Can I Safely Discharge a Patient with a Substance Use Disorder Home with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter?

PICC Your Poison: Resident Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding Discharge Parenteral Antibiotics for Patients Who Inject Drugs

Background

Serious injection-related infections (SIRIs) in people who inject drugs often lead to prolonged hospitalizations or premature discharges. This may be in part due to provider reluctance to place peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in this population. Because internal medicine (IM) residents are often frontline providers in academic centers, understanding their perspectives on SIRI care is important to improve outcomes.

Methods

We surveyed IM residents in a large urban multicenter hospital system about SIRI care with a novel case-based survey that elicited preferences, comfort, experience, and stigma. The survey was developed using expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. Results are reported with descriptive statistics and linear regression.

Results

Of 116 respondents (response rate 34%), most (73%) were uncomfortable discharging a patient with active substance use home with a PICC, but comfortable (87%) with discharge to postacute facilities. Many (∼40%) endorsed high levels of concern for PICC misuse or secondary line infections, but larger numbers cited concerns about home environment (50%) or loss to follow-up (68%). While overall rates were low, higher stigma was associated with more concerns around PICC use (r = -0.3, P = .002). A majority (58%) believed hospital policies against PICC use in SIRI may act as a barrier to discharge, and 74% felt initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) would increase their comfort discharging with a PICC.

Conclusions

Most IM residents endorsed high levels of concern about PICC use for SIRI, related to patient outcomes and perceived institutional barriers, but identified MOUD as a mitigating factor.

Current practices and challenges of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a narrative review

Extended hospitalization for infection management increases inpatient care costs and the risk of healthcare-associated adverse events, including infections. The growing global demand for healthcare, the diminishing availability of hospital beds and an increasing patient preference for care within their own home have been the primary drivers of the expansion of hospital-in-the-home programmes. Such programmes include the use of IV antimicrobials in outpatient settings, known as outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). However, OPAT practices vary globally. This review article aims to describe the current OPAT practices and challenges worldwide. OPAT practice begins with patient evaluation and selection using eligibility criteria, which requires collaboration between the interdisciplinary OPAT team, patients and caregivers. Depending on care requirements, eligible patients may be enrolled to various models of care, receiving medication by healthcare professionals at outpatient infusion centres, hospital clinics, home visits or through self-administration. OPAT can be used for the management of many infections where an effective oral treatment option is lacking. Various classes of parenteral antimicrobials, including β-lactams, aminoglycosides, glycopeptides, fluoroquinolones and antifungals such as echinocandins, are used globally in OPAT practice. Despite its benefits, OPAT has numerous challenges, including complications from medication administration devices, antimicrobial side effects, monitoring requirements, antimicrobial instability, patient non-adherence, patient OPAT rejection, and challenges related to OPAT team structure and administration, all of which impact its outcome. A negative outcome could include unplanned hospital readmission. Future research should focus on mitigating these challenges to enable optimization of the OPAT service and thereby maximize the documented benefits for the healthcare system, patients and healthcare providers.

Prevalence and incidence of emergency department presentations and hospital separations with injecting-related infections in a longitudinal cohort of people who inject drugs

People who inject drugs are at risk of acute bacterial and fungal injecting-related infections. There is evidence that incidence of hospitalizations for injecting-related infections are increasing in several countries, but little is known at an individual level. We aimed to examine injecting-related infections in a linked longitudinal cohort of people who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia. A retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence and incidence of injecting-related infections using administrative emergency department and hospital separation datasets linked to the SuperMIX cohort, from 2008 to 2018. Over the study period, 33% (95%CI: 31-36%) of participants presented to emergency department with any injecting-related infections and 27% (95%CI: 25-30%) were admitted to hospital. Of 1,044 emergency department presentations and 740 hospital separations, skin and soft tissue infections were most common, 88% and 76%, respectively. From 2008 to 2018, there was a substantial increase in emergency department presentations and hospital separations with any injecting-related infections, 48 to 135 per 1,000 person-years, and 18 to 102 per 1,000 person-years, respectively. The results emphasize that injecting-related infections are increasing, and that new models of care are needed to help prevent and facilitate early detection of superficial infection to avoid potentially life-threatening severe infections.

Perspectives on the Use of Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy for People who Inject Drugs: Results From an Online Survey of Infectious Diseases Clinicians

Injection-related infections require prolonged antibiotic therapy. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) has been shown to be feasible for people who inject drugs (PWID) in some settings. We report a national survey on practice patterns and attitudes of infectious diseases clinicians in the United States regarding use of OPAT for PWID.

"I know my body better than anyone else": a qualitative study of perspectives of people with lived experience on antimicrobial treatment decisions for injection drug use-associated infections

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe bacterial and fungal infections including skin and soft tissue infections, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis. PWID have high rates of self-directed discharge and are often not offered outpatient antimicrobial therapies, despite studies showing their efficacy and safety in PWID. This study fills a gap in knowledge of patient and community partner perspectives on treatment and discharge decision making for injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 10) hospitalized with IDU-associated infections and community partners (n = 6) in the Portland, Maine region. Community partners include peer support workers at syringe services programs (SSPs) and outreach specialists working with PWID. We transcribed and thematically analyzed interviews to explore perspectives on three domains: perspectives on long-term hospitalization, outpatient treatment options, and patient involvement in decision making.

Results

Participants noted that stigma and inadequate pain management created poor hospitalization experiences that contributed to self-directed discharge. On the other hand, patients reported hospitalization provided opportunities to connect to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and protect them from outside substance use triggers. Many patients expressed interest in outpatient antimicrobial treatment options conditional upon perceived efficacy of the treatment, perceived ability to complete treatment, and available resources and social support. Finally, both patients and community partners emphasized the importance of autonomy and inclusion in medical decision making. Although some participants acknowledged their SUD, withdrawal symptoms, or undertreated pain might interfere with decision making, they felt these medical conditions were not justification for health care professionals withholding treatment options. They recommended open communication to build trust and reduce harms.

Conclusion

Patients with IDU-associated infections desire autonomy, respect, and patient-centered care from healthcare workers, and may self-discharge when needs or preferences are not met. Involving patients in treatment decisions and offering outpatient antimicrobial options may result in better outcomes. However, patient involvement in decision making may be complicated by many contextual factors unique to each patient, suggesting a need for shared decision making to meet the needs of hospitalized patients with IDU-associated infections.

A Taxonomy of Hospital-Based Addiction Care Models: a Scoping Review and Key Informant Interviews

BACKGROUND

There is pressing need to improve hospital-based addiction care. Various models for integrating substance use disorder care into hospital settings exist, but there is no framework for describing, selecting, or comparing models. We sought to fill that gap by constructing a taxonomy of hospital-based addiction care models based on scoping literature review and key informant interviews.

METHODS

Methods included a scoping review of the literature on US hospital-based addiction care models and interventions for adults, published between January 2000 and July 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants experienced in leading, implementing, evaluating, andpracticing hospital-based addiction care to explore model characteristics, including their perceived strengths, limitations, and implementation considerations. We synthesized findings from the literature review and interviews to construct a taxonomy of model types.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2,849 unique abstracts. Of these, we reviewed 280 full text articles, of which 76 were included in the final review. We added 8 references from reference lists and informant interviews, and 4 gray literature sources. We identified six distinct hospital-based addiction care models. Those classified as addiction consult models include (1) interprofessional addiction consult services, (2) psychiatry consult liaison services, and (3) individual consultant models. Those classified as practice-based models, wherein general hospital staff integrate addiction care into usual practice, include (4) hospital-based opioid treatment and (5) hospital-based alcohol treatment. The final type was (6) community-based in-reach, wherein community providers deliver care. Models vary in their target patient population, staffing, and core clinical and systems change activities. Limitations include that some models have overlapping characteristics and variable ways of delivering core components.

DISCUSSION

A taxonomy provides hospital clinicians and administrators, researchers, and policy-makers with a framework to describe, compare, and select models for implementing hospital-based addiction care and measure outcomes.

Design and protocol of the Buprenorphine plus Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (B-OPAT) study: a randomized clinical trial of integrated outpatient treatment of opioid use disorder and severe, injection-related infections

Introduction

A marked increase in hospitalizations for severe, injection-related infections (SIRI) has been associated with the opioid epidemic. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is typically not offered to persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and SIRI, though increasing evidence suggests it may be feasible and safe. This study evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care model combining Buprenorphine treatment of OUD with OPAT for SIRI (B-OPAT) compared with treatment as usual on key OUD, infectious disease, and health economic outcomes. B-OPAT expands and incorporates key elements of established clinical models, including inpatient initiation of buprenorphine for OUD, inpatient infectious disease consultation for SIRI, office-based treatment of OUD, and OPAT, and includes more frequent clinical outpatient visits than standard OPAT. A qualitative evaluation is included to contextualize effectiveness outcomes and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention adoption and implementation.

Methods

B-OPAT is a single-site, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial recruiting 90 adult inpatients hospitalized with OUD and SIRI who require at least 2 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. After screening, eligible participants are randomized 1:1 to either discharge once medically stable to an integrated outpatient treatment care model combining Buprenorphine and OPAT (B-OPAT) or to Treatment As Usual (TAU). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of urine samples negative for illicit opioids in the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Key secondary OUD outcomes include self-reported number of days of illicit opioid abstinence and 12-week retention in buprenorphine treatment. The infection outcomes are completion of recommended IV antibiotic therapy, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) complications, and readmission related to primary SIRI.

Conclusions

The B-OPAT study will help address the important question of whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to discharge persons with OUD and SIRI to an integrated outpatient care model combining OUD treatment with OPAT relative to TAU (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04677114).