Care coordination between rural primary care and telemedicine to expand medication treatment for opioid use disorder: Results from a single-arm, multisite feasibility study.

PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine (TM) has accelerated in recent years, yet research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-delivered medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has been limited. This study investigated the feasibility of implementing a care coordination model involving MOUD delivered via an external TM provider for the purpose of expanding access to MOUD for patients in rural settings. METHODS: The study tested a care coordination model in 6 rural primary care sites by establishing referral and coordination between the clinic and a TM company for MOUD. The intervention spanned approximately 6 months from July/August 2020 to January 2021, coinciding with the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each clinic tracked patients with OUD in a registry during the intervention period. A pre-/post-intervention design (N = 6) was used to assess the clinic-level outcome as patient-days on MOUD based on patient electronic health records. FINDINGS: All clinics implemented critical components of the intervention, with an overall TM referral rate of 11.7% among patients in the registry. Five of the 6 sites showed an increase in patient-days on MOUD during the intervention period compared to the 6-month period before the intervention (mean increase per 1,000 patients: 132 days, P = .08, Cohen's d = 0.55). The largest increases occurred in clinics that lacked MOUD capacity or had a greater number of patients initiating MOUD during the intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: To expand access to MOUD in rural settings, the care coordination model is most effective when implemented in clinics that have negligible or limited MOUD capacity.

Lessons from the implementation of a trauma center-based program to support primary care providers in managing opioids and pain after trauma hospitalization.

Background: Decreasing exposure to prescription opioids is critical to lowering risk of opioid misuse, overdose and opioid use disorder. This study reports a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial implementing an opioid taper support program directed to primary care providers (PCPs) of patients discharged from a level I trauma center to their homes distant from the center, and shares lessons for trauma centers in supporting these patients. Methods: This longitudinal descriptive mixed-methods study uses quantitative/qualitative data from trial intervention arm patients to examine implementation challenges and outcomes: adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity. In the intervention, a physician assistant (PA) contacted patients after discharge to review their discharge instructions and pain management plan, confirm their PCP's identity and encourage PCP follow-up. The PA reached out to the PCP to review the discharge instructions and offer ongoing opioid taper and pain management support. Results: The PA reached 32 of 37 patients randomized to the program. Of these 32, 81% discussed topics not targeted by the intervention (eg, social/financial). The PA identified and reached a PCP's office for only 51% of patients. Of these, all PCP offices (100% adoption) received one to four consults (mean 1.9) per patient (fidelity). Few consults were with PCPs (22%); most were with medical assistants (56%) or nurses (22%). The PA reported that it was not routinely clear to patients or PCPs who was responsible for post-trauma care and opioid taper, and what the taper instructions were. Conclusions: This level I trauma center successfully implemented a telephonic opioid taper support program during COVID-19 but adapted the program to allow nurses and medical assistants to receive it. This study demonstrates a critical need to improve care transition from hospitalization to home for patients discharged after trauma. Level of evidence: Level IV.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Early Response of Primary Care Practices to COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health mitigation strategies resulted in rapid and significant changes to delivery of primary care. The field of primary care faced an unprecedented dual challenge of providing routine care to patients while ensuring patient and staff safety and managing patients with a highly transmissible disease. This study describes how a diverse group of primary care practices addressed these challenges at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in Spring 2020. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of representatives from primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Survey topics included clinical workforce, operations, and use of telemedicine in the first 3 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: To safely manage patients with COVID-19 symptoms all clinics modified operations; 81.3% diverted patients with respiratory symptoms to a telemedicine evaluation, 68.8% diverted these patients to be seen in-person at another location, and 75% made in-clinic changes to maintain safety. The set of operational changes employed by clinics was diverse. To continue to provide routine patient care, all clinics employed telemedicine. Over 80% of clinics had never used telemedicine prior to March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse group of primary care clinics all rapidly implemented a variety of operational adaptations to address patient needs and maintain patient and staff safety at the onset of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Telemedicine, together with other measures, provided critical pathways for maintaining delivery of care.

Is telemedicine the answer to rural expansion of medication treatment for opioid use disorder? Early experiences in the feasibility study phase of a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Trial.

Telemedicine (TM) enabled by digital health technologies to provide medical services has been considered a key solution to increasing health care access in rural communities. With the immediate need for remote care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care systems have rapidly incorporated digital technologies to support the delivery of remote care options, including medication treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In responding to the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and scientific communities strongly support and advocate for greater use of TM-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to improve access to care and have suggested that broad use of TM during the pandemic should be sustained. Nevertheless, research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-based MOUD has been limited. To address this knowledge gap, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) funded (via the NIH HEAL Initiative) a study on Rural Expansion of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (Rural MOUD; CTN-0102) to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of adding TM-based MOUD to rural primary care for expanding access to MOUD. In preparation for this large-scale, randomized controlled trial incorporating TM in rural primary care, a feasibility study is being conducted to develop and pilot test implementation procedures. In this commentary, we share some of our experiences, which include several challenges, during the initial two-month period of the feasibility study phase. While these challenges could be due, at least in part, to adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic and new workflows to accommodate the study, they are notable and could have a substantial impact on the larger, planned pragmatic trial and on TM-based MOUD more broadly. Challenges include low rates of identification of risk for OUD from screening, low rates of referral to TM, digital device and internet access issues, workflow and capacity barriers, and insurance coverage. These challenges also highlight the lack of empirical guidance for best TM practice and quality remote care models. With TM expanding rapidly, understanding implementation and demonstrating what TM approaches are effective are critical for ensuring the best care for persons with OUD.