Barriers and facilitators to implementing addiction medicine fellowships: a qualitative study with fellows, medical students, residents and preceptors.

BACKGROUND: Although progress in science has driven advances in addiction medicine, this subject has not been adequately taught to medical trainees and physicians. As a result, there has been poor integration of evidence-based practices in addiction medicine into physician training which has impeded addiction treatment and care. Recently, a number of training initiatives have emerged internationally, including the addiction medicine fellowships in Vancouver, Canada. This study was undertaken to examine barriers and facilitators of implementing addiction medicine fellowships. METHODS: We interviewed trainees and faculty from clinical and research training programmes in addiction medicine at St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, Canada (N = 26) about barriers and facilitators to implementation of physician training in addiction medicine. We included medical students, residents, fellows and supervising physicians from a variety of specialities. We analysed interview transcripts thematically by using NVivo software. RESULTS: We identified six domains relating to training implementation: (1) organisational, (2) structural, (3) teacher, (4) learner, (5) patient and (6) community related variables either hindered or fostered addiction medicine education, depending on context. Human resources, variety of rotations, peer support and mentoring fostered implementation of addiction training. Money, time and space limitations hindered implementation. Participant accounts underscored how faculty and staff facilitated the implementation of both the clinical and the research training. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of addiction medicine fellowships appears feasible, although a number of barriers exist. Research into factors within the local/practice environment that shape delivery of education to ensure consistent and quality education scale-up is a priority.

Two birds with one stone: experiences of combining clinical and research training in addiction medicine.

BACKGROUND: Despite a large evidence-base upon which to base clinical practice, most health systems have not combined the training of healthcare providers in addiction medicine and research. As such, addiction care is often lacking, or not based on evidence or best practices. We undertook a qualitative study to assess the experiences of physicians who completed a clinician-scientist training programme in addiction medicine within a hospital setting. METHODS: We interviewed physicians from the St. Paul's Hospital Goldcorp Addiction Medicine Fellowship and learners from the hospital's academic Addiction Medicine Consult Team in Vancouver, Canada (N = 26). They included psychiatrists, internal medicine and family medicine physicians, faculty, mentors, medical students and residents. All received both addiction medicine and research training. Drawing on Kirkpatrick's model of evaluating training programmes, we analysed the interviews thematically using qualitative data analysis software (Nvivo 10). RESULTS: We identified five themes relating to learning experience that were influential: (i) attitude, (ii) knowledge, (iii) skill, (iv) behaviour and (v) patient outcome. The presence of a supportive learning environment, flexibility in time lines, highly structured rotations, and clear guidance regarding development of research products facilitated clinician-scientist training. Competing priorities, including clinical and family responsibilities, hindered training. CONCLUSIONS: Combined training in addiction medicine and research is feasible and acceptable for current doctors and physicians in training. However, there are important barriers to overcome and improved understanding of the experience of addiction physicians in the clinician-scientist track is required to improve curricula and research productivity.

The 'Expanded HIV care in opioid substitution treatment' (EHOST) cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial: A study protocol.

The public health response to HIV/AIDS has turned its focus onto optimizing health care system delivery to maximize case identification, access and sustained engagement in antiretroviral treatment (ART). Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT) provides a critical opportunity for HIV testing and linkage to ART. The EHOST study is a cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial to evaluate a prescriber-focused intervention to increase HIV testing rates, and optimize ART engagement and retention outcomes among individuals engaged in OAT. The study will encompass all drug treatment clinics currently admitting patients for the treatment of opioid use disorder across the province of British Columbia, encompassing an estimated 90% of the OAT caseload. The trial will be executed over a 24-month period, with groups of clinics receiving the intervention in 6-month intervals. Evaluation of the proposed intervention's effectiveness will focus on three primary outcomes: (i) the HIV testing rate among those not known to be HIV positive; (ii) the rate of ART initiation among those not on ART; and (iii) the rate of ART continuation among those on ART. A difference-in-differences analytical framework will be applied to estimate the intervention's effect. This approach will assess site-specific changes in primary outcomes across clusters while adjusting for potential residual heterogeneity in patient case mix, volume, and quality of care across clinics. Statistical analysis of outcomes will be conducted entirely with linked population-level administrative health datasets. Facilitated by established collaborations between key stakeholders across the province, the EHOST intervention promises to optimize HIV testing and care within a marginalized and hard-to-reach population.