A trial of implementation facilitation to increase timely admission to methadone treatment.

BACKGROUND: During the ongoing opioid epidemic, some Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) are unable to admit program applicants in a timely fashion. Interim methadone (IM) treatment (without routine counseling) is an effective approach to overcome this challenge when counseling capacity is inadequate to permit admissions within 14 days of request. It requires both federal and state approval and has been rarely utilized since its incorporation into the federal OTP regulations in 1993. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of Implementation Facilitation (IF) on OTPs providing timely admission to methadone treatment (i.e., within 14 days of request), adopting IM, and changing admissions procedures. IF included data collection on admission processes and an external facilitator who engaged OTP leadership, Local Champions through site visits, remote academic detailing, and feedback. Local Champions and State Opioid Treatment Authorities (SOTAs) participated in learning collaboratives. Using a modified stepped wedge design, six OTPs in four US states on the east and west coasts were randomly assigned to one of two clusters that staggered the timing of IF receipt. Study Phases included: Pre-Implementation, IF, and Sustainability. OTPs submitted data on treatment requests and admissions for 28 months (N = 3108 requests for treatment). RESULTS: Although none of the OTPs adopted IM, all six developed policies and procedures to enable its use. Some OTPs streamlined admissions processes prior to study launch and during the IF intervention. OTPs reduced admission delays over time, although there was substantial site heterogeneity. The IF Phase for the early cluster coincided with the onset of COVID-19, complicating the study. Rates of timely admission within 14 days of request were 56.2 % (Pre-Implementation), 55.8 % (IF), and 78.8 % (Sustainability). Compared to the Pre-Implementation Phase, the odds of timely admission were not significantly different during the IF Phase but significantly higher during the Sustainability Phase (OR = 2.35 [95 % CI = 1.34, 4.12]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Committing to study participation and IF activities may have prompted some OTPs to change practices that improved timely admission. Attributing changes to IF should be done with caution considering study limitations. Data collection for the study spanned the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicates interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration # NCT04188977.

The daily progress system: A proof of concept pilot study of a recovery support technology tool for outpatient substance abuse treatment.

BACKGROUND: Illicit substance use remains highly prevalent in the US, and epidemiological surveillance surveys estimate that in 2015, over 27 million individuals (10.1% of the US population) 12 years of age or older used illicit drugs in the past 30 days.1 Outpatient treatment delivered in community-based settings is the dominant modality for addiction treatment, typically involving weekly psychosocial counseling sessions in an individual and/or group format.2,3 Unfortunately, relapse and premature treatment discontinuation are quite common in outpatient treatment.3-5 Objectives: This is a pilot proof of concept feasibility study involving clients presenting for outpatient SUD treatment. This study sought to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the Daily Progress System (DPS), a telephone-based software program, using interactive voice response (IVR), designed to enhance quality care and improve client outcomes. METHODS: Individuals who presented at the participating treatment clinic, who met study eligibility criteria, and who provided written informed consent to participate were included in the study (N = 15; 53.3% females). Incentives were paid to participants for calls completed. RESULTS: Participants completed 65% of scheduled daily call-ins, representing 273 person-days of data on client cravings, mood, substance use, and involvement in recovery support activities. The average call duration was approximately 2 minutes and 42 seconds. There was a high degree of client and counselor acceptance and satisfaction using the system. Conclusions and Clinical Significance: Findings suggest that the DPS appears to be a feasible means of potentially addressing relapse and treatment engagement issues based on client and counselor engagement and satisfaction with the system.

Identifying substance misuse in primary care: TAPS Tool compared to the WHO ASSIST.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for screening and brief assessment instruments to identify primary care patients with substance use problems. This study's aim was to examine the performance of a two-step screening and brief assessment instrument, the TAPS Tool, compared to the WHO ASSIST. METHODS: Two thousand adult primary care patients recruited from five primary care clinics in four Eastern US states completed the TAPS Tool followed by the ASSIST. The ability of the TAPS Tool to identify moderate- and high-risk use scores on the ASSIST was examined using sensitivity and specificity analyses. RESULTS: The interviewer and self-administered computer tablet versions of the TAPS Tool generated similar results. The interviewer-administered version (at cut-off of 2), had acceptable sensitivity and specificity for high-risk tobacco (0.90 and 0.77) and alcohol (0.87 and 0.80) use. For illicit drugs, sensitivities were >0.82 and specificities >0.92. The TAPS (at a cut-off of 1) had good sensitivity and specificity for moderate-risk tobacco use (0.83 and 0.97) and alcohol (0.83 and 0.74). Among illicit drugs, sensitivity was acceptable for moderate-risk of marijuana (0.71), while it was low for all other illicit drugs and non-medical use of prescription medications. Specificities were 0.97 or higher for all illicit drugs and prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: The TAPS Tool identified adult primary care patients with high-risk ASSIST scores for all substances as well moderate-risk users of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, although it did not perform well in identifying patients with moderate-risk use of other drugs or non-medical use of prescription medications. The advantages of the TAPS Tool over the ASSIST are its more limited number of items and focus solely on substance use in the past 3months.