (0%; 4.3%, [1.8-8.5], respectively), whereas American Indian/Alaskan Native transgender patients had the highest (33.3%, [2.5-64.1]). Similar patterns were observed for any MAUDs, with higher rates overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation exists in MAUD prescribing, with marginalized veterans disproportionately receiving MAUDs at lower and higher rates than average. Implementation and quality improvement efforts are needed to improve MAUD prescribing practices and reduce disparities.

Integrated and collaborative care across the spectrum of alcohol-associated liver disease and alcohol use disorder

The public health impact of alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), a serious consequence of problematic alcohol use, and alcohol use disorder (AUD) is growing, with ALD becoming a major cause of alcohol-associated death overall and the leading indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Comprehensive care for ALD often requires treatment of AUD. Although there is a growing body of evidence showing that AUD treatment is associated with reductions in liver-related morbidity and mortality, only a minority of patients with ALD and AUD receive this care. Integrated and collaborative models that streamline both ALD and AUD care for patients with ALD and AUD are promising approaches to bridge this treatment gap and rely on multidisciplinary and interprofessional teams and partnerships. Here, we review the role of AUD care in ALD treatment, the effects of AUD treatment on liver-related outcomes, the impact of comorbid conditions such as other substance use disorders, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, and the current landscape of integrated and collaborative care for ALD and AUD in various treatment settings. We further review knowledge gaps and unmet needs that remain, including the role of precision medicine, the application of harm reduction approaches, the impact of health disparities, and the need for additional AUD treatment options, as well as further efforts to support implementation and dissemination.

Relationship Between Primary Care Providers' Perceptions of Alcohol Use Disorder And Pharmacotherapy Prescribing Rates

AIMS

Acamprosate, naltrexone and disulfiram are underprescribed for alcohol use disorder (AUD) with marked variability among primary care providers (PCPs). We aimed to identify differences between high and low prescribers of medications for AUD (MAUD) with regard to knowledge, experiences, prioritization and attitudes.

METHODS

We surveyed PCPs from a large healthcare system with at least 20 patients with AUD. Prescribing rates were obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Survey responses were scored from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Multiple imputation was used to generate attitude scores for 7 missing subjects. PCPs were divided into groups by the median prescribing rate and attitude. Comparisons were made using Wilcoxon rank-sum and regression.

RESULTS

Of the 182 eligible PCPs, 68 (37.4%) completed the survey. Most indicated willingness to attend an educational course (57.4%). Compared with low prescribers, high prescribers viewed the effectiveness of medications more favorably (short term 4.0 vs 3.7, P = 0.02; long term 3.5 vs 3.2, P = 0.04) and were more likely to view prescribing as part of their job (3.9 vs 3.4, P = 0.04). PCPs with positive attitudes (72.4%, CI 60.9-83.8%) had a prescribing rate of 5.0% (CI 3.5-6.5%) compared to 1.9% (CI 0.5-3.4%) among those with negative attitudes (P = 0.028). When stratified by attitude, belief in effectiveness was associated with higher prescribing among PCPs with positive attitudes but not those with negative attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs indicated an interest in learning to prescribe MAUD. However, education alone may not be effective unless physicians have positive attitudes towards patients with AUD.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone).

METHODS

The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.

Effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered primary care telemedicine intervention to increase access to pharmacotherapy and specialty treatment for alcohol use problems: Protocol for the alcohol telemedicine consult cluster-randomized pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use problems are associated with serious medical, mental health and socio-economic consequences. Yet even when patients are identified in healthcare settings, most do not receive treatment, and use of pharmacotherapy is rare. This study will test the effectiveness of the Alcohol Telemedicine Consult (ATC) Service, a novel, personalized telehealth intervention approach for primary care patients with alcohol use problems.

METHODS

This cluster-randomized pragmatic trial, supplemented by qualitative interviews, will include adults with a primary care visit between 9/10/21-3/10/23 from 16 primary care clinics at two large urban medical centers within Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a large, integrated healthcare system. Clinics are randomized to the ATC Service (intervention), including alcohol pharmacotherapy and SBIRT (screening, MI (Motivational Interviewing)-based brief intervention and referral to addiction treatment) delivered by clinical pharmacists, or the Usual Care (UC) arm that provides systematic alcohol SBIRT. Primary outcomes include a comparison of the ATC and UC arms on 1) implementation outcomes (alcohol pharmacotherapy prescription rates, specialty addiction treatment referrals); and 2) patient outcomes (medication fills, addiction treatment initiation, alcohol use, healthcare services utilization) over 1.5 years. A general modeling approach will consider clustering of patients/providers, and a random effects model will account for intra-class correlations across patients within providers and across clinics. Qualitative interviews with providers will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

The ATC study examines the effectiveness of a pharmacist-provided telehealth intervention that combines pharmacotherapy and MI-based consultation. If effective, the ATC study could affect treatment models across the spectrum of alcohol use problems.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

This study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05252221).

Deploying a telemedicine collaborative care intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: A stepped wedge evaluation of an adaptive implementation strategy

OBJECTIVE

To address barriers to trauma-focused psychotherapy for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we compared two implementation strategies to promote the deployment of telemedicine collaborative care.

METHOD

We conducted a Hybrid Type III Effectiveness Implementation trial at six VA medical centers and their 12 affiliated Community Based Outpatient Clinics. The trial used a stepped wedge design and an adaptive implementation strategy that started with standard implementation, followed by enhanced implementation for VA medical centers that did not achieve the performance benchmark. Implementation outcomes for the 544 veterans sampled from the larger population targeted by the intervention were assessed from chart review (care management enrollment and receipt of trauma-focused psychotherapy) and telephone survey (perceived access and PTSD symptoms) after each implementation phase. The primary outcome was enrollment in care management.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between standard implementation and enhanced implementation on any of the implementation outcomes. 41.6% of sampled veterans had a care manager encounter, but only 6.0% engaged in trauma-focused psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

While telemedicine collaborative care was shown to be effective at engaging veterans in trauma-focused psychotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, neither standard nor enhanced implementation strategies were sufficient to support successful deployment into routine care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737098.

Alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy and treatment in primary care (ADaPT-PC) trial: Impact on identified barriers to implementation

Background: A minority of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorders (AUD) receive any type of formal treatment. Developing options for AUD treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. A multi-faceted implementation intervention including provider and patient education, clinician reminders, development of local champions and ongoing facilitation was designed to enhance access to AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings at three large Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. This qualitative study compared pre-implementation barriers to post-implementation barriers identified via provider interviews to identify those barriers addressed and not addressed by the intervention to better understand the limited impact of the intervention. Methods: Following the nine-month implementation period, primary care providers at the three participating facilities took part in qualitative interviews to collect perceptions regarding which pre-implementation barriers had and had not been successfully addressed by the intervention. Participants included 20 primary care providers from three large VHA facilities. Interviews were coded using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Summary reports were created for each CFIR construct for each facility and the impact of each CFIR construct on implementation was coded as positive, neutral, or negative. Results: Some barriers identified during pre-implementation interviews were no longer identified as barriers in the post-implementation interviews. These included Relative Advantage, Relative Priority, and Knowledge & Beliefs about the Innovation. However, Compatibility, Design Quality & Packaging, and Available Resources remained barriers at the end of the implementation period. No substantial new barriers were identified. Conclusions: The implementation intervention appears to have been successful at addressing barriers that could be mitigated with traditional educational approaches. However, the intervention did not adequately address structural and organizational barriers to implementation. Recommendations for enhancing future interventions are provided.

A Video- and Case-Based Curriculum on the Management of Alcohol Use Disorder for Internal Medicine Residents

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is commonly undertreated. Physicians cite discomfort with AUD medication as a barrier to treatment. While several curricula teach and assess screening and brief interventions, few teach and assess learner knowledge of treatment options.

METHODS

We created a video- and case-based curriculum for internal medicine residents delivered by 16 internal medicine faculty in three 30-minute sessions at four clinic sites. Learner knowledge, attitudes, and confidence were assessed before and after the curriculum. We used qualitative methods to evaluate learner reflections. We also assessed faculty satisfaction with the curriculum.

RESULTS

Of 153 residents receiving the curriculum, 35 (23%) completed both pre- and postsurveys. Median percent correct on knowledge questions improved from 67% pre- to 80% postcurriculum (p < .001). Confidence increased for all three items assessing it, with a notable increase in confidence with pharmacotherapy (2.9 pre- vs. 4.5 postcurriculum on a 7-point Likert scale with high scores indicating greater confidence, p < .001). Positive attitudes toward people with AUD increased from 3.4 pre- to 3.9 postcurriculum (p < .001) on a 7-point Likert scale. Learners continued to express concerns about prescribing logistics, the role of primary care, and management of ongoing use. Thirteen of 16 faculty (83%) completed the postcurricular survey; all said they would be happy to facilitate again.

DISCUSSION

Implementation of this curriculum for the management of AUD improved resident knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in AUD treatment. The curriculum was acceptable to faculty and is ideal for programs looking to expand teaching about AUD.

Using practice facilitation to improve alcohol-related care in primary care: a mixed-methods pilot study protocol

Background

Alcohol use is a significant risk factor for disability and death in U.S. adults, and approximately one out of every six Veterans seen in primary care (PC) report unhealthy alcohol use. Unhealthy alcohol use is associated with increased risk for poor medical outcomes, substantial societal costs, and death, including suicide. Based on substantial evidence from randomized controlled trials and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, VA/DoD clinical guidelines stipulate that all Veterans screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use should receive evidence-based alcohol care in PC, including brief counseling interventions (BI) and additional treatment (e.g., pharmacotherapy) for those with alcohol use disorders (AUD). The VA pioneered implementing alcohol screening and BI in PC, yet substantial implementation gaps remain. To improve alcohol-related care, this study will conduct a pilot study to assess whether a multi-faceted evidence-based implementation strategy—practice facilitation—has the potential to improve PC-based alcohol-related care at a single VA clinic.

Methods

We will first recruit and conduct qualitative interviews with Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use (n = 20–25) and PC stakeholders (N = 10–15) to understand barriers and facilitators to high-quality alcohol care and use results to refine and hone the multifaceted practice facilitation intervention. Qualitative interviews, analysis, and refinement of the intervention will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Focus groups with a small sample of PC providers and staff (n = 5–7) will be used to further refine the practice facilitation intervention and assess its acceptability and feasibility. The refined practice facilitation intervention will then be offered in the PC clinic to assess implementation (e.g., reach) and effectiveness (reduced drinking) outcomes based on the RE-AIM framework.

Discussion

This research directly addresses one of the largest public health crises of our time, as alcohol kills more people than opioids and is associated with increased risk of suicide. If successful, this pilot may generate an intervention with far-reaching effects on adverse outcomes experienced by Veterans with unhealthy alcohol use, including increased access to care and suicide prevention.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04565899; Date of registration: 9/25/2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-022-00300-x.

Use of Medications for the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: A Retrospective Study Conducted in 2011-2012

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Dependence (AD) is underutilized. Barriers preventing the use of AD medications include high prices, lack of access to prescribing physicians, and a limited number of available medications.

OBJECTIVE

The study evaluated the use of AD medications in a sample of Italian outpatients who received these medications free of charge, had access to physicians during office hours, and for whom substitution therapy [gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB)] was available. We also evaluated the rate of patients who received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments among participants who were still drinking.

METHODS

SCID for AD and questionnaire were filled by to AD outpatients during a face-to-face interview.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

345 AD outpatients were interviewed: 58.8% were currently receiving at least one AD medication (GHB: 34.3%, disulfiram: 29.6%, acamprosate: 5.9%; naltrexone: 2.5%; more than one medication: 16.7%). Less than 30% of participants who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. Nonetheless, we found higher use of AD medications compared to previous studies conducted in other countries. This higher use of AD medications may be due to access to free medications, prescribing physicians' style, and a larger number of available medications.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the underutilization of AD medications, as less than 60% of AD outpatients received medications, and less than 30% of those who were still drinking, received a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments. These findings may be useful in improving our knowledge of the barriers that prevent the use of AD medications in clinical practice.

A Telemedicine Approach to Increase Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Primary Care: A Pilot Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Unhealthy drinking is a leading threat to health, yet few people with alcohol use disorder (AUD) receive treatment. This pilot tested the feasibility of addiction medicine video consultations in primary care for improving AUD medication adoption and specialty treatment initiation.

METHODS

Primary care providers (PCPs) received training and access to on-call addiction medicine consultations. Feasibility measures were training attendance, intention to use the service and/or AUD pharmacotherapy, and user feedback. Secondary outcomes were utilization, prescription and treatment initiation rates, and case reports. χ2 tests were used to compare prescription and treatment initiation rates for consult recipients and non-recipients.

RESULTS

Ninety-one PCPs (71.1%) attended a training, and 60 (65.9%) provided feedback. Of those, 37 (64.9%) mentioned pharmacotherapy and 41 (71.9%) intended to use the video consult service. Of 27 users, 19 provided feedback; 12 (63.1%) rated its value at 8 or above, on a scale of 1 to 10 (average 6.9). The most useful aspect was immediacy, and users wanted an easier workflow and increased consultant availability. Of 32 patients who received a consult, 11 (34.4%) were prescribed naltrexone, versus 43 (6.4%) of non-recipients (P < 0.0001); 11 (34.4%) initiated specialty treatment, versus 105 (19.7%) of non-recipients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PCP training attendance and feedback suggest that an addiction telemedicine consult service would be valuable to PCPs and might increase AUD medication uptake and specialty addiction treatment initiation. However, future research should include significant modifications to the piloted telemedicine model: robust staffing and simpler, more flexible methods for PCPs to obtain consults.

Working with HIV clinics to adopt addiction treatment using implementation facilitation (WHAT-IF?): Rationale and design for a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study

BACKGROUND

Tobacco, alcohol and opioid misuse are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality among people with HIV (PWH). Despite existence of evidence-based counseling and medications for addiction, these treatments are infrequently offered in HIV clinics. The Working with HIV clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study was conducted to address this implementation challenge. The study's goals were to conduct a formative evaluation of barriers to and facilitators of implementing addiction treatment for PWH followed by an evaluation of the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on promoting adoption of addiction treatments and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The study was conducted at four HIV clinics in the northeast United States, using a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation stepped wedge design and guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Research (PARiHS) framework. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify evidence, context, and facilitation-related barriers to and facilitators of integration of addiction treatments into HIV clinics and to help tailor IF for each clinic. An evaluation was then conducted of the impact of IF on implementation outcomes, including provision of addiction treatment (primary outcome), organizational and clinician and staff readiness to adopt addiction treatment, and changes in organizational models of care used to deliver addiction treatment. The evaluation also included IF's impact on effectiveness outcomes, specifically HIV-related outcomes among patients eligible for addiction treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Results will generate important information regarding the impact of IF as a reproducible strategy to promote addiction treatment in HIV clinics.

Evaluation of an Implementation Intervention to Increase Reach of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for PTSD in US Veterans Health Administration PTSD Clinics

To evaluate an implementation intervention to increase the uptake, referred to as reach, of two evidence-based psychotherapies (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PTSD specialty clinics. The implementation intervention was external facilitation guided by a toolkit that bundled strategies associated with high EBP reach in prior research. We used a prospective quasi-experimental design. The facilitator worked with local champions at two low-reach PTSD clinics. Each intervention PTSD clinic was matched to three control clinics. We compared the change in EBP reach from 6-months pre- to post-intervention using Difference-in-Difference (DID) effect estimation. To incorporate possible clustering effects and adjust for imbalanced covariates, we used mixed effects logistic regression to model the probability of EBP receipt. Analyses were conducted separately for PTSD and other mental health clinics. 29,446 veterans diagnosed with PTSD received psychotherapy in the two intervention and six control sites in the two 6-month evaluation periods. The proportion of therapy patients with PTSD receiving an EBP increased by 16.98 percentage points in the intervention PTSD clinics compared with .45 percentage points in the control PTSD clinics (DID = 16.53%; SE = 2.26%). The adjusted odd ratio of a patient receiving an EBP from pre to post intervention was almost three times larger in the intervention than in the control PTSD clinics (RoR 2.90; 95% CI 2.22-3.80). EBP reach was largely unchanged in other (not PTSD specialty) mental health clinics within the same medical centers. Toolkit-guided external facilitation is a promising intervention to improve uptake of EBPs in VHA. Toolkits that pre-specify targets for clinic change based on prior research may enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of external facilitation. Trial registration ISRCTN registry identifier: ISRCTN65119065. Available at https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=ISRCTN65119065 .

Inpatient adoption of medications for alcohol use disorder: A mixed-methods formative evaluation involving key stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Although the inpatient setting presents an important opportunity for medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) adoption, this infrequently occurs. We aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators of inpatient MAUD adoption.

METHODS

A convergent mixed-method study conducted from April to September 2018 of non-prescribing (registered nurse, pharmacist, and social work) and prescribing (physician or advanced practice provider hospitalist, general internist, and psychiatrist) professionals at a large urban academic medical center. Survey assessed organizational readiness to adopt MAUD and focus groups guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) analyzed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven participants completed surveys and one of seven focus groups. Health professionals perceived clinical evidence (mean 4.0, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 3.9, 4.2) as supportive and patient preferences (mean 3.4, 95 % CI: 3.2, 3.6) and availability of resources (mean 3.1, 95 % CI: 2.8, 3.3) as less supportive of MAUD adoption. Stakeholders identified barriers across CFIR constructs; 1) Intervention characteristics: limited knowledge of MAUD effectiveness and concerns about side effects, 2) Outer setting: perceived patient vulnerability to care interruptions and a lack of external incentives, 3) Inner setting: a lack of organizational prioritization, and 4) Characteristics of individuals: stigma of people with AUD. Facilitators included: 1) Intervention characteristics: adaptation of workflows and 2) Characteristics of individuals: harm reduction as treatment goal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified multiple intersecting barriers and facilitators of inpatient MAUD adoption. Implementation interventions should prioritize strategies that increase health professional knowledge of MAUD and organizational prioritization of treating AUD.

Systematic Review of Criminal and Legal Involvement After Substance Use and Mental Health Treatment Among Veterans: Building Toward Needed Research

Evidence indicates that substance use and mental health treatment is often associated with reduced criminal activity. The present systematic review examined this association among military veterans, and aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of needed research to further contribute to reduced criminal activity among veterans. This systematic review was derived from a scoping review that mapped existing research on justice-involved veterans' health. For the current systematic review, a subset of 20 publications was selected that addressed the question of whether criminal activity declines among veterans treated for substance use and mental health disorders. Generally, veterans improved on criminal outcomes from pre- to post-treatment for opioid use, other substance use, or mental health conditions, and more sustained treatment was associated with better outcomes. This occurred despite high rates of criminal involvement among veterans prior to entering treatment. Needed are substance use and mental health treatment studies that include women justice-involved veterans, follow criminally-active veterans for longer periods of time, and use validated and reliable measures of criminal activity with fully transparent statistical procedures. Future randomized trials should evaluate new treatments against evidence-based treatments (versus no-treatment control conditions). Subsequent studies should examine how to link veterans to effective treatments, facilitate sustained treatment engagement, and ensure the availability of effective treatments, and examine mechanisms (mediators and moderators) that explain the association of treatment with reduced criminal activity among veterans. Best practices are needed for reducing criminal activity among the minority of justice-involved veterans who do not have diagnosed substance use and/or mental health disorders.

A systematic review of approaches to improve practice, detection and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use in primary health care: a role for continuous quality improvement

BACKGROUND

Unhealthy alcohol use involves a spectrum from hazardous use (exceeding guidelines but no harms) through to alcohol dependence. Evidence-based management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary health care has been recommended since 1979. However, sustained and systematic implementation has proven challenging. The Continuing Quality Improvement (CQI) process is designed to enable services to detect barriers, then devise and implement changes, resulting in service improvements.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting on strategies to improve implementation of screening and interventions for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care (MEDLINE EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet). Additional inclusion criteria were: (1) pragmatic setting; (2) reporting original data; (3) quantitative outcomes related to provision of service or change in practice. We investigate the extent to which the three essential elements of CQI are being used (data-guided activities, considering local conditions; iterative development). We compare characteristics of programs that include these three elements with those that do not. We describe the types, organizational levels (e.g. health service, practice, clinician), duration of strategies, and their outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six papers representing 45 projects were included. Of these, 24 papers were randomized controlled trials, 12 controlled studies and 20 before/after and other designs. Most reported on strategies for improving implementation of screening and brief intervention. Only six addressed relapse prevention pharmacotherapies. Only five reported on patient outcomes and none showed significant improvement. The three essential CQI elements were clearly identifiable in 12 reports. More studies with three essential CQI elements had implementation and follow-up durations above the median; utilised multifaceted designs; targeted both practice and health system levels; improved screening and brief intervention than studies without the CQI elements.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing CQI methods in implementation research would appear to be well-suited to drive improvements in service delivery for unhealthy alcohol use. However, the body of literature describing such studies is still small. More well-designed research, including hybrid studies of both implementation and patient outcomes, will be needed to draw clearer conclusions on the optimal approach for implementing screening and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42018110475).

Supporting Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services to deliver alcohol care: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous peoples who have experienced colonisation or oppression can have a higher prevalence of alcohol-related harms. In Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) offer culturally accessible care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples. However there are many competing health, socioeconomic and cultural client needs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised cluster wait-control trial will test the effectiveness of a model of tailored and collaborative support for ACCHSs in increasing use of alcohol screening (with Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C)) and of treatment provision (brief intervention, counselling or relapse prevention medicines).

SETTING

Twenty-two ACCHSs across Australia.

RANDOMISATION

Services will be stratified by remoteness, then randomised into two groups. Half receive support soon after the trial starts (intervention or 'early support'); half receive support 2 years later (wait-control or 'late support').

THE SUPPORT

Core support elements will be tailored to local needs and include: support to nominate two staff as champions for increasing alcohol care; a national training workshop and bimonthly teleconferences for service champions to share knowledge; onsite training, and bimonthly feedback on routinely collected data on screening and treatment provision.

OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome is use of screening using AUDIT-C as routinely recorded on practice software. Secondary outcomes are recording of brief intervention, counselling, relapse prevention medicines; and blood pressure, gamma glutamyltransferase and HbA1c. Multi-level logistic regression will be used to test the effectiveness of support.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from eight ethics committees: the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (1217/16); Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (CA-17-2842); Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (2017-2737); Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service (17/QCQ/9); Far North Queensland (17/QCH/45-1143); Aboriginal Health Research Ethics Committee, South Australia (04-16-694); St Vincent's Hospital (Melbourne) Human Research Ethics Committee (LRR 036/17); and Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (779).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618001892202; Pre-results.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorders in VHA Residential Treatment Programs

OBJECTIVE

Despite evidence of effectiveness, pharmacotherapy-methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone-is prescribed to less than 35% of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Among veterans whose OUD treatment is provided in VHA residential programs, factors influencing pharmacotherapy implementation are unknown. We examined barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD among patients diagnosed with OUD in VHA residential programs to inform the development of implementation strategies to improve medication receipt.

METHOD

VHA electronic health records and program survey data were used to describe pharmacotherapy provided to a national cohort of VHA patients with OUD in residential treatment programs (N = 4,323, 6% female). Staff members (N = 63, 57% women) from 44 residential programs (response rate = 32%) participated in interviews. Barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD were identified from transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all 97 residential treatment programs, the average rate of pharmacotherapy for OUD was 21% (range: 0%-67%). Reported barriers included provider or program philosophy against pharmacotherapy, a lack of care coordination with nonresidential treatment settings, and provider perceptions of low patient interest or need. Facilitators included having a prescriber on staff, education and training for patients and staff, and support from leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD in VHA residential treatment programs were consistent with prior research in outpatient settings. Intensive educational programs, such as academic detailing, and policy changes such as mandating buprenorphine waiver training for VHA providers, may help improve receipt of pharmacotherapy for OUD.

Implementing alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapy in primary care settings: a qualitative analysis of provider-identified barriers and impact on implementation outcomes

Background

Despite the high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), in 2016, only 7.8% of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria received any type of AUD treatment. Developing options for treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. As part of a trial to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings, this qualitative study analyzed pre-implementation provider interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify implementation barriers.

Methods

Three large Veterans Health Administration facilities participated in the implementation intervention. Local providers were trained to serve as implementation/clinical champions and received external facilitation from the project team. Primary care providers received a dashboard of patients with AUD for case identification, educational materials, and access to consultation from clinical champions. Veterans with AUD diagnoses received educational information in the mail. Prior to the start of implementation activities, 24 primary care providers (5–10 per site) participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the CFIR codebook Innovation/Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals domains. Number and type of barriers identified were compared to quantitative changes in AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates.

Results

Four major barriers emerged across all three sites: complexity of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care, the limited compatibility of AUD treatment with existing primary care processes, providers’ limited knowledge and negative beliefs about AUD pharmacotherapy and providers’ negative attitudes toward patients with AUD. Site specific barriers included lack of relative advantage of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care over current practice, complaints about the design quality and packaging of implementation intervention materials, limited priority of addressing AUD in primary care and limited available resources to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care.

Conclusions

CFIR constructs were useful for identifying pre-implementation barriers that informed refinements to the implementation intervention. The number and type of pre-implementation barriers identified did not demonstrate a clear relationship to the degree to which sites were able to improve AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rate. Site-level implementation process factors such as leadership support and provider turn-over likely also interacted with pre-implementation barriers to drive implementation outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13722-019-0151-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low levels of initiation, engagement, and retention in substance use disorder treatment including pharmacotherapy among HIV-infected and uninfected veterans

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are common in healthcare settings and contribute to poor outcomes, particularly in patients living with HIV. We assessed initiation, engagement, and retention in SUD treatment and pharmacotherapy following an index SUD episode in a national sample of HIV-infected and uninfected patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system.

METHODS

We used electronic national VA data (years 2000-2015) from 52,995 HIV-infected and 111,229 age-, race-, gender-, and region-matched uninfected patients. We defined index SUD episodes as outpatient visits or inpatient/residential admissions with associated primary or secondary ICD-9 codes for substance use in patients without SUD-related services or pharmacotherapy in the preceding 5 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 57,428 (35%) patients had at least 1 index SUD episode. HIV-infected patients were more likely than uninfected controls to have at least one index SUD episode (35.7% vs. 34.6%; p < .001). Rates of initiation, engagement, and retention in SUD treatment after the index SUD episode were <17% for both groups. In adjusted models, HIV-infected patients were more likely than uninfected patients to be retained in SUD treatment at 6 months (Odds Ratio 1.10; 95% Confidence Interval 1.04-1.16). SUD pharmacotherapy initiation and engagement was uncommon in both HIV-infected and uninfected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national VA sample, initiation of SUD treatment and pharmacotherapy were uncommon for both HIV-infected and uninfected patients. Interventions to improve initiation, engagement, and retention in the full range of services, including SUD pharmacotherapy, are warranted for all patients with SUD in the VA.

Medications for opioid use disorder in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system: Historical perspective, lessons learned, and next steps

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest health care system in the US, has been confronted with the health care consequences of opioid disorder (OUD). Increasing access to quality OUD treatment, including pharmacotherapy, is a priority for the VA. We examine the history of medications (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine, injectable naltrexone) used in the treatment of OUD within VA, document early and ongoing efforts to increase access and build capacity, primarily through the use of buprenorphine, and summarize research examining barriers and facilitators to prescribing and medication receipt. We find that there has been a slow but steady increase in the use of medications for OUD and, despite system-wide mandates and directives, uneven uptake across VA facilities and within patient sub-populations, including some of those most vulnerable. We conclude with recommendations intended to support the greater use of medication for OUD in the future, both within VA as well as other large health care systems.

Strategies to increase implementation of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorders: a structured review of care delivery and implementation interventions

Background

Effective medications for treating alcohol use disorders (AUD) are available but underutilized. Multiple barriers to their provision have been identified, and optimal strategies for addressing and overcoming barriers to use of medications for AUD treatment remain elusive. We conducted a structured review of published care delivery and implementation studies evaluating interventions that aimed to increase medication treatment for patients with AUD to identify interventions and component strategies that were most effective.

Methods

We reviewed literature through May 2018 and used networking to identify intervention studies with AUD medication receipt reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Studies were identified as care delivery studies, characterized by patient-level recruitment and willingness to be randomized to candidate treatment options, and implementation studies, characterized by inclusion of all patients treated at sites involved in the study. Each identified study was independently coded by two investigators for strategies used, guided by a published taxonomy of implementation strategies. All authors reviewed coding discrepancies and revised codes based on consensus. After reaching internal consensus, we solicited feedback from lead investigators on studies to code additional strategies. We reviewed implementation strategies used across studies to assess their relationship with medication receipt, as well as alcohol use outcomes, as available.

Results

Nine studies were identified: four RCTs of care delivery interventions, four quasi-experimental evaluations of large-scale implementation interventions, and one quasi-experimental evaluation of a targeted single-site implementation intervention. Implementation strategies used were variable across studies; no strategy was universally used. Effects of the interventions on receipt of AUD pharmacotherapy and alcohol use outcomes also varied. Three of four care delivery interventions resulted in increased receipt of AUD medications, but only one of these three improved alcohol use outcomes. One large-scale and one single-site implementation intervention were associated with increased AUD medication receipt, and these studies did not assess alcohol use outcomes. Patterns of implementation strategies did not clearly distinguish studies that successfully increased use of pharmacotherapy versus those that did not.

Conclusions

Our review did not reveal strategies most effective for implementing AUD medications. Interventions designed to overcome identified barriers may have missed the mark, or differences in the intensity or targets of strategies may matter more than differences in strategies. Further research is needed to understand effective implementation methods and to better understand patient-level perspective, preferences and barriers to receipt of medications.