Alcohol screening during COVID-19 surges in an urban health system the United States.

In 2021, over 50% of U.S. adults drank alcohol in the past month with over 25% reporting binge drinking, an increase over previous years. Alcohol use is associated with increased risk of accidents, poor birth outcomes, cancer, chronic diseases, and mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic alcohol consumption and alcohol-related deaths increased. National organizations recommend screening for unhealthy alcohol use in general health care settings as a prevention strategy. This observational study examined alcohol screening rates in primary care practices in Boston, MA in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, from July 2019 through May 2022. Screening rates were mapped, by month, to the number of COVID-19 cases. Alcohol screening dropped substantially during the first COVID-19 surge but steadily increased to baseline between the second and third surges. This decline was likely due to competing pandemic-related priorities (e.g., testing, urgent care) and the transition to telemedicine. While some health screening cannot be completed virtually, screening for alcohol is possible. Innovative workflow strategies (e.g., pre-visit screening via patient portals, support staff screening using virtual rooming processes) should be considered to avoid future interruptions of screening for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care.

Evaluation of a student clinical research education program in addiction medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an experiential student clinical addiction research program by analyzing its components, evaluation survey data, and scientific outputs. METHODS: In 1995, we established a summer research program supporting trainees to gain exposure to clinical addiction research careers. This curriculum employed a three-pronged approach that combined mentored research training, didactic education, and clinical observerships for medical students and other trainees to acquire experience with addiction medicine and research. Utilizing the Kirkpatrick model as program evaluation framework, we analyzed evaluation data from programmatic surveys (didactic seminar evaluations, overall program surveys) and conducted qualitative feedback exploration. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2019, 56 trainees and 26 faculty mentors participated in the curriculum. To date, 25 students published 38 papers with their faculty mentor. Analysis of the past 12 years of program evaluation data demonstrated that students highly valued individually-mentored research experiences. They indicated that seminars familiarized them with the foundations of different clinical care models and career trajectories in addiction medicine. Clinical observerships provided students with patient contacts in various multidisciplinary addiction treatment settings. These experiences, perhaps most importantly hearing about patients' lived experiences, meaningfully informed various research and didactic activities. CONCLUSIONS: This summer student research program successfully introduced students to addiction medicine and research, manifested by high peer-reviewed publication productivity. While our program engaged and involved committed mentors and inspired mentees to pursue professional paths in addiction research, it did not specifically incorporate attention to equity and diversity into program planning and implementation. Going forward, the program will improve equity by increasing the recruitment of trainees from disadvantaged groups and engaging underrepresented faculty.KEY MESSAGESSummer programs can be effective in engaging medical students and trainees in research early in their trajectory and inspire them to incorporate research into their careers.Programs that integrate experiential addiction research learning, i.e. mentored research activities, didactic sessions, and clinical observerships, can provide trainees with a profound understanding of substance use disorder treatment and research.

Exploring perspectives on changing opioid prescribing practices: A qualitative study of community stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: Community-based perspectives are needed to more broadly inform policy-makers, public health practitioners, prescribers, and pharmacists about community-led and broader efforts to reduce opioid overprescribing, and ultimately reduce prescription opioid use disorder, overdoses and fatalities. The aim of this study is to explore community-based perspectives on efforts to change opioid prescribing practices in their communities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 388 community stakeholders across four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio) from November 2019 to January 2020 about community approaches and goals of community-led responses to the opioid crisis. Data analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes and sub-themes related to improving opioid prescribing practices. RESULTS: Three major themes and different subthemes were characterized: (1) acknowledging progress (i.e., healthcare providers being part of the solution, provider education, and prescription drug monitoring programs); (2) emergent challenges (i.e., physician nonadherence with safer opioid prescribing guidelines, difficulty identifying appropriate use of opioids, and concerns about accelerating the progression from opioid misuse to drug abuse); and (3) opportunities for change (i.e., educating patients about safer use and proper disposal of opioids, expanding prescriber and pharmacist education, changing unrealistic expectations around eliminating pain, expanding and increasing insurance coverage for alternative treatment options). CONCLUSIONS: Community stakeholders appeared to support specific opportunities to reduce prescription opioid misuse and improve safer prescribing. The opportunities included culture change around pain expectations, awareness of safe disposal, additional provider education, and increased coverage and acceptability of non-opioid treatments.

Do Urine Drug Tests Reveal Substance Misuse Among Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain?

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is a recommended risk mitigation strategy for patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, but evidence that UDT supports identification of substance misuse is limited. OBJECTIVE: Identify the prevalence of UDT results that may identify substance misuse, including diversion, among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=638) receiving opioids for chronic pain who had one or more UDTs, examining up to eight substances per sample, during a one 1-year period. MAIN MEASURES: Experts adjudicated the clinical concern that UDT results suggest substance misuse or diversion as not concerning, uncertain, or concerning. KEY RESULTS: Of 638 patients, 48% were female and 49% were over age 55 years. Patients had a median of three UDTs during the intervention year. We identified 37% of patients (235/638) with ≥1 concerning UDT and a further 35% (222/638) having ≥1 uncertain UDT. We found concerning UDTs due to non-detection of a prescribed substance in 24% (156/638) of patients and detection of a non-prescribed substance in 23% (147/638). Compared to patients over 65 years, those aged 18-34 years were more likely to have concerning UDT results with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-12.5). Patients with mental health diagnoses (AOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]) and substance use diagnoses (AOR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]) were more likely to have a concerning UDT result. CONCLUSIONS: Expert adjudication of UDT results identified clinical concern for substance misuse in 37% of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Further research is needed to determine if UDTs impact clinical practice or patient-related outcomes.

Prevalence and Correlates of Positive Follow-up Screens in Primary Care for Unhealthy Alcohol and Other Drug Use After a Negative Screen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion and characteristics of adults in primary care (PC) who screen positive for unhealthy substance use (SU) (alcohol and/or other drug) 1 year or more after screening negative. METHODS: Screening consisted of single-item questions for unhealthy use of alcohol and other drugs (illicit drugs and prescription medications). Health educators conducted in-person screening of patients presenting for a PC appointment. SU severity (low, moderate, high) was assessed with the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated predictors of a positive follow-up screen. RESULTS: Among 9215 patients who previously screened negative, 237 (2.6%) screened positive for unhealthy SU (42% alcohol only, 43% other drug only, 15% alcohol and other drug). The mean interval between screens was 19 months. Most alcohol use was low risk (ASSIST score ≤10) (81%), whereas most drug use was moderate risk (ASSIST score 4-26) (77%). Patients between ages of 18 to 25 had a higher proportion of positive follow-up screens (7.4% [33/ 443]) as well as those with a self-identified history of SU problems (9.4% [40/421]). Patients with a higher odds of a positive follow-up screen were male (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.64; 95% CI: 2.02-3.45), used tobacco (AOR 2.38; 95% CI: 1.75-3.23), had a longer interval between screenings (AOR 3.26; 95% CI: 1.84-5.75). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for unhealthy SU 1 year or more after screening negative identified additional patients at-risk. These findings highlight the need to empirically determine the incremental benefits of screening all PC patients annually.

Doctors of chiropractic working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Back and neck pain are the leading causes of disability worldwide. Doctors of chiropractic (DCs) are trained to manage these common conditions and can provide non-pharmacological treatment aligned with international clinical practice guidelines. Although DCs practice in over 90 countries, chiropractic care is rarely available within integrated healthcare delivery systems. A lack of DCs in private practice, particularly in low-income communities, may also limit access to chiropractic care. Improving collaboration between medical providers and community-based DCs, or embedding DCs in medical settings such as hospitals or community health centres, will improve access to evidence-based care for musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This scoping review will map studies of DCs working with or within integrated healthcare delivery systems. We will use the recommended six-step approach for scoping reviews. We will search three electronic data bases including Medline, Embase and Web of Science. Two investigators will independently review all titles and abstracts to identify relevant records, screen the full-text articles of potentially admissible records, and systematically extract data from selected articles. We will include studies published in English from 1998 to 2020 describing medical settings that have established formal relationships with community-based DCs (eg, shared medical record) or where DCs practice in medical settings. Data extraction and reporting will be guided by the Proctor Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, which has three domains: clinical intervention, implementation strategies and outcome measurement. Stakeholders from diverse clinical fields will offer feedback on the implications of our findings via a web-based survey. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be obtained for this review of published and publicly accessible data, but will be obtained for the web-based survey. Our results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed publication. Our findings will inform implementation strategies that support the adoption of chiropractic care within integrated healthcare delivery systems.

A National Survey on Patient Provider Agreements When Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Many national guidelines recommend the use of patient provider agreements (PPAs) when prescribing opioids for chronic pain. There are no standards for PPA content, readability, or administration processes. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a national survey of providers who use PPAs to describe the process of administering them, assess views on their utility, and obtain PPAs to evaluate thematic content and readability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey and request for PPAs. PARTICIPANTS: Registrants for the Safer/Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) Program between March 2013 and June 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' reports on how PPAs are administered and views on their usefulness. A sample of PPAs assessed for themes and readability. KEY RESULTS: Using a convenience sample of 62,530 SCOPE of Pain registrants, we obtained a cohort of 430 individuals from 43 states who use PPAs. The majority of respondents worked in primary care (64%) and pain (18%) specialties. Reviewing PPAs with patients was primarily done by prescribers (80%), and the average perceived time to administer PPAs was 13 min. Although 66% of respondents thought PPAs were "often" or "always" worth the effort, only 28% considered them "often" or "always" effective in reducing opioid misuse. The PPA reading burden surpassed recommended patient education standards, with only 2.5% at or below fifth-grade reading level. PPAs focused more on rules and consequences of patients' non-compliance than on a shared treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents perceive patient provider agreements (PPAs) as time-consuming and minimally effective in reducing opioid misuse yet still view them as valuable. PPAs are written far above recommended reading levels and serve primarily to convey consequences of non-compliance. Because PPAs are recommended by national safer opioid prescribing guidelines as a risk mitigation strategy, it would be beneficial to develop a standard PPA and study its effectiveness.

The Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA): Evidence-based practices in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: The number of opioid-involved overdose deaths in the United States remains a national crisis. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) will test whether Communities That HEAL (CTH), a community-engaged intervention, can decrease opioid-involved deaths in intervention communities (n = 33), relative to wait-list communities (n = 34), from four states. The CTH intervention seeks to facilitate widespread implementation of three evidence-based practices (EBPs) with the potential to reduce opioid-involved overdose fatalities: overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), effective delivery of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and safer opioid analgesic prescribing. A key challenge was delineating an EBP implementation approach useful for all HCS communities. METHODS: A workgroup composed of EBP experts from HCS research sites used literature reviews and expert consensus to: 1) compile strategies and associated resources for implementing EBPs primarily targeting individuals 18 and older; and 2) determine allowable community flexibility in EBP implementation. The workgroup developed the Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA) to organize EBP strategies and resources to facilitate EBP implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The ORCCA includes required and recommended EBP strategies, priority populations, and community settings. Each EBP has a "menu" of strategies from which communities can select and implement with a minimum of five strategies required: one for OEND, three for MOUD, and one for prescription opioid safety. Identification and engagement of high-risk populations in OEND and MOUD is an ORCCArequirement. To ensure CTH has community-wide impact, implementation of at least one EBP strategy is required in healthcare, behavioral health, and criminal justice settings, with communities identifying particular organizations to engage in HCS-facilitated EBP implementation.

Faculty education in addiction training (FEAT): Evaluating an online training program for multidisciplinary health professions educators.

Background: Many health professionals lack adequate training needed to effectively address alcohol and other drug (AOD)-related problems. Building upon our previously successful in-person faculty training programs, we designed and pilot tested the brief online Faculty Education in Addiction Training (FEAT) Program for social work and internal medicine residency faculty. The present study examines baseline and post-FEAT Program AOD knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness among faculty participants. Methods: The FEAT Program curriculum included didactic videos, online engagement with content experts, recommended readings, and a live virtual classroom experience. Participants completed self-assessments of knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness pre- and post-FEAT program. Results: In this pilot test, thirty faculty completed the FEAT program: 15 social work and 15 internal medical residency program faculty. Both groups showed significant improvement (p < 0.001) in overall AOD-related knowledge with medium-to-large effects (Cohen's d = 1.83 [social work], 0.72 [medicine]). Both groups showed significant increases in teaching confidence (p < 0.001) for all items with large effects (Cohen's d values range from 1.08 to 1.92) and significant increases and large effects for all teaching preparedness items for social work (at least p < 0.01 | Cohen's d range = 1.03-1.56) and internal medical residency faculty (p < 0.001 | Cohen's d range = 1.08-1.69). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary health professions educators' AOD knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness can be improved by participation in a brief online program designed to circumvent the logistical and fiscal challenges presented by in-person programs.

Screening and brief intervention for lower-risk drug use in primary care: A pilot randomized trial.

AIMS: The efficacy of screening and brief intervention for lower-risk drug use is unknown. This pilot study tested the efficacy of two brief interventions (BIs) for drug use compared to no BI in primary care patients with lower-risk drug use identified by screening. METHODS: We randomly assigned participants identified by screening with Alcohol Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) drug specific scores of 2 or 3 to: no BI, a brief negotiated interview (BNI), or an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV). Primary outcome was number of days use of main drug in the past 30 as determined by validated calendar method at 6 months. Analyses were performed using negative binomial regression adjusted for baseline use and main drug. RESULTS: Of 142 eligible adults, 61(43 %) consented and were randomized. Participant characteristics were: mean age 41; 54 % male; 77 % black. Main drug was cannabis 70 %, cocaine 15 %, prescription opioid 10 %; 7% reported injection drug use and mean days use of main drug (of 30) was 3.4. At 6 months, 93 % completed follow-up and adjusted mean days use of main drug were 6.4 (no BI) vs 2.1 (BNI) (incidence rate ratio, IRR 0.33[0.15-0.74]) and 2.3 (MOTIV) (IRR 0.36[0.15-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: BI appears to have efficacy for preventing an increase in drug use in primary care patients with lower-risk use identified by screening. These findings raise the potential that less severe patterns of drug use in primary care may be uniquely amenable to brief intervention and warrant replication.

Opioid discontinuation as an institutional mandate: Questions and answers on why we wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On March 6, 2019, a self-designated committee sent a public letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging the agency to address the widespread misapplication of its 2016 guideline on prescribing opioids. Three hundred and eighteen health care professionals, and three former Directors of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (Drug Czars) signed the letter, as did the parent organization for Substance Abuse Journal, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research on Substance use and Addiction. The letter reflected concern about a wide range of initiatives and policies by payers, quality metric agencies, health care organizations, and other regulators enforced to strongly incentivize or mandate forced opioid dose reductions on long-term opioid recipients who were otherwise stable. In April of 2019, both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the CDC's Director issued statements that could help to reduce ongoing harms resulting from such forced reductions, provided they are taken seriously. This commentary explains the rationale for the original letter, and the optimum course of action now that the CDC has responded.

National Trends in Prescription Opioid Risk Mitigation Practices: Implications for Prescriber Education.

OBJECTIVES: To assess national trends in selected prescription opioid risk mitigation practices and associations with prescriber type, state-specific opioid overdose severity, and required pain education. METHODS: Analysis of the national SCOPE of Pain registrants' baseline self-report of five safer opioid prescribing practices over three years (March 2013-Februrary 2016). RESULTS: Of 6,889 registrants for SCOPE of Pain, 70-94% reported performing each of five opioid risk mitigation practices for "most or all" patients, with 49% doing so for all five practices. Only 28% performed all five practices for "all" patients prescribed opioids. There were few differences among three yearly cohorts. Advanced practice nurses reported performing practices for "all" patients more often than physicians or physician assistants. Clinicians from states with high opioid overdose rates reported significantly higher implementation of most practices, compared with clinicians from states with low rates. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers report low levels of employing five opioid risk mitigation practices for all patients prescribed opioids before attending a safer opioid prescribing training. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Safer opioid prescribing education should transition from knowledge acquisition toward universal implementation of opioid risk mitigation practices.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Utilizing a Faculty Development Program to Promote Safer Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain in Internal Medicine Resident Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a skills-based faculty development program (FDP) to improve Internal Medicine faculty's clinical skills and resident teaching about safe opioid prescribing. DESIGN: An FDP for Internal Medicine attendings that included a one-hour didactic presentation followed immediately by an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) that focused on assessing and managing opioid misuse risk, opioid treatment outcomes (benefits and harms), and aberrant opioid use behaviors. The evaluation compared pre- and three-months-post-FDP changes in faculty's safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, confidence (clinical and teaching), and self-reported resident teaching. RESULTS: The 25 Internal Medicine faculty participants had a mean of 13 years in clinical practice, including 10 years precepting residents. During the three months post-FDP, faculty treated a mean of 22 patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids and precepted a mean of seven residents caring for patients on long-term opioids. At three months post-FDP, there were significant improvements in correct responses to knowledge questions (68% to 79% P = 0.008), "high-level" confidence in safer opioid prescribing clinical practice (43.5% to 82.6% P = 0.007) and resident teaching (45.8% to 83.3%, P = 0.007), and improvements in alignment of desired attitudes toward safer opioid prescribing. There were nonsignificant increases in self-reported safe opioid prescribing resident teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A skills-based faculty development program that includes a lecture followed by an OSCE can improve Internal Medicine faculty safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, and clinical and teaching confidence. Improving resident teaching may require additional training in safe opioid prescribing teaching skills.

Prescription Medication Misuse.

In the United States, there is a prescription medication misuse crisis including increases in unintentional drug overdose deaths, medications obtained on the illicit market (i.e., diversion), and in the number of individuals seeking treatment for addiction to prescription medications. Neurologists manage patients suffering from conditions (e.g., pain, seizures, spasticity) where the prescriptions of medications with misuse potential are indicated. It is therefore imperative that neurologists understand which medications are liable to misuse and institute strategies to minimize the harm associated with these medications. The authors review the most common medications prescribed by neurologist with misuse potential, and briefly discuss the behaviors that are suggestive of medication misuse and tools for monitoring patients to minimize medication-related harm from misuse.

Opioid and cocaine use among primary care patients on buprenorphine-Self-report and urine drug tests.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug tests (UDTs) are recommended to monitor patients treated for opioid use disorder in primary care. The aims are to (1) estimate the frequency of self-report and UDT results of opioid and cocaine use and (2) evaluate the association between treatment time with non-disclosure of opioid or cocaine use and having a positive UDT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients enrolled in a primary care-based buprenorphine program between January 2011-April 2013. We describe three clinical visits types: no disclosure of opioid/cocaine use and positive UDT; disclosure of opioid or cocaine use and a negative or positive UDT; and no disclosure of opioid or cocaine use and a negative UDT. We fit generalized estimating equations logistic regression models to evaluate whether treatment time is associated with non-disclosure of opioids or cocaine use and a positive UDT. RESULTS: Among all UDT results (n = 1755) from 130 patients, 10% were positive for illicit opioids and 4% for cocaine. Among UDTs with illicit opioid or cocaine positive results, in 57% and 76% of these scenarios, the patient did not disclose. The odds of non-disclosure and having a positive UDT was higher in the first 180 days for opioids and 90 days for cocaine. CONCLUSION: Among primary care patients treated with buprenorphine, a small but substantial percentage of UDTs were cocaine or opioid positive. As treatment time increased, non-disclosure was less common but persisted even after six months. Among primary care patients treated with buprenorphine, UDTs contribute information to optimize clinical care.