The Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START) study: protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to improve initiation of medication and linkage to post-discharge care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder

Cross sectional analysis of an addiction consultation service, substance co-use patterns, and receipt of medications for opioid use disorder during hospitalization

INTRODUCTION

Despite effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), treatment engagement remains low. As the overdose crisis is increasingly characterized by opioids co-used with other substances, it is important to understand whether existing models effectively support treatment for patients who use multiple substances. Hospital-based addiction consultation services (ACS) have shown promise at increasing MOUD initiation and treatment engagement, but the effectiveness for patients with specific co-use patterns remains unknown.

METHODS

Using 2016-2023 admissions data from a large safety net hospital, we estimated a random-effects logistic regression model to determine whether specific co-use (methamphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, sedative, and other) moderated the effect of being seen by ACS on the receipt of MOUD. Adjusting for patient sociodemographic, health, and admission characteristics we estimated the proportion of patients who received MOUD across specific co-use groups.

RESULTS

Of 7679 total admissions indicating opioid use, of which 5266 (68.6 %) indicated co-use of one or more substances and 2387 (31.1 %) were seen by the ACS. Among admissions not seen by the ACS, a smaller proportion of admissions with any co-use received MOUD (23.5 %; 95 % CI: 21.9-25.1) compared to admissions with opioid use alone (34.0 %; 95 % CI: 31.9-36.1). However, among admissions seen by the ACS a similar proportion of admissions with any co-use received MOUD (57.8 %; 95 % CI: 55.5-60.1) as admissions with opioid use alone (56.2 %; 95 % CI: 52.2-60.2). The increase in proportion of admissions receiving MOUD associated with being seen by the ACS was larger for admissions with methamphetamine (38.6 percentage points; 95 % CI: 34.6-42.6) or cannabis co-use (39.0 percentage points; 95 % CI: 32.9-45.1) compared to admissions without methamphetamine (25.7 percentage points; 95 % CI: 22.2-29.2) or cannabis co-use (29.1 percentage points; 95 % CI: 26.1-32.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACS is an effective hospital-based treatment model for increasing the proportion of admissions which receive MOUD. This study shows that ACSs are also able to support increased receipt of MOUD for patients who use other substances in addition to opioids. Future research is needed to further understand what transition strategies best support treatment linkage for patients who use multiple substances.

Contextual barriers and enablers to establishing an addiction-focused consultation team for hospitalized adults with opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility.

RESULTS

We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context.

Providers' Experiences and Perspectives in Treating Patients With Co-Occurring Opioid and Stimulant Use Disorders in the Hospital

BACKGROUND

The overdose crisis is increasingly characterized by opioid and stimulant co-use. Despite effective pharmacologic treatment for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and contingency management for stimulant use disorders, most individuals with these co-occurring conditions are not engaged in treatment. Hospitalization is an important opportunity to engage patients and initiate treatment, however existing hospital addiction care is not tailored for patients with co-use and may not meet the needs of this population.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital providers about their experiences and perspectives treating patients with opioid and stimulant co-use. We used directed content analysis to identify common experiences and opportunities to improve hospital-based treatment for patients with co-use.

RESULTS

From qualitative interviews with 20 providers, we identified 4 themes describing how co-use complicated hospital-based substance use treatment: (1) patients' unstable circumstances impacting the treatment plan, (2) co-occurring withdrawals are difficult to identify and treat, (3) providers holding more stigmatizing views of patients with co-use, and (4) stimulant use is often "ignored" in the treatment plans. Participants also described a range of potential opportunities to improve hospital-based treatment of co-use that fall into 3 categories: (1) provider practice changes, (2) healthcare system changes, and (3) development and validation of clinical tools and treatment approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified unique challenges providing hospital addiction medicine care to patients who use both opioids and stimulants. These findings inform the development, implementation, and testing of hospital-based interventions for patients with co-use.

Hospital Addiction Medicine Consultation Service Orders and Outcomes by Patient Race and Ethnicity in an Urban, Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Hospital admissions involving substance use disorders are increasing and represent an opportunity to engage patients in substance use treatment. Addiction medicine consultation services improve access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and patient outcomes. However, as hospitals continue to adopt addiction medicine consultation services it is important to identify where disparities may emerge in the process of care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe addiction medicine consultation service use by race and ethnicity as well as substance to identify opportunities to reduce substance use treatment disparities.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2021 Electronic Health Record data from a large Midwest safety-net hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized adults aged 18 or older, with one or more substance use disorders.

MAIN MEASURES

Consultation orders placed, patient seen by consult provider, and receipt of MOUD by self-reported race.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2021, we identified 16,895 hospitalized patients with a substance use disorder. Consultation orders were placed for 6344 patients and 2789 were seen by the consult provider. Black patients were less likely (aOR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.53-0.63) to have an addiction medicine consultation order placed and, among patients with a consultation order, were less likely (aOR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.65-0.85) to be seen by the consult provider than White patients. Overall, Black patients with OUD were also less likely to receive MOUD in the hospital (aOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.50-0.79) compared to White patients. However, there were no differences in MOUD receipt among Black and White patients seen by the consult provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Electronic Health Record data, we identified racial and ethnic disparities at multiple points in the inpatient addiction medicine consultation process. Addressing these disparities may support more equitable access to MOUD and other substance use treatment in the hospital setting.