Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

"You'll come in and dose even in a global pandemic”: a qualitative study of adaptive opioid agonist treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) improves multiple health and social outcomes, yet requirements to attend for supervised dosing can be burdensome and stigmatising. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions threatened continuity of care and the wellbeing of people receiving OAT, risking a parallel health crisis. This study sought to understand how adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments of people receiving OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with 40 people receiving and 29 people providing OAT located across Australia. The study considered the risk environments that produce COVID-19 transmission, treatment (non-)adherence, and adverse events for people receiving OAT. Drawing on theories of risk environments and complex adaptive systems, data were coded and analysed to understand how adaptations to the typically rigid system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results During COVID-19, the complex system of OAT provision demonstrated possibilities for responsive adaptation to the entangled features of risk environments of people receiving OAT. Structural stigma was evident in the services which stayed rigid during the pandemic, requiring people to attend for daily supervised dosing and risking fracturing therapeutic relationships. In parallel, there were several examples of services developing enabling environments by offering flexible care through increased takeaways, treatment subsidies, and home delivery. Conclusions Rigidity in the delivery of OAT has been an impediment to achieving health and wellbeing over past decades. To sustain health-promoting environments for people receiving OAT, the wider impacts of the complex system should be acknowledged beyond narrowly defined outcomes relating solely to the medication. Centring people receiving OAT in their own care plans will ensure adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision are responsive to the individual's risk environment.

"You'll come in and dose even in a global pandemic": A qualitative study of adaptive opioid agonist treatment provision during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) improves multiple health and social outcomes, yet requirements to attend for supervised dosing can be burdensome and stigmatising. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions threatened continuity of care and the wellbeing of people receiving OAT, risking a parallel health crisis. This study sought to understand how adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments of people receiving OAT during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The analysis draws on semi-structured interviews with 40 people receiving and 29 people providing OAT located across Australia. The study considered the risk environments that produce COVID-19 transmission, treatment (non-)adherence, and adverse events for people receiving OAT. Drawing on theories of risk environments and complex adaptive systems, data were coded and analysed to understand how adaptations to the typically rigid system of OAT provision impacted and responded to risk environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: During COVID-19, the complex system of OAT provision demonstrated possibilities for responsive adaptation to the entangled features of risk environments of people receiving OAT. Structural stigma was evident in the services which stayed rigid during the pandemic, requiring people to attend for daily supervised dosing and risking fracturing therapeutic relationships. In parallel, there were several examples of services developing enabling environments by offering flexible care through increased takeaways, treatment subsidies, and home delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Rigidity in the delivery of OAT has been an impediment to achieving health and wellbeing over past decades. To sustain health-promoting environments for people receiving OAT, the wider impacts of the complex system should be acknowledged beyond narrowly defined outcomes relating solely to the medication. Centring people receiving OAT in their own care plans will ensure adaptations in the complex system of OAT provision are responsive to the individual's risk environment.

People engaged in opioid agonist treatment as a counterpublic during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: People receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are at higher risk of comorbidities, poverty and discrimination, which Big Events like the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate. The behaviours of people receiving OAT do not always align with normative behaviours as conceived by ruling institutions and laws, and so the group becomes a counterpublic, not imagined in mainstream public discourse. The aim of this study was to understand how people receiving OAT, as a counterpublic, implemented practises of care to mitigate negative health outcomes during COVID-19. METHODS: Participants were recruited via eight peer-led organisations across Australia. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were completed between August and December 2020 with 40 people receiving OAT. The analysis centres practises of care, allowing interactions that influence the health of participants, to be understood in their unique contexts. RESULTS: Aspects of the COVID-19 state response were designed for an idealised public, demonstrated by the increased policing that accompanied enforcement of restrictions which was detrimental to the wellbeing of people receiving OAT. Counterpublic health strategies employed by people receiving OAT were disrupted, but participants were often able to adapt to the changing context. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study elucidates how practises of care among people receiving OAT are enacted and disrupted during a Big Event, with implications beyond the COVID-19 pandemic for future Big Events. The study findings evidence the need for policies that mitigate the impact of Big Events such as supporting re-groupment within the counterpublic, legitimising counterpublic health strategies and stopping the criminalisation of people who use drugs.

Covid-19 and the 'new normal': are remote video consultations here to stay?

INTRODUCTION: During the UK Covid-19 lockdown, video consultations (telemedicine) were encouraged. The extent of usage, and to which concerns to earlier implementation were set aside, is unknown; this is worthy of exploration as data becomes available. SOURCES OF DATA: Sources of data are as follows: published case studies, editorials, news articles and government guidance. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Video can be clinically effective, especially where patients cannot attend due to illness or infection risk. Patients are positive, and they can benefit from savings in time and money. Adoption of telemedicine is hindered by a range of known barriers including clinician resistance due to technological problems, disrupted routines, increased workload, decreased work satisfaction and organizational readiness. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Despite policy impetus and successful pilots, telemedicine has not been adopted at scale. GROWING POINTS: Increased use of telemedicine during the Covid-19 crisis presents opportunities to obtain robust evidence of issues and create service transformation effectively. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Examination of telemedicine use during the Covid-19 crisis to ensure that the benefits and usage continue into the post-lockdown, 'new normal' world.