A qualitative examination of the current management of opioid use disorder and barriers to prescribing buprenorphine in a Canadian emergency department

Incidence of buprenorphine-precipitated opioid withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Buprenorphine is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder, and the risk of precipitated withdrawal contributes to its underuse. The goal of this systematic review was to determine the incidence of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023437634). We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 10 November 2023, and included original research that reported the incidence of sublingual buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder. Primary screening was completed by four independent reviewers. Full text review, data extraction and risk of bias assessments using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were completed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was precipitated withdrawal. Secondary outcomes were baseline opioids used, induction dose, initial Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score, location of induction, definition and severity of precipitated withdrawal and adverse events. The range of incidence of precipitated withdrawal across studies was described.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 10 197 unique citations. Twenty-one cohort and five randomized trials met inclusion criteria (n = 4497, range 20-1293). The overall incidence of precipitated withdrawal ranged from 0 to 13.2%. Nine studies defined precipitated withdrawal; definitions were inconsistent. Most patients used heroin at baseline. The most common initial dose of buprenorphine was between 2 mg and 8 mg (range: 0.075 mg-24 mg). Initial minimum COWS score ranged from 5 to 13. Induction locations included home, inpatient, emergency department, pre-hospital, outpatient and residential units. Of the fifteen studies with cases of precipitated withdrawal, nine studies did not report the severity of withdrawal experienced. Other induction-related adverse events varied. The overall quality of included studies was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

The best available evidence suggests the incidence of buprenorphine-precipitated withdrawal in adults with opioid use disorder is low and should not be a barrier to use.

Opioid-specific harm reduction in the emergency department: how staff provide harm reduction and contextual factors that impact their capacity to engage in harm reduction practice

BACKGROUND

Emergency Departments (ED) staff, including nurses and physicians, are most directly involved in the care of people who use unregulated substances, and are ideally positioned to provide harm reduction interventions. Conceptualizing the ED as a complex adaptive system, this paper examines how ED staff experience opioid-specific harm reduction provision and engage in harm reduction practice, including potential facilitators and barriers to engagement.

METHODS

Using a mixed methods approach, ED nurses and physicians completed a self-administered staff survey (n = 99) and one-on-one semi-structured interviews (n = 15). Five additional interviews were completed with clinical leaders. Survey data were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics and to compute scale scores. De-identified interview data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach, which was informed by the theory of complex adaptive systems, as well as understandings of harm reduction as both a technical solution and a contextualized social practice. The final analysis involved mixed analysis through integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to generate overarching analytical themes.

RESULTS

Study findings illustrated that, within the context of the ED as a complex adaptive system, three interrelated contextual factors shape the capacity of staff to engage in harm reduction practice, and to implement the full range of opioid-specific harm reduction interventions available. These factors include opportunities to leverage benefits afforded by working collaboratively with colleagues, adequate preparation through receiving the necessary education and training, and support in helping patients establish connections for ongoing care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for harm reduction provision across all health and social care settings where people who use unregulated opioids access public sector services. In the context of the ED, attention to contextual factors including teamwork, preparedness, and connections is warranted to support that ED staff engage in harm reduction practice.

Reducing perceived barriers to scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution and medications for opioid use disorder in the United States in the HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) communities study

BACKGROUND

Scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is needed to reduce opioid overdose deaths, but barriers are pervasive. This study examines whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention reduced perceived barriers to expanding OEND and MOUD in healthcare/behavioral health, criminal-legal, and other/non-traditional venues.

METHODS

The HEALing (Helping End Addiction Long-Term®) Communities Study is a parallel, wait-list, cluster randomized trial testing the CTH intervention in 67 communities in the United States. Surveys administered to coalition members and key stakeholders measured the magnitude of perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in November 2019-January 2020, May-June 2021, and May-June 2022. Multilevel linear mixed models compared Wave 1 (intervention) and Wave 2 (wait-list control) respondents. Interactions by rural/urban status and research site were tested.

RESULTS

Wave 1 respondents reported significantly greater reductions in mean scores for three outcomes: perceived barriers to scaling up OEND in Healthcare/Behavioral Health Venues (-0.26, 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.48, -0.05, p = 0.015), OEND in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.53, 95% CI: - 0.84, -0.22, p = 0.001) and MOUD in Other/Non-traditional Venues (-0.34, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.05, p = 0.020). There were significant interactions by research site for perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in Criminal-Legal Venues. There were no significant interactions by rural/urban status.

DISCUSSION

The CTH Intervention reduced perceived barriers to scaling up OEND and MOUD in certain venues, with no difference in effectiveness between rural and urban communities. More research is needed to understand facilitators and barriers in different venues.

Physician Reluctance to Intervene in Addiction: A Systematic Review

Importance

The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low.

Objective

To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions.

Data Sources

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021.

Study Selection

Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria.

Results

A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.

Understanding Healthcare Providers' Care for Patients with Medications Treating Opioid Use Disorder in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is limited research exploring the changing clinical practices among healthcare providers (HPs) care for patients with Emergency Department (ED)-initiated Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD).

METHODS

This scoping review followed the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley to map relevant evidence and synthesize the findings. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus for related studies from inception through October 12, 2022. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies were included. Subsequently, they were charted and analyzed thematically based on ecological systems theory.

RESULTS

The main determinants in the four ecological systems were generated as follows: (1) microsystem: willingness and attitude, professional competence, readiness, and preference; (2) mesosystem: ED clinical practices, departmental factors; (3) exosystem: multidisciplinary approaches, discharge planning, and (4) macrosystem: stigma, health insurance, policy. The findings have implications for HPs and researchers, as insufficient adoption, implementation, and retention of MOUD in the ED affect clinical practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the four ecological systems, ED-initiated MOUD is shaped by multifaceted determinants. The microsystem underscores pivotal patient-HP trust dynamics, while the mesosystem emphasizes interdepartmental synergies. Exosystemically, resource allocation and standardized training remain paramount. The macrosystem reveals profound effects of stigma, insurance disparities, and evolving policies on treatment access and efficacy. Addressing these interconnected barriers is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes in the context of MOUD.

Perspectives on and experiences of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine among clinical pharmacists: A multi-site qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical pharmacists are well positioned to enhance efforts to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Among clinical pharmacists in urban EDs, we sought to characterize barriers and facilitators for ED-initiated buprenorphine to inform future implementation efforts and enhance access to this highly effective OUD treatment.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a part of Project ED Health (CTN-0069, NCT03023930), a multisite effectiveness-implementation study aimed at promoting ED-initiated buprenorphine that was conducted between April 2017 and July 2020. Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to assess perspectives on the relationship between 3 elements: evidence for buprenorphine, the ED context, and facilitation needs to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. The study used an iterative coding process to identify overlapping themes within these 3 domains.

RESULTS

The study conducted eight focus groups/interviews across four geographically disparate EDs with 15 pharmacist participants. We identified six themes. Themes related to evidence included (1) varied levels of comfort and experience among pharmacists with ED-initiated buprenorphine that increased over time and (2) a perception that patients with OUD have unique challenges that require guidance to optimize ED care. With regards to context, clinical pharmacists identified: (3) their ability to clarify scope of ED care in the context of unique pharmacology, formulations, and regulations of buprenorphine to ED staff, and that (4) their presence promotes successful program implementation and quality improvement. Participants identified facilitation needs including: (5) training to promote practice change and (6) ways to leverage already existing pharmacy resources outside of the ED.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pharmacists play a unique and critical role in the efforts to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. We identified 6 themes that can inform pharmacist-specific interventions that could aid in the successful implementation of this practice.