Remote buprenorphine-naloxone initiation as an essential service for people with chronic pain and opioid dependence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Case reports, clinical pathways, and implications for the future

Do video or telephone consultations impact attendance rates in an addiction medicine specialist outpatient clinic?

BACKGROUND

Effective alcohol and other drugs (AODs) treatment has been proven to increase productivity and reduce costs to the community. Telehealth has previously been proven effective at delivering AOD treatment in the right settings. Yet, Australia's current Medicare funding restricts telephone consultations.

AIM

We hypothesise that treatment modality influences attendance rates. Specifically, telephone consultations can remove barriers to accessing treatment and, therefore, can increase attendance.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective audit on our addiction medicine specialist outpatient service from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to analyse factors associated with attendance rates.

RESULTS

There were 576 participants in the study, and 3354 appointments were booked over the 12-month study period. Of these, 2695 were face-to-face, 541 were telephone and 118 were video. The unadjusted raw attendance rate was highest in the telephone group (87.24%), followed by face-to-face (73.02%) and video (44.92%). After adjusting for covariates, telephone consultation was associated with significantly increased odds of attending compared to face-to-face (odds ratio (OR) = 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.90-3.54, P < 0.001). Video consultation was associated with a 69% reduction in the odds of attending compared to face-to-face (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.019-0.49, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While physical attendance may be required for specific clinical care, telephone consultations are associated with increased attendance and can form an important adjunct to delivering addiction treatment. Given the substantial costs of substance use disorders, this could inform government policies and funding priorities to further improve access and treatment outcomes.

Prescribing and Acceptance of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in VA Primary Care: Veteran and Provider Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine/naloxone can effectively treat OUD and reduce opioid-related mortality, but they remain underutilized, especially in non-substance use disorder settings such as primary care (PC).

OBJECTIVE

To uncover the factors that can facilitate successful prescribing of MOUD and uptake/acceptance of MOUD by patients in PC settings in the Veterans Health Administration.

DESIGN

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 77 providers (e.g., primary care providers, hospitalists, nurses, addiction psychiatrists) and 22 Veteran patients with experience taking MOUD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach.

KEY RESULTS

Providers and patients shared their general perceptions and experiences with MOUD, including high satisfaction with buprenorphine/naloxone with few side effects and caveats, although some patients reported drawbacks to methadone. Both providers and patients supported the idea of prescribing MOUD in PC settings to prioritize patient comfort and convenience. Providers described individual-level barriers (e.g., time, stigma, perceptions of difficulty level), structural-level barriers (e.g., pharmacy not having medications ready, space for inductions), and organizational-level barriers (e.g., inadequate staff support, lack of nursing protocols) to PC providers prescribing MOUD. Facilitators centered on education and knowledge enhancement, workflow and practice support, patient engagement and patient-provider communication, and leadership and organizational support. The most common barrier faced by patients to starting MOUD was apprehensions about pain, while facilitators focused on personal motivation, encouragement from others, education about MOUD, and optimally timed provider communication strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings can help improve provider-, clinic-, and system-level supports for MOUD prescribing across multiple settings, as well as foster communication strategies that can increase patient acceptance of MOUD. They also point to how interprofessional collaboration across service lines and leadership support can facilitate MOUD prescribing among non-addiction providers.

Stakeholder perspectives on a telemedicine referral and coordination model to expand medication treatment for opioid use disorder in rural primary care clinics

INTRODUCTION

Opioid overdose deaths are increasing rapidly in the United States. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are effective and can be delivered in primary care, but uptake has been limited in rural communities. Referral to and coordination with an external telemedicine (TM) vendor by rural primary care clinics for MOUD (TM-MOUD) may increase MOUD access for rural patients, but we know little about perspectives on this model among key stakeholders. As part of a TM-MOUD feasibility study, we explored TM-MOUD acceptability and feasibility among personnel and patients from seven rural primary care clinics and a TM-MOUD vendor.

METHODS

We conducted virtual interviews or focus groups with clinic administrators (n = 7 interviews), clinic primary care and behavioral health providers (8 groups, n = 30), other clinic staff (9 groups, n = 37), patients receiving MOUD (n = 16 interviews), TM-MOUD vendor staff (n = 4 interviews), and vendor-affiliated behavioral health and prescribing providers (n = 17 interviews). We asked about experiences with and acceptability of MOUD (primarily buprenorphine) and telemedicine (TM) and a TM-MOUD referral and coordination model. We conducted content analysis to identify themes and participants quantitatively rated acceptability of TM-MOUD elements on a 4-item scale.

RESULTS

Perceived benefits of vendor-based TM-MOUD included reduced logistical barriers, more privacy and less stigma, and access to services not available locally (e.g., counseling, pain management). Barriers included lack of internet or poor connectivity in patients' homes, limited communication and trust between TM-MOUD and clinic providers, and questions about the value to the clinic of TM-MOUD referral to external vendor. Acceptability ratings for TM-MOUD were generally high; they were lowest among frontline staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural primary care clinic personnel, TM-MOUD vendor personnel, and patients generally perceived referral from primary care to a TM-MOUD vendor to hold potential for increasing access to MOUD in rural communities. Increasing TM-MOUD uptake requires buy-in and understanding among staff of the TM-MOUD workflow, TM services offered, requirements for patients, advantages over clinic-based or TM services from clinic providers, and identification of appropriate patients. Poverty, along with patient hesitation to initiate treatment, creates substantial barriers to MOUD treatment generally; insufficient internet availability creates a substantial barrier to TM-MOUD.

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).

Evaluating how has care been affected by the Ontario COVID-19 Opioid Agonist Treatment Guidance: Patients' and prescribers' experiences with changes in unsupervised dosing

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the opioid crisis. Opioid-related deaths have increased and access to treatment services, including opioid agonist treatment (OAT), has been disrupted. The Ontario COVID-19 OAT Treatment Guidance document was developed to facilitate access to OAT and continuity of care during the pandemic, while supporting physical distancing measures. In particular, the Guidance expanded access to unsupervised OAT dosing. It is important to evaluate the changes in unsupervised OAT dosing after the release of the Ontario COVID-19 OAT Guidance based on patients' and prescribers' reports.

METHOD

Online questionnaires were developed collaboratively with people with lived and living expertise, prescribers, clinical experts, and researchers. Patients (N = 402) and prescribers (N = 100) reported their experiences with changes in unsupervised dosing during the first six months of the pandemic.

RESULTS

Many patients (57%) reported receiving additional unsupervised OAT doses (i.e., take away doses). Patients who received additional unsupervised doses were not significantly more likely to report adverse health outcomes compared to patients who did not receive additional unsupervised doses. Patients with additional unsupervised doses and prescribers agreed that changes in OAT care were positive (e.g., reported an improved patient-prescriber relationship and more openness between patient and prescriber). Prescribers and some patients reported the need for continued flexibility in unsupervised doses after the pandemic restrictions lift.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support the need to re-evaluate historical approaches to OAT care delivery, particularly unsupervised doses. It is crucial to implement policies, regulations, and supports to reduce barriers to OAT care during the pandemic and once the pandemic response restrictions are eased. Flexibility in OAT care delivery, particularly unsupervised dosing, will be key to providing patient-centred care for persons with opioid use disorder.