Community trial evaluating the integration of Indigenous healing practices and a harm reduction approach with principles of seeking safety in an Indigenous residential treatment program in northern Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to evaluate how the Indigenous Healing and Seeking Safety (IHSS) model impacted residential addiction treatment program completion rates. Our secondary objective was to evaluate health service use 6 months before and 6 months after residential treatment for clients who attended the program before and after implementing IHSS. METHODS: We observed clients of the Benbowopka Residential Treatment before IHSS implementation (from April 2013 to March 31, 2016) and after IHSS implementation (from January 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020). The program data were linked to health administration data, including the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) physician billing, the Registered Persons Database (RPDB), the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS), and the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD). Chi-square tests were used to compare patient characteristics in the no-IHSS and IHSS groups. We used logistic regression to estimate the association between IHSS and treatment completion. We used generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression model to evaluate health service use (including primary care visits, ED visits overall and for substance use, hospitalizations and mental health visits), Results: There were 266 patients in the no-IHSS group and 136 in the IHSS group. After adjusting for individual characteristics, we observed that IHSS was associated with increased program completion rates (odds ratio = 1.95, 95% CI 1.02-3.70). There was no significant association between IHSS patients' health service use at time one or time two. Primary care visits time 1: aOR 0.55, 95%CI 0.72-1.13, time 2: aOR 1.13, 95%CI 0.79-1.23; ED visits overall time 1: aOR 0.91, 95%CI 0.67-1.23, time 2: aOR 1.06, 95%CI 0.75-1.50; ED visits for substance use time 1: aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.47-1.39, time 2: aOR 0.79, 95%CI 0.37-1.54; Hospitalizations time 1: aOR 0.78, 95%CI 0.41-1.47, time 2: aOR 0.76, 95%CI 0.32-1.80; Mental health visits time 1: aOR 0.66, 95%CI 0.46-0.96, time 2: aOR 0.92 95%CI 0.7-1.40. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that IHSS positively influenced program completion but had no significant effect on health service use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (identifier number NCT04604574). First registration 10/27/2020.

Applying after action review to examine residential treatment programs' responses to COVID-19.

Resurgences of COVID-19 cases are a grave public health concern. Hence, there is an urgent need for health care systems to rapidly and systematically learn from their responses to earlier waves of COVID-19. To meet this need, this article delineates how we adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) framework to use within our health care system of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. An AAR is a structured, methodical evaluation of actions taken in response to an event (e.g., recent waves of COVID-19). It delivers an actionable report regarding (i) what was expected, (ii) what actually happened, (iii) what went well, and (iv) what could have been done differently, and thus what changes are needed for future situations. We share as an example our examination of Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs in Massachusetts (a COVID-19 hotspot). Our work can be further adapted, beyond residential treatment, as a consistent framework for reviewing COVID-19 responses across multiple health care programs. This will identify both standardized and tailored preparations that the programs can make for future waves of the pandemic. Given the expected resurgences of COVID-19 cases, the time to apply AAR is now.

Surveillance of Close Contacts and Implications of Pediatric Patients with COVID-19-Experiences from a Single Residential Treatment Center.

Residential treatment centers (RTCs) are successful in isolating and closely monitoring adults confirmed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there are concerns for children who need care. This study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of the surveillance of guardians who entered an RTC with infected pediatric patients to identify the secondary attack rate of COVID-19 to close contacts in a single RTC and to provide directions for developing guidelines for caregivers who co-isolate with infected children. When caregivers were admitted to this RTC, aside from negative confirmation before discharge, tests were additionally performed one or two times. There were 57 index children and adolescent patients who entered the RTC with their parents as caregivers. The secondary attack rate by pediatric patients to close contacts outside their households was 25% (95% confidence interval, 10.0 to 40.0) (8 out of 32 contacts). The transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in children was close to zero at 6 days after the confirmation tests. It is reasonable to test the close contacts of pediatric patients after 7 days of isolation to identify infections among caregivers.

Protecting patients and staff in residential treatment centers during exposure to COVID-19: commentary.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created a crisis in access to addiction treatment. Programs with residential components have been particularly impacted as they try to keep infection from spreading in facilities and contributing to further community spread of the virus. This crisis highlights the ongoing daily trade-offs that organizations must weigh as they balance the risks and benefits of individual patients with those of the group of patients, staff and the community they serve. MAIN BODY: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced provider organizations to make individual facility level decisions about how to manage patients who are COVID-19 positive while protecting other patients, staff and the community. While guidance documents from federal, state, and trade groups aimed to support such decision making, they often lagged pandemic dynamics, and provided too little detail to translate into front line decision making. In the context of incomplete knowledge to make informed decisions, we present a way to integrate guidelines and local data into the decision process and discuss the ethical dilemmas faced by provider organizations in preventing infections and responding to COVID positive patients or staff. CONCLUSION AND COMMENTARY: Provider organizations need decision support on managing the risk of COVID-19 positive patients in their milieu. While useful, guidance documents may not be capable of providing support with the nuance that local data and simulation modeling may be able to provide.

COVID-19 vaccine trust among clients in a sample of California residential substance use treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD) are at a significantly higher risk for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and have higher rates of COVID-19 related hospitalization and death than those without SUD. This study assessed COVID-19 vaccine trust, transmission awareness, risk and protective behaviors, and effects of COVID-19 on mental health and smoking among a sample of clients in California residential SUD treatment programs and identified factors associated with vaccine trust. METHODS: A multi-site sample of SUD treatment clients (n = 265) completed a cross-sectional survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine trust. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly male (82.3 %) and racially/ethnically diverse (33.3 % Non-Hispanic White). Most participants were aware of COVID-19 modes of transmission, however, only 39.5 % trusted a COVID-19 vaccine would be safe and effective. Factors independently associated with trust in a COVID-19 vaccine included age (AOR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 1.02, 1.05, p = 0.0001) and wearing a mask all the time (AOR = 2.48, 95 % CI = 1.86, 3.31, p = 0.0001). African Americans were less likely than White participants to trust that a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective (AOR = 0.41, 95 % CI = 0.23, 0.70, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: SUD treatment clients were aware of COVID-19 modes of transmission; however, fewer than half trusted that a COVID-19 vaccine would be safe and effective. Health communication about COVID-19 for people with SUD should use a multipronged approach to address COVID-19 vaccine mistrust and transmission risk behaviors.

The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Patients with Obesity after Intensive Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 lockdown may have negatively impacted the treatment of obesity. This study aimed to assess the effect of COVID-19 lockdown in patients with obesity treated with intensive residential cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-OB). METHODS: This retrospective case-control study analyzed 129 patients with severe obesity who experienced COVID-19 lockdown in the 6 months after discharge from intensive residential CBT-OB, comparing their outcomes on weight loss, binge-eating episodes, and general health status with those in a sample of patients matched by gender, age, and body mass index given the same treatment before the COVID-19 outbreak as control. Patients were assessed at baseline and by phone interview 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Both groups had lost more than 9% of their baseline bodyweight and reported a significant decrease in binge-eating episodes and similar general health status at 6-month follow-up. However, control patients achieved a significantly greater weight loss than those who experienced lockdown, although half of lockdown patients reported persisting with CBT-OB procedures after their discharge. CONCLUSION: Patients with obesity treated with CBT-OB and exposed to COVID-19 lockdown, despite achieving lower weight loss than non-exposed patients, had a healthy weight loss at 6-month follow-up and comparable reduction in binge-eating behaviors.

Quarantine Facility for Patients with COVID-19 with Mild Symptoms in Korea: Experience from Eighteen Residential Treatment Centers.

With the rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a particularly sharp increase in the number of confirmed cases in Daegu and Gyeongbuk regions at the end of February, Korea faced an unprecedented shortage of medical resources, including hospital beds. To cope with this shortage, the government introduced a severity scoring system for patients with COVID-19 and designed a new type of quarantine facility for treating and isolating patients with mild symptoms out of the hospital, namely, the Residential Treatment Center (RTC). A patient with mild symptoms was immediately isolated in the RTC and continuously monitored to detect changes in symptoms. If the symptoms aggravate, the patient was transferred to a hospital. RTCs were designed by creating a quarantine environment in existing lodging facilities capable of accommodating > 100 individuals. The facilities were entirely divided into a clean zone (working area) and contaminated zone (patient zone), separating the space, air, and movement routes, and the staff wore level D personal protective equipment (PPE) in the contaminated zone. The staffs consisted of medical personnel, police officers, soldiers, and operation personnel, and worked in two or three shifts per day. Their duty was mainly to monitor the health conditions of quarantined patients, provide accommodations, and regularly collect specimens to determine if they can be released. For the past two months, RTCs secured approximately 4,000 isolation rooms and treated approximately 3,000 patients with mild symptoms and operated stably without additional spread of the disease in and out of the centers. Based on these experience, we would like to suggest the utilization of RTCs as strategic quarantine facilities in pandemic situations.

Supports for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic from their own perspective.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) represent a particularly vulnerable group to the threats posed by COVID-19. However, they have not yet been given a voice on how their living conditions have been affected by COVID-19. AIMS: This study aims to report the impact on people with IDD of COVID-19 and the response measures applied in Spain during the lockdown. METHOD: Data on 582 individuals with IDD were collected through a survey. Seven open questions were included to capture the perspectives of people with IDD on COVID-19 and its consequences. Content analysis was performed to identify themes and categories across participant responses. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the relationship between reporting a specific category and participants' characteristics. RESULTS: Supports have been conditioned by the living context. People living in specific settings had fewer natural supports, while those living with their family relied heavily on it. Participants also lacked supports considered necessary. It is worth stressing that persons with IDD have also provided support to others. CONCLUSIONS: Although people with IDD have generally received the assistance they need during the lockdown, it must be ensured that appropriate supports are provided regardless of the context in which they live.

Impacts of COVID-19 on residential treatment programs for substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic may present special challenges for residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment facilities, which may lack infrastructure and support to implement infection control protocols while maintaining on-site treatment services. However, little is known about how residential SUD treatment programs are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 directors of 20 residential SUD treatment programs across California during the state's shelter-in-place order. The researchers then analyzed qualitative interview data thematically and coded them using ATLAS.ti software. FINDINGS: Thematic analyses identified six major themes: program-level impacts, staff impacts, client impacts, use of telehealth, program needs, and positive effects. "Program-level impacts" were decreased revenue from diminished client censuses and insufficient resources to implement infection control measures. "Staff impacts" included layoffs, furloughs, and increased physical and emotional fatigue. "Client impacts" were delayed treatment initiation; receipt of fewer services while in treatment; lower retention; and economic and psychosocial barriers to community re-entry. "Use of telehealth" included technical and interpersonal challenges associated with telehealth visits. "Program needs" were personal protective equipment (PPE), stimulus funding, hazard pay, and consistent public health guidance. "Positive effects" of the pandemic response included increased attention to hygiene and health, telehealth expansion, operational improvements, and official recognition of SUD treatment as an essential health care service. CONCLUSION: Study findings highlight COVID-related threats to the survival of residential SUD treatment programs; retention of the SUD treatment workforce; and clients' SUD treatment outcomes. These findings also identify opportunities to improve SUD service delivery and suggest avenues of support for residential SUD treatment facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

A delicate compromise: Striking a balance between public safety measures and the psychosocial needs of staff and clients in residential substance use disorder treatment amid COVID-19.

In response to COVID-19, residential SUD treatment providers have significantly changed operations and clinical care to mitigate risk of infection for both clients and staff. While treatment facilities must enforce public safety measures in residential SUD treatment to protect the health of clients and staff, these measures create additional barriers to treatment engagement as well as health anxiety. We consider strategies to adjust clinical programming, enhance treatment engagement, and promote employee well-being in light of public safety measures and the chronic stressor of COVID-19.

Mitigation of Covid-19 infection in substance use disorder residential settings.

Managing infection control of the Corona virus disease (Covid-19) could be very challenging for substance use disorder (SUD) residential treatment programs. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is providing guidelines for the public on how to reduce the risk of contracting Covid-19. The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) provided specific guidelines to assist clinicians in the mitigation of Covid-19 infection in residential SUD facilities. Controlling an infection in a SUD residential setting is challenging because these facilities are not locked, and they are considered a subacute level of care. In this commentary the details of the infection mitigation plan in a SUD residential setting will be explained along with the outcome measure of this plan.

The Behavioral Health System and Its Response to COVID-19: A Snapshot Perspective.

The global experience of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. The magnitude, pace, and uncertainty of the pandemic have taxed systems and catalyzed innovation in many fields, including behavioral health. Behavioral health leaders have absorbed changing information about regulations and laws, proper use of personal protective equipment, isolation and quarantine, telepsychiatry practices (broadly defined here as the use of virtual and telephonic means to provide behavioral health care), and financial opportunities and challenges while attending to the mental health needs of local populations. This Open Forum reviews many of the adaptations of the behavioral health system in response to COVID-19 on the basis of a point-in-time snapshot and describes needed multidimensional policy and practice considerations for the future.

Prevalence of Covid-19 Infection and Subsequent Cohorting in a Residential Substance Use Treatment Program in Boston, MA.

OBJECTIVES: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect persons in congregate settings, including those in residential substance use treatment facilities. To limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 through congregate settings, universal testing may be necessary. We aimed to determine the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a residential treatment program setting and to understand the unique challenges of Covid-19 transmission in this setting. METHODS: We performed a case series of SARS-CoV-2 rT-PCR testing via nasopharyngeal in a residential substance use treatment program for women in Boston. Staff and residents of the treatment program were tested for SARS-CoV-2. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 test result. RESULTS: A total of 31 residents and staff were tested. Twenty-seven percent (6/22) of the residents and 44% (4/9) of staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. All of the SARS-CoV-2 positive residents resided in the same residential unit. Two positive cases resided together with 2 negative cases in a 4-person room. Two other positive cases resided together in a 2-person room. One positive case resided with 2 negative cases in a 3-person room. One positive case resided with a negative case in a 2-person room. Based on test results, residents were cohorted by infection status and continued to participate in addiction treatment on-site. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was common among staff and residents within a residential substance use treatment program for women in Boston. Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in residential substance use programs can be instituted to reduce the risk of further transmission and continue addiction treatment programming when accompanied by adequate space, supplies, and staffing.