Nurse Care Management for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: The PROUD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments.

Objective

To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after.

Intervention

The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up.

Results

During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70).

Conclusions and Relevance

The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

Implementation and workflow strategies for integrating digital therapeutics for alcohol use disorders into primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are prevalent and often go untreated. Patients are commonly screened for AUD in primary care, but existing treatment programs are failing to meet demand. Digital therapeutics include novel mobile app-based treatment approaches which may be cost-effective treatment options to help fill treatment gaps. The goal of this study was to identify implementation needs and workflow design considerations for integrating digital therapeutics for AUD into primary care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with clinicians, care delivery leaders, and implementation staff (n = 16) in an integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States. All participants had experience implementing digital therapeutics for depression or substance use disorders in primary care. Interviews were designed to gain insights into adaptations needed to optimize existing clinical processes, workflows, and implementation strategies for use with alcohol-focused digital therapeutics. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed using a rapid analysis process and affinity diagramming.

RESULTS

Qualitative themes were well represented across health system staff roles. Participants were enthusiastic about digital therapeutics for AUD, anticipated high patient demand for such a resource, and made suggestions for successful implementation. Key insights regarding the implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD and unhealthy alcohol use from our data include: (1) implementation strategy selection must be driven by digital therapeutic design and target population characteristics, (2) implementation strategies should seek to minimize burden on clinicians given the large numbers of patients with AUD who are likely to be interested in and eligible for digital therapeutics, and (3) digital therapeutics should be offered alongside many other treatment options to accommodate individual patients' AUD severity and treatment goals. Participants also expressed confidence that previous implementation strategies used with other digital therapeutics such as clinician training, electronic health record supports, health coaching, and practice facilitation would be effective for the implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD would benefit from careful consideration of the target population. Optimal integration requires tailoring workflows to meet anticipated patient volume and designing workflow and implementation strategies to meet the unique needs of patients with varying AUD severity.

A patient-centered nurse-supported primary care-based collaborative care program to treat opioid use disorder and depression: Design and protocol for the MI-CARE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) contributes to rising morbidity and mortality. Life-saving OUD treatments can be provided in primary care but most patients with OUD don't receive treatment. Comorbid depression and other conditions complicate OUD management, especially in primary care. The MI-CARE trial is a pragmatic randomized encouragement (Zelen) trial testing whether offering collaborative care (CC) to patients with OUD and clinically-significant depressive symptoms increases OUD medication treatment with buprenorphine and improves depression outcomes compared to usual care.

METHODS

Adult primary care patients with OUD and depressive symptoms (n ≥ 800) from two statewide health systems: Kaiser Permanente Washington and Indiana University Health are identified with computer algorithms from electronic Health record (EHR) data and automatically enrolled. A random sub-sample (50%) of eligible patients is offered the MI-CARE intervention: a 12-month nurse-driven CC intervention that includes motivational interviewing and behavioral activation. The remaining 50% of the study cohort comprise the usual care comparison group and is never contacted. The primary outcome is days of buprenorphine treatment provided during the intervention period. The powered secondary outcome is change in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scores. Both outcomes are obtained from secondary electronic healthcare sources and compared in "intent-to-treat" analyses.

CONCLUSION

MI-CARE addresses the need for rigorous encouragement trials to evaluate benefits of offering CC to generalizable samples of patients with OUD and mental health conditions identified from EHRs, as they would be in practice, and comparing outcomes to usual primary care. We describe the design and implementation of the trial, currently underway.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05122676. Clinical trial registration date: November 17, 2021.

Integrating Alcohol-Related Prevention and Treatment Into Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

Importance

Unhealthy alcohol use is common and affects morbidity and mortality but is often neglected in medical settings, despite guidelines for both prevention and treatment.

Objective

To test an implementation intervention to increase (1) population-based alcohol-related prevention with brief interventions and (2) treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care implemented with a broader program of behavioral health integration.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Sustained Patient-Centered Alcohol-Related Care (SPARC) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, including 22 primary care practices in an integrated health system in Washington state. Participants consisted of all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary care visits from January 2015 to July 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2021.

Interventions

The implementation intervention included 3 strategies: practice facilitation; electronic health record decision support; and performance feedback. Practices were randomly assigned launch dates, which placed them in 1 of 7 waves and defined the start of the practice's intervention period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes for prevention and AUD treatment were (1) the proportion of patients who had unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention documented in the electronic health record (brief intervention) for prevention and (2) the proportion of patients who had newly diagnosed AUD and engaged in AUD treatment (AUD treatment engagement). Analyses compared monthly rates of primary and intermediate outcomes (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment initiation) among all patients who visited primary care during usual care and intervention periods using mixed-effects regression.

Results

A total of 333 596 patients visited primary care (mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years; 193 583 [58%] female; 234 764 [70%] White individuals). The proportion with brief intervention was higher during SPARC intervention than usual care periods (57 vs 11 per 10 000 patients per month; P < .001). The proportion with AUD treatment engagement did not differ during intervention and usual care (1.4 vs 1.8 per 10 000 patients; P = .30). The intervention increased intermediate outcomes: screening (83.2% vs 20.8%; P < .001), new AUD diagnosis (33.8 vs 28.8 per 10 000; P = .003), and treatment initiation (7.8 vs 6.2 per 10 000; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the SPARC intervention resulted in modest increases in prevention (brief intervention) but not AUD treatment engagement in primary care, despite important increases in screening, new diagnoses, and treatment initiation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675777.

Study protocol for a factorial-randomized controlled trial evaluating the implementation, costs, effectiveness, and sustainment of digital therapeutics for substance use disorder in primary care (DIGITS Trial)

BACKGROUND

Experts recommend that treatment for substance use disorder (SUD) be integrated into primary care. The Digital Therapeutics for Opioids and Other SUD (DIGITS) Trial tests strategies for implementing reSET® and reSET-O®, which are prescription digital therapeutics for SUD and opioid use disorder, respectively, that include the community reinforcement approach, contingency management, and fluency training to reinforce concept mastery. This purpose of this trial is to test whether two implementation strategies improve implementation success (Aim 1) and achieve better population-level cost effectiveness (Aim 2) over a standard implementation approach.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DIGITS Trial is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized trial. It examines outcomes of implementation strategies, rather than studying clinical outcomes of a digital therapeutic. It includes 22 primary care clinics from a healthcare system in Washington State and patients with unhealthy substance use who visit clinics during an active implementation period (up to one year). Primary care clinics implemented reSET and reSET-O using a multifaceted implementation strategy previously used by clinical leaders to roll-out smartphone apps ("standard implementation" including discrete strategies such as clinician training, electronic health record tools). Clinics were randomized as 21 sites in a 2x2 factorial design to receive up to two added implementation strategies: (1) practice facilitation, and/or (2) health coaching. Outcome data are derived from electronic health records and logs of digital therapeutic usage. Aim 1's primary outcomes include reach of the digital therapeutics to patients and fidelity of patients' use of the digital therapeutics to clinical recommendations. Substance use and engagement in SUD care are additional outcomes. In Aim 2, population-level cost effectiveness analysis will inform the economic benefit of the implementation strategies compared to standard implementation. Implementation is monitored using formative evaluation, and sustainment will be studied for up to one year using qualitative and quantitative research methods.

DISCUSSION

The DIGITS Trial uses an experimental design to test whether implementation strategies increase and improve the delivery of digital therapeutics for SUDs when embedded in a large healthcare system. It will provide data on the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of alternative implementation strategies.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT05160233 (Submitted 12/3/2021). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05160233.

Practical Assessment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Routine Primary Care: Performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent but underrecognized and undertreated in primary care settings. Alcohol Symptom Checklists can engage patients and providers in discussions of AUD-related care. However, the performance of Alcohol Symptom Checklists when they are used in routine care and documented in electronic health records (EHRs) remains unevaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the psychometric performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist in routine primary care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race, and ethnicity.

PATIENTS

Patients seen in primary care in the Kaiser Permanente Washington Healthcare System who reported high-risk drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test Consumption screening measure (AUDIT-C ≥ 7) and subsequently completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist between October 2015 and February 2020.

MAIN MEASURE

Alcohol Symptom Checklists with 11 items assessing AUD criteria defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), completed by patients during routine medical care and documented in EHRs.

KEY RESULTS

Among 11,464 patients who screened positive for high-risk drinking and completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (mean age 43.6 years, 30.5% female), 54.1% reported ≥ 2 DSM-5 AUD criteria (threshold for AUD diagnosis). IRT analyses demonstrated that checklist items measured a unidimensional continuum of AUD severity. Differential item functioning was observed for some demographic subgroups but had minimal impact on accurate measurement of AUD severity, with differences between demographic subgroups attributable to differential item functioning never exceeding 0.42 points of the total symptom count (of a possible range of 0-11).

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol Symptom Checklists used in routine care discriminated AUD severity consistently with current definitions of AUD and performed equitably across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Integrating symptom checklists into routine care may help inform clinical decision-making around diagnosing and managing AUD.

Practical assessment of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria in routine care: High test-retest reliability of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings, in part due to a lack of AUD assessment instruments that are reliable and practical for use in routine care. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of a patient-report Alcohol Symptom Checklist questionnaire when it is used in routine care, including primary care and mental health specialty settings.

METHODS

We performed a pragmatic test-retest reliability study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included 454 patients who reported high-risk drinking on a behavioral health screen and completed two Alcohol Symptom Checklists 1 to 21 days apart. Subgroups of these patients who completed both checklists in primary care (n = 271) or mental health settings (n = 79) were also examined. The primary measure was an Alcohol Symptom Checklist on which patients self-reported whether they experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria within the past year, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5^th edition (DSM-5).

RESULTS

Alcohol Symptom Checklists completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for measuring AUD criterion counts (ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). Test-retest reliability estimates were also high and not significantly different for the subsamples of patients who completed both checklists in primary care (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85) or mental health settings (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.83). Test-retest reliability was not moderated by having a past two-year AUD diagnosis, nor by the age or sex of the patient completing it.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol Symptom Checklists can reliably and pragmatically assess AUD criteria in routine care among patients who screen positive for high-risk drinking. The Alcohol Symptom Checklist may be a valuable tool in supporting AUD-related care and monitoring AUD criteria longitudinally in routine primary care and mental health settings.

Approaches for implementing digital interventions for alcohol use disorders in primary care: A qualitative, user-centered design study

Background

Digital interventions, such as smartphone apps, can be effective in treating alcohol use disorders (AUD). However, efforts to integrate digital interventions into primary care have been challenging. To inform successful implementation, we sought to understand how patients and clinicians preferred to use apps in routine primary care.

Methods

This study combined user-centered design and qualitative research methods, interviewing 18 primary care patients with AUD and nine primary care clinicians on topics such as prior experiences with digital tools, and design preferences regarding approaches for offering apps for AUD in primary care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for template analysis whereby a priori codes were based on interview topics and refined through iterative coding. New codes and cross-cutting themes emerged from the data.

Results

Patient participants with AUD indicated they would be more likely to engage in treatment if primary care team members were involved in their use of apps. They also preferred to see clinicians “invested” and recommended that clinicians ask about app use and progress during follow-up appointments or check-ins. Clinician participants valued the opportunity to offer apps to their patients but noted that workflows would need to be tailored to individual patient needs. Time pressures, implementation complexity, and lack of appropriate staffing were cited as barriers. Clinicians proposed concrete solutions (e.g., education, tools, and staffing models) that could improve their ability to use apps within the constraints of primary care and suggested that some patients could potentially use apps without clinician support.

Conclusions

A user-centered approach to engaging patients in digital alcohol interventions in primary care may require personalized support for both initiation and follow-up. Meeting patients’ needs likely require increased staffing and efficient workflows in primary care. Health systems should consider offering multiple pathways for enrolling patients in apps to accommodate individual preferences and contextual barriers.

Plain Language Summary

Healthcare systems have begun using app-based treatments to help patients manage their health conditions, including alcohol use disorders. Some apps have been tested in research studies and appear to be effective. However, it is difficult for healthcare teams to offer apps to patients. Clinicians must engage in new activities that they have not done before, such as “teaching” patients to use apps and checking in on their use of the apps. Identifying how to use apps in routine healthcare is critical to their successful implementation. This study interviewed 27 people, including healthcare providers and patients in primary care, to uncover the most optimal ways to offer apps to patients with alcohol use disorders. The interviews combined the use of qualitative research methods and user-centered design. Results suggest that to use to address alcohol use disorders, primary care teams should be prepared to offer personalized support to patients. Both patient and clinician interviewees said that the steps required to use apps must be intuitive and simple. Patients could gain more benefits if clinicians introduced the apps and guided patients to use them, as opposed to making apps available for patients to download and use on their own. However, the exact approach to offering apps would depend on a given patient’s preferences and the extent that staffing was available in the clinic to support patients. Health systems should be prepared to offer and support patients in their use of apps, which should accommodate patient preferences and the constraints of the clinic.

Approaches for Implementing App-Based Digital Treatments for Drug Use Disorders Into Primary Care: A Qualitative, User-Centered Design Study of Patient Perspectives

Background

Digital interventions, such as websites and smartphone apps, can be effective in treating drug use disorders (DUDs). However, their implementation in primary care is hindered, in part, by a lack of knowledge on how patients might like these treatments delivered to them.

Objective

This study aims to increase the understanding of how patients with DUDs prefer to receive app-based treatments to inform the implementation of these treatments in primary care.

Methods

The methods of user-centered design were combined with qualitative research methods to inform the design of workflows for offering app-based treatments in primary care. Adult patients (n=14) with past-year cannabis, stimulant, or opioid use disorder from 5 primary care clinics of Kaiser Permanente Washington in the Seattle area participated in this study. Semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative template analysis. The coding scheme included deductive codes based on interview topics, which primarily focused on workflow design. Inductive codes emerged from the data.

Results

Participants wanted to learn about apps during visits where drug use was discussed and felt that app-related conversations should be incorporated into the existing care whenever possible, as opposed to creating new health care visits to facilitate the use of the app. Nearly all participants preferred receiving clinician support for using apps over using them without support. They desired a trusting, supportive relationship with a clinician who could guide them as they used the app. Participants wanted follow-up support via phone calls or secure messaging because these modes of communication were perceived as a convenient and low burden (eg, no copays or appointment travel).

Conclusions

A user-centered implementation of treatment apps for DUDs in primary care will require health systems to design workflows that account for patients’ needs for structure, support in and outside of visits, and desire for convenience.

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

Background

Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here.

Methods

PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16–90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims (“electronic health records,” [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization.

Discussion

The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings.

Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1

Routine Assessment of Symptoms of Substance Use Disorders in Primary Care: Prevalence and Severity of Reported Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Most patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) never receive treatment and SUDs are under-recognized in primary care (PC) where patients can be treated or linked to treatment. Asking PC patients to directly report SUD symptoms on questionnaires might help identify SUDs but to our knowledge, this approach is previously untested.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prevalence and severity of DSM-5 SUD symptoms reported by PC patients as part of routine care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using secondary data.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 241,265 adult patients who visited one of 25 PC sites in an integrated health system in Washington state and had alcohol, cannabis, or other drug use screening documented in their EHRs (March 2015-July 2018) were included in main analyses if they had a positive screen for high-risk substance use defined as AUDIT-C score 7-12 points, or report of past-year daily cannabis use or any other drug use.

MAIN MEASURES

The main outcome was number of SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5), reported on Symptom Checklists (0-11) for alcohol or other drugs: 2-3 mild; 4-5 moderate; 6-11 severe.

RESULTS

Of screened patients, 16,776 (5.7%) reported high-risk use of alcohol (2.4%), cannabis (3.9%), and/or other drugs (1.7%), and 65.0-69.9% of those completed Symptom Checklists. Of those with high-risk alcohol use, 52.5% (95% CI 50.9-54.0%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe alcohol use disorders. Of those reporting daily cannabis use, 29.8% (28.6-30.9%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. Of those reporting any other drug use, 37.5% (35.7-39.3%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many PC patients who screened positive for high-risk substance use reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUDs on self-report Symptom Checklists. Use of SUD Symptom Checklists could support PC providers in making SUD diagnoses and initiating discussions of substance use.

If You Listen, I Will Talk: the Experience of Being Asked About Suicidality During Routine Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Routine population-based screening for depression is an essential part of evolving health care models integrating care for mental health in primary care. Depression instruments often include questions about suicidal thoughts, but how patients experience these questions in primary care is not known and may have implications for accurate identification of patients at risk.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the patient experience of routine population-based depression screening/assessment followed, for some, by suicide risk assessment and discussions with providers.

DESIGN

Qualitative, interview-based study.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-seven patients from Kaiser Permanente Washington who had recently screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] and completed the full PHQ-9.

APPROACH

Criterion sampling identified patients who had recently completed the PHQ-9 ninth question which asks about the frequency of thoughts about self-harm. Patients completed semi-structured interviews by phone, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive and conventional content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and elucidate new information from interviews; thematic analysis was used to organize key content overall and across groups based on endorsement of suicide ideation.

KEY RESULTS

Four main organizing themes emerged from analyses: (1) Participants believed being asked about suicidality was contextually appropriate and valuable, (2) some participants described a mismatch between their lived experience and the PHQ-9 ninth question, (3) suicidality disclosures involved weighing hope for help against fears of negative consequences, and (4) provider relationships and acts of listening and caring facilitated discussions about suicidality.

CONCLUSIONS

All participants believed being asked questions about suicidal thoughts was appropriate, though some who disclosed suicidal thoughts described experiencing stigma and sometimes distanced themselves from suicidality. Direct communication with trusted providers, who listened and expressed empathy, bolstered comfort with disclosure. Future research should consider strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging fearless disclosure among primary care patients experiencing suicidality.

Making measurement-based care for addictions a reality in primary care

Three factors are important to consider when integrating measurement-based care for opioid use disorders into primary care: integration with other behavioral health and substance use disorders care, the availability of a brief, valid measure that is responsive to change, and implementation in a manner that fosters accurate reporting.

Integration of screening, assessment, and treatment for cannabis and other drug use disorders in primary care: An evaluation in three pilot sites

BACKGROUND

This pilot study evaluated whether use of evidence-based implementation strategies to integrate care for cannabis and other drug use into primary care (PC) as part of Behavioral Health Integration (BHI) increased diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs).

METHODS

Patients who visited the three pilot PC sites were eligible. Implementation strategies included practice coaching, electronic health record decision support, and performance feedback (3/2015-4/2016). BHI introduced annual screening for past-year cannabis and other drug use, a Symptom Checklist for DSM-5 SUDs, and shared decision-making about treatment options. Main analyses tested whether the proportions of PC patients diagnosed with, and treated for, new cannabis or other drug use disorders (CUDs and DUDs, respectively), differed significantly pre- and post-implementation.

RESULTS

Of 39,599 eligible patients, 57% and 59% were screened for cannabis and other drug use, respectively. Among PC patients reporting daily cannabis use (2%) or any drug use (1%), 51% and 37%, respectively, completed an SUD Symptom Checklist. The proportion of PC patients with newly diagnosed CUD increased significantly post-implementation (5 v 17 per 10,000 patients, p < 0.0001), but not other DUDs (10 vs 13 per 10,000, p = 0.24). The proportion treated for newly diagnosed CUDs did not increase post-implementation (1 vs 1 per 10,000, p = 0.80), but did for those treated for newly diagnosed other DUDs (1 vs 3 per 10,000, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

A pilot implementation of BHI to increase routine screening and assessment for SUDs was associated with increased new CUD diagnoses and a small increase in treatment of new other DUDs.

Study protocol: a cluster-randomized trial implementing Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC trial)

Background

Experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care (“SPARC implementation intervention” hereafter).

The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics.

Methods/Design

The SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015–July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies.

Discussion

The SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care—alcohol screening and brief intervention—as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0795-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Alcohol-Related Nurse Care Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men).

INTERVENTIONS

Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems.

RESULTS

Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.

Frequency of Cannabis Use Among Primary Care Patients in Washington State

INTRODUCTION

Over 12% of US adults report past-year cannabis use, and among those who use daily, 25% or more have a cannabis use disorder. Use is increasing as legal access expands. Yet, cannabis use is not routinely assessed in primary care, and little is known about use among primary care patients and relevant demographic and behavioral health subgroups. This study describes the prevalence and frequency of past-year cannabis use among primary care patients assessed for use during a primary care visit.

METHODS

This observational cohort study included adults who made a visit to primary care clinics with annual behavioral health screening, including a single-item question about frequency past-year cannabis use (March 2015 to February 2016; n = 29,857). Depression, alcohol and other drug use were also assessed by behavioral health screening. Screening results, tobacco use, and diagnoses for past-year behavioral health conditions (e.g., mental health and substance use disorders) were obtained from EHRs.

RESULTS

Among patients who completed the cannabis use question (n = 22,095; 74% of eligible patients), 15.3% (14.8% to 15.8%) reported any past-year use: 12.2% (11.8% to 12.6%) less than daily, and 3.1% (2.9%-3.3%) daily. Among 2228 patients age 18 to 29 years, 36.0% (34.0% to 38.0%) reported any cannabis use and 8.1% (7.0% to 9.3%) daily use. Daily cannabis use was common among men age 18 to 29 years who used tobacco or screened positive for depression or used tobacco: 25.5% (18.8% to 32.1%) and 31.7% (23.3% to 40.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis use was common in adult primary care patients, especially among younger patients and those with behavioral health conditions. Results highlight the need for primary care approaches to address cannabis use.

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

BACKGROUND

Most patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.

METHODS

The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.

RESULTS

A total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale.

CONCLUSION

The CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Associations of housing status with substance abuse treatment and service use outcomes among veterans

OBJECTIVE

This secondary analysis evaluated the prevalence and stability of homelessness over one year among veterans entering substance abuse treatment and explored associations among housing status, treatment outcomes, and Veterans Affairs (VA) service utilization.

METHODS

Participants in a trial of on-site primary care for veterans entering substance abuse treatment (N=622) were placed in four groups based on housing status: housed at baseline and final follow-up (41%), homeless at baseline and final follow-up (27%), housed at baseline but homeless at final follow-up (8%), and homeless at baseline but housed at final follow-up (24%). Groups were compared on treatment retention, changes in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores, and VA service utilization and costs.

RESULTS

Treatment retention and changes in ASI alcohol composites did not differ between groups. Compared with scores in the consistently housed group, the ASI drug composites improved less over time in the consistently homeless group (p=.031) and the ASI psychiatric composites improved less in the group housed at baseline and homeless at final follow-up (p=.019). All homeless groups were more likely than the consistently housed group to have inpatient admissions and incurred higher total treatment costs. The consistently homeless group was more likely to use emergency care than the consistently housed group.

CONCLUSIONS

Homelessness affects substance abuse treatment outcomes and costs. Interventions are needed to reduce homelessness among veterans entering substance abuse treatment.

The association of persistent pain with out-patient addiction treatment outcomes and service utilization

AIMS

To estimate the prevalence of persistent pain among veterans in out-patient addiction treatment and examine associated addiction treatment outcomes and medical and psychiatric service use.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Analysis of data from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing on-site versus referral primary care of veterans with substance dependence (n = 582), excluding opioid dependence who had at least one follow-up interview during the 12-month study period in a Veterans Affairs (VA) out-patient addiction treatment center.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain status was classified as persistent (pain was rated moderate to very severe at all time-points), low (pain was rated none to mild at all time-points) or intermittent (all others). Main outcome measures were addiction treatment retention, addiction severity index (ASI) alcohol and drug composite scores, VA service utilization and treatment costs.

FINDINGS

A total of 33.2% of veterans reported persistent pain and 47.3% reported intermittent pain. All groups benefited from addiction treatment, but veterans with persistent pain were in treatment for an estimated 35.1 fewer days [95% confidence interval (CI) = -64.1, -6.1, P = 0.018], less likely to be abstinent from alcohol or drugs at 12 months [odds ratio (OR)(adj) = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.30,0.89; P = 0.018], had worse ASI alcohol composite scores at 12 months (beta(adj) = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.02,0.15; P = 0.007), were more likely to be medically hospitalized (OR(adj) = 2.70; 95% CI = 1.02,7.13; P = 0.046) and had higher total service costs compared to those with low pain ($17 766 versus $13 261, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent pain is common among veterans in out-patient addiction treatment and is associated with poorer rates of abstinence, worse alcohol use severity and greater service utilization and costs than those with low pain.

Cloning of a novel isoform of the mouse NBMPR-sensitive equilibrative nucleoside transporter (ENT1) lacking a putative phosphorylation site

We have isolated a mouse cDNA clone corresponding to a novel isoform of the NBMPR-sensitive equilibrative nucleoside transporter (ENT1). The cDNA contains a 6 bp deletion in the open reading frame that changes the amino acid composition in a consensus casein kinase II (CKII) phosphorylation site at Ser-254. The clone containing Ser-254 is termed mENT1.1 and the clone lacking the serine termed mENT1.2. The deduced amino acid sequence of mENT1.1 corresponds to the previously cloned human and rat ENT1 proteins at Ser-254. Tissue distribution studies show that mRNA for both ENT1 isoforms are ubiquitously co-expressed in mouse. Analysis of genomic DNA corresponding to mouse ENT1 indicates the isoforms can be produced by alternative splicing at the end of exon 7. CEM/C19 cells stably expressing mENT1.1 and mENT1.2 show similar dose response curves for NBMPR and dipyridamole inhibition of [(3)H]adenosine uptake as well as exhibiting comparable selectivity for both purine and pyrimidine nucleosides but not the corresponding nucleobases.