Implementation of a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical inpatients for opioid withdrawal.

Background: Opioid-related inpatient hospital stays are increasing at alarming rates. Unidentified and poorly treated opioid withdrawal may be associated with inpatients leaving against medical advice and increased health care utilization. To address these concerns, we developed and implemented a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal. Methods: The pathway process included a two-item universal screening instrument to identify opioid withdrawal risk (Opioid Withdrawal Risk Assessment [OWRA]), use of the validated Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) to monitor opioid withdrawal symptoms and severity, and a 72-h buprenorphine/naloxone-based treatment protocol. Implementation outcomes including adoption, fidelity, and sustainability of this new pathway model were measured. To assess if there were changes in nursing staff acceptability, appropriateness, and adoption of the new pathway process, a cross-sectional survey was administered to pilot four hospital medical units before and after pathway implementation. Results: Between 2016 and 2018, 72.4% (77,483/107,071) of admitted patients received the OWRA screening tool. Of those, 3.0% (2,347/77,483) were identified at risk for opioid withdrawal. Of those 2,347 patients, 2,178 (92.8%) were assessed with the COWS and 29.6% (645/2,178) were found to be in active withdrawal. A total of 49.5% (319/645) patients were treated with buprenorphine/naloxone. Fifty-seven percent (83/145) of nurses completed both the pre- and post-pathway implementation surveys. Analysis of the pre/post survey data revealed that nurse respondents were more confident in their ability to determine which patients were at risk for withdrawal (p = .01) and identify patients currently experiencing withdrawal (p < .01). However, they cited difficulty working with the patient population and coordinating care with physicians. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a process for successfully implementing and sustaining a clinical pathway to screen and treat medical service inpatients for opioid withdrawal. Standardizing care delivery for patients in opioid withdrawal can also improve nursing confidence when working with this complex population.

Escalation of Opioid Withdrawal Frequency and Subsequent AMA Rates in Hospitalized Patients From 2017 to 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To measure trends for the emergence of opioid withdrawal (OW) and leaving against medical advice (AMA) among hospitalized patients. METHOD: Retrospective time-series of hospitalized patients with OW, defined by a Clinical Opioid Withdrawal score >8, using electronic health record data at a tertiary health system and of patients with a discharge status of AMA from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: The average number of monthly hospitalizations with OW showed a year-to-year increment of 15% in 2018, 21% in 2019, and 34% from 2019 to 2020, whereas the total monthly hospitalizations remained stable. The segmented regression analysis showed that the upward trend in hospitalizations with OW became significant after January 2019 (slope: 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 1.57). After August 2019, Fentanyl was added to the hospital urine drug testing panel and was identified in most OW patients. The monthly proportion of patients who left AMA was significantly higher among the OW patients than among all other admitted patients. There was a significant increase of 0.39 (95% CI: 0.29-0.49, P < 0.001) per month in %AMA among patients with OW. The estimated difference in %AMA among OW patients versus all other patients was 7.25 (95% CI: 5.12-9.38) in January 2017, and 16.92 (95% CI: 14.60-19.24) in December 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The number of hospitalized patients either presenting with or developing OW increased between 2017 and 2020 with a significant rise occurring after January 2019. The percentage of patients who left AMA among those who developed OW steadily worsened during the entire study period.

Improving alcohol withdrawal outcomes in acute care.

CONTEXT: Excessive alcohol consumption is the nation's third leading cause of preventable deaths. If untreated, 6% of alcohol-dependent patients experience alcohol withdrawal, with up to 10% of those experiencing delirium tremens (DT), when they stop drinking. Without routine screening, patients often experience DT without warning. OBJECTIVE: Reduce the incidence of alcohol withdrawal advancing to DT, restraint use, and transfers to the intensive care unit (ICU) in patients with DT. DESIGN: In October 2009, the alcohol withdrawal team instituted a care management guideline used by all disciplines, which included tools for screening, assessment, and symptom management. Data were obtained from existing datasets for three quarters before and four quarters after implementation. Follow-up data were analyzed and showed a great deal of variability in transfers to the ICU and restraint use. Percentage of patients who developed DT showed a downward trend. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of alcohol withdrawal advancing to DT and, in patients with DT, restraint use and transfers to the ICU. RESULTS: Initial data revealed a decrease in percentage of patients with alcohol withdrawal who experienced DT (16.4%-12.9%). In patients with DT, restraint use decreased (60.4%-44.4%) and transfers to the ICU decreased (21.6%-15%). Follow-up data indicated a continued downward trend in patients with DT. Changes were not statistically significant. Restraint use and ICU transfers maintained postimplementation levels initially but returned to preimplementation levels by third quarter 2012. CONCLUSION: Early identification of patients for potential alcohol withdrawal followed by a standardized treatment protocol using symptom-triggered dosing improved alcohol withdrawal management and outcomes.

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group.

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Using the AUDIT-PC to predict alcohol withdrawal in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs when alcohol-dependent individuals abruptly reduce or stop drinking. Hospitalized alcohol-dependent patients are at risk. Hospitals need a validated screening tool to assess withdrawal risk, but no validated tools are currently available. OBJECTIVE: To examine the admission Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-(Piccinelli) Consumption (AUDIT-PC) ability to predict the subsequent development of AWS among hospitalized medical-surgical patients admitted to a non-intensive care setting. DESIGN: Retrospective case­control study of patients discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of AWS. All patients with AWS were classified as presenting with AWS or developing AWS later during admission. Patients admitted to an intensive care setting and those missing AUDIT-PC scores were excluded from analysis. A hierarchical (by hospital unit) logistic regression was performed and receiver-operating characteristics were examined on those developing AWS after admission and randomly selected controls. Because those diagnosing AWS were not blinded to the AUDIT-PC scores, a sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS: The study cohort included all patients age ≥18 years admitted to any medical or surgical units in a single health care system from 6 October 2009 to 7 October 2010. KEY RESULTS: After exclusions, 414 patients were identified with AWS. The 223 (53.9 %) who developed AWS after admission were compared to 466 randomly selected controls without AWS. An AUDIT-PC score ≥4 at admission provides 91.0 % sensitivity and 89.7 % specificity (AUC=0.95; 95 % CI, 0.94­0.97) for AWS, and maximizes the correct classification while resulting in 17 false positives for every true positive identified. Performance remained excellent on sensitivity analysis (AUC=0.92; 95 % CI, 0.90­0.93). Increasing AUDIT-PC scores were associated with an increased risk of AWS (OR=1.68, 95 % CI 1.55­1.82, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The admission AUDIT-PC score is an excellent discriminator of AWS and could be an important component of future clinical prediction rules. Calibration and further validation on a large prospectivecohort is indicated.

Early data from Project Engage: a program to identify and transition medically hospitalized patients into addictions treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients with untreated substance use disorders (SUDs) are at risk for frequent emergency department visits and repeated hospitalizations. Project Engage, a US pilot program at Wilmington Hospital in Delaware, was conducted to facilitate entry of these patients to SUD treatment after discharge. Patients identified as having hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption based on results of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Primary Care (AUDIT-PC), administered to all patients at admission, received bedside assessment with motivational interviewing and facilitated referral to treatment by a patient engagement specialist (PES). This program evaluation provides descriptive information on self-reported rates of SUD treatment initiation of all patients and health-care utilization and costs for a subset of patients. METHODS: Program-level data on treatment entry after discharge were examined retrospectively. Insurance claims data for two small cohorts who entered treatment after discharge (2009, n = 18, and 2010, n = 25) were reviewed over a six-month period in 2009 (three months pre- and post-Project Engage), or over a 12-month period in 2010 (six months pre- and post-Project Engage). These data provided descriptive information on health-care utilization and costs. (Data on those who participated in Project Engage but did not enter treatment were unavailable). RESULTS: Between September 1, 2008, and December 30, 2010, 415 patients participated in Project Engage, and 180 (43%) were admitted for SUD treatment. For a small cohort who participated between June 1, 2009, and November 30, 2009 (n = 18), insurance claims demonstrated a 33% ($35,938) decrease in inpatient medical admissions, a 38% ($4,248) decrease in emergency department visits, a 42% ($1,579) increase in behavioral health/substance abuse (BH/SA) inpatient admissions, and a 33% ($847) increase in outpatient BH/SA admissions, for an overall decrease of $37,760. For a small cohort who participated between June 1, 2010, and November 30, 2010 (n = 25), claims demonstrated a 58% ($68,422) decrease in inpatient medical admissions; a 13% ($3,308) decrease in emergency department visits; a 32% ($18,119) decrease in BH/SA inpatient admissions, and a 32% ($963) increase in outpatient BH/SA admissions, for an overall decrease of $88,886. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that a large percentage of patients entered SUD treatment after participating in Project Engage, a novel intervention with facilitated referral to treatment. Although the findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the data and the small sample sizes, they do suggest a potentially cost-effective addition to existing hospital services if replicated in prospective studies with larger samples and controls.

Predictors of outcome for short-term medically supervised opioid withdrawal during a randomized, multicenter trial of buprenorphine-naloxone and clonidine in the NIDA clinical trials network drug and alcohol dependence.

Few studies in community settings have evaluated predictors, mediators, and moderators of treatment success for medically supervised opioid withdrawal treatment. This report presents new findings about these factors from a study of 344 opioid-dependent men and women prospectively randomized to either buprenorphine-naloxone or clonidine in an open-label 13-day medically supervised withdrawal study. Subjects were either inpatient or outpatient in community treatment settings; however not randomized by treatment setting. Medication type (buprenorphine-naloxone versus clonidine) was the single best predictor of treatment retention and treatment success, regardless of treatment setting. Compared to the outpatient setting, the inpatient setting was associated with higher abstinence rates but similar retention rates when adjusting for medication type. Early opioid withdrawal severity mediated the relationship between medication type and treatment outcome with buprenorphine-naloxone being superior to clonidine at relieving early withdrawal symptoms. Inpatient subjects on clonidine with lower withdrawal scores at baseline did better than those with higher withdrawal scores; inpatient subjects receiving buprenorphine-naloxone did better with higher withdrawal scores at baseline than those with lower withdrawal scores. No relationship was found between treatment outcome and age, gender, race, education, employment, marital status, legal problems, baseline depression, or length/severity of drug use. Tobacco use was associated with worse opioid treatment outcomes. Severe baseline anxiety symptoms doubled treatment success. Medication type (buprenorphine-naloxone) was the most important predictor of positive outcome; however the paper also considers other clinical and policy implications of other results, including that inpatient setting predicted better outcomes and moderated medication outcomes.

Using buprenorphine to facilitate entry into residential therapeutic community rehabilitation.

For opioid-dependent patients, the need for detoxification has been a barrier to entry into long-term residential treatment. This report describes a retrospective observational cohort study with the first 38 opioid-dependent patients entering First Step, a 14-day buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) detoxification regimen integrated into a long-term residential therapeutic community (TC) program. Eighty-nine percent (34 of 38) of First Step patients completed a 14-day buprenorphine taper protocol, 50% (19 of 38) completed an initial 3- to 4-week stay, and 39% (15 of 38) completed at least 3 months of residential treatment at the TC. Retention did not differ significantly in a demographically matched concurrently admitted control group without impending opioid withdrawal, in which 65% (24 of 37) completed an initial 3- to 4-week stay (p = .20) and 57% (21 of 37) completed at least 3 months of treatment (p = .14). Withdrawal symptoms were mild, and there were no instances of precipitated withdrawal. The findings suggest the potential for buprenorphine to serve as a bridge, improving the viability of long-term residential treatment for managing opioid dependence.

Impact of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other psychopathology on treatment retention among cocaine abusers in a therapeutic community.

Although there are some data suggesting that individuals with depressive disorders may be more likely to remain in treatment than those without depressive disorders, it is less clear how well other psychiatric subgroups compare to those without psychiatric comorbidity. This sample is a follow-up study of 135 individuals who were admitted into a therapeutic community. Individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), other Axis I disorders (no ADHD), and no Axis I disorders were compared. Although individuals with other Axis I disorders had a strikingly low early drop-out rate, after a prolonged time in treatment, the drop-out rate increased substantially, such that these individuals were found to complete treatment at a lower rate (17%) than those with no Axis I disorders (29%). Furthermore, individuals with ADHD were less likely to graduate treatment than those with other Axis I or no Axis I disorders (0%, 9%, and 19%, respectively). Future investigations may be useful to determine whether pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions might improve treatment outcome.

Bringing buprenorphine-naloxone detoxification to community treatment providers: the NIDA Clinical Trials Network field experience.

In October 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone) sublingual tablets as an opioid dependence treatment available for use outside traditionally licensed opioid treatment programs. The NIDA Center for Clinical Trials Network (CTN) sponsored two clinical trials assessing buprenorphine-naloxone for short-term opioid detoxification. These trials provided an unprecedented field test of its use in twelve diverse community-based treatment programs. Opioid-dependent men and women were randomized to a thirteen-day buprenorphine-naloxone taper regimen for short-term opioid detoxification. The 234 buprenorphine-naloxone patients averaged 37 years old and used mostly intravenous heroin. Direct and rapid induction onto buprenorphine-naloxone was safe and well tolerated. Most patients (83%) received 8 mg buprenorphine-2 mg naloxone on the first day and 90% successfully completed induction and reached a target dose of 16 mg buprenorphine-4 mg naloxone in three days. Medication compliance and treatment engagement was high. An average of 81% of available doses was ingested, and 68% of patients completed the detoxification. Most (80.3%) patients received some ancillary medications with an average of 2.3 withdrawal symptoms treated. The safety profile of buprenorphine-naloxone was excellent. Of eighteen serious adverse events reported, only one was possibly related to buprenorphine-naloxone. All providers successfully integrated buprenorphine-naloxone into their existing treatment milieus. Overall, data from the CTN field experience suggest that buprenorphine-naloxone is practical and safe for use in diverse community treatment settings, including those with minimal experience providing opioid-based pharmacotherapy and/or medical detoxification for opioid dependence.

Community treatment programs take up buprenorphine.

Clinicians have been working out ways to incorporate buprenorphine into their treatment models. Representatives of three addiction treatment programs - a Veterans Affairs methadone clinic, a group of outpatient mental health centers, and a nationwide organization of therapeutic communities - talk about their plans and experiences.