Perspectives of Clinicians and Staff at Community-Based Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Settings on Linkages With Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine Programs.

Importance: An increasing number of emergency departments (EDs) are initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) and linking patients to ongoing community-based treatment, yet community-based clinician and staff perspectives regarding this practice have not been characterized. Objective: To explore perspectives and experiences regarding ED-initiated buprenorphine among community-based clinicians and staff in geographically distinct regions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study reports findings from Project ED Health, a hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation study designed to evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation on ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral to ongoing medication treatment. Clinicians and staff from community-based treatment programs were identified by urban academic EDs as potential referral sites for ongoing OUD treatment in 4 cities across the US in a formative evaluation as having the capability to continue medication treatment. Focus groups were held from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, to examine community OUD treatment clinician and staff perspectives on accepting patients who have received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to August 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) implementation science framework, focusing on domains including evidence, context, and facilitation. Results: A total of 103 individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.3 [12.0] years; 76 female and 64 White) participated in 14 focus groups (groups ranged from 3-22 participants). Participants shared negative attitudes toward buprenorphine and variable attitudes toward ED-initiated buprenorphine. Prominent barriers included the community site treatment capacity and structure as well as payment and regulatory barriers. Perceived factors that could facilitate this model included additional substance use disorder training for ED staff, referrals and communication, greater inclusion of peer navigators, and addressing sociostructural marginalization that patients faced. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of community-based clinicians and staff positioned to deliver OUD treatment, participants reported many barriers to successful linkages for patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Strategies to improve these linkages included educating communities and programs, modeling low-barrier philosophies, and using additional staff trained in addiction as resources to improve transitions from EDs to community partners.

Perspectives on and experiences of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine among clinical pharmacists: A multi-site qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical pharmacists are well positioned to enhance efforts to promote emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). Among clinical pharmacists in urban EDs, we sought to characterize barriers and facilitators for ED-initiated buprenorphine to inform future implementation efforts and enhance access to this highly effective OUD treatment. METHODS: This study was conducted as a part of Project ED Health (CTN-0069, NCT03023930), a multisite effectiveness-implementation study aimed at promoting ED-initiated buprenorphine that was conducted between April 2017 and July 2020. Data collection and analysis were grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework to assess perspectives on the relationship between 3 elements: evidence for buprenorphine, the ED context, and facilitation needs to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. The study used an iterative coding process to identify overlapping themes within these 3 domains. RESULTS: The study conducted eight focus groups/interviews across four geographically disparate EDs with 15 pharmacist participants. We identified six themes. Themes related to evidence included (1) varied levels of comfort and experience among pharmacists with ED-initiated buprenorphine that increased over time and (2) a perception that patients with OUD have unique challenges that require guidance to optimize ED care. With regards to context, clinical pharmacists identified: (3) their ability to clarify scope of ED care in the context of unique pharmacology, formulations, and regulations of buprenorphine to ED staff, and that (4) their presence promotes successful program implementation and quality improvement. Participants identified facilitation needs including: (5) training to promote practice change and (6) ways to leverage already existing pharmacy resources outside of the ED. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacists play a unique and critical role in the efforts to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine. We identified 6 themes that can inform pharmacist-specific interventions that could aid in the successful implementation of this practice.

Implementation Facilitation to Promote Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused. Objective: To evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022. Exposure: A 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed. Results: A total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Separate But Not Equal? A Cross-Sectional Study of Segregation by Payor Mix in Academic Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: At some US Academic Health Centers (AHCs), patients with predominantly Medicaid insurance are seen in one clinic and patients with other insurance are seen in another. The extent of this practice and implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of AHCs that have at least two primary care internal medicine clinics that differ substantially in proportion of patients with Medicaid and to compare patient demographic, staffing, and operational features. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine chiefs and clinic directors at 40 randomly selected US AHCs plus the top 10 AHCs in terms of NIH funding. MAIN MEASURE: An AHC was classified as maintaining clinics that differed substantially in the proportion of patients with Medicaid if any two differed by ≥ 40% (absolute). Other criteria were used for pre-specified secondary analyses (e.g., ≥ 30%). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 50 AHCs (78%) participated. Four of 39 (10%; 95% CI, 3 to 24%) had two clinics differing by ≥ 40% in the proportion of patients with Medicaid, eight (21%; 95% CI, 9 to 36%) had clinics differing by ≥ 30%, and 15 (38%; 95% CI, 23 to 55%) had clinics differing by ≥ 20%. Clinics with more patients with Medicaid by any of the three criteria were more likely to employ resident physicians as providers of longitudinal care (with faculty supervision) and more likely to have patients who were Black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Some US AHCs maintain separate clinics defined by the proportion of patients with Medicaid. Clinics with a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid are more likely to employ residents (with faculty oversight), feature residents as providers of longitudinal care, and serve patients who are Black and Hispanic. Further research is needed to understand why some AHCs have primary care clinics distinguishable by insurance mix with the goal of ensuring that racism and discrimination are not root causes.

Characterizing the social support and functioning of a low-threshold medication for opioid use disorder treatment cohort at intake.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing morbidity and mortality rates associated with opioid use disorder, a large gap still exists between treatment need and capacity. Low-threshold clinics utilizing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment can increase treatment access but are understudied, and little is known about how patient demographic characteristics are associated with their social support and functioning in these settings. METHODS: We used multivariate regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics and self-reported social support or functioning indicators among patients receiving MOUD in a low-threshold clinic using several validated instruments administered at intake: Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, Brief Pain Inventory, and Life Events Checklist for DSM-5. Patients initiating MOUD treatment between April 1 and December 31, 2017, with complete surveys were included (N=582). RESULTS: Patients were primarily male (62%), aged 34 or older (53%), non-Hispanic White (79%), separated or not married (86%), and unemployed (64%). Over 20% did not live in a house or apartment in the past month. Women were more likely to "get along" with people outside their family or in social situations and to identify their partner as their source of support. Women, non-White, and older patients were at higher risk of social functioning-disrupting events (physical/sexual assaults or experiencing chronic pain), while employment and housing were protective against exposure to these trauma-related events. However, employment and housing also decreased the odds of talking with others about substance use. The aforementioned results were obtained from multivariate logistic regression models and were significant to p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in support and functioning by demographic characteristics suggests that treatment facilities may benefit from adopting strategies that take baseline disparities in support and functioning into account.

The impact of access to addiction specialist on attitudes, beliefs and hospital-based opioid use disorder related care: A survey of hospitalist physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for complications related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Hospitalists care for most hospitalized patients in the United States, yet little is known about their attitudes, beliefs, and clinical practices regarding OUD-related care.Methods: We distributed an online survey to hospitalists in the United States to measure how access to addiction specialists affected attitudes and beliefs regarding hospital-based OUD care, OUD screening practices, naloxone prescribing, and buprenorphine initiation.Results: Among 262 respondents, 67.9% (n = 178) reported having access to addiction specialists. While 84.5% (n = 221) reported often or always caring for patients with OUD, 48.2% (n = 126) rarely or never screened for OUD, 57.1% (n = 149) rarely or never prescribed or recommended naloxone as harm reduction, and 88.9% (n = 233) rarely or never initiated buprenorphine. In multivariable analyses, compared to hospitalists without access to addiction specialists, hospitalist with access to addiction specialists were more likely to feel supported to screen and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 - 9.1; ρ < 0.001), to be aware of local treatment resources (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 - 6.3; ρ < 0.001), and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.7 - 5.6; ρ < 0.001).Conclusions: Many hospitalists do not provide life-saving treatment to patients with OUD. Access to addiction specialists may increase provision of OUD-related care by hospitalists.

Change in Alcohol Use Based on Self-Report and a Quantitative Biomarker, Phosphatidylethanol, in People With HIV.

The timeline followback (TLFB) takes more resources to collect than the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT-C). We assessed agreement of TLFB and AUDIT-C with the biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) and compared changes in TLFB and PEth among persons with HIV (PWH) using secondary data from randomized trials. We calculated operating characteristics and agreement between TLFB (> 1 and > 2 average drinks/day), AUDIT-C ≥ 4 and PEth ≥ 20 among 275 men with HIV. Median age was 57 years, 80% were African-American; and 17% white. Sixty-eight percent had PEth ≥ 20, 46% reported > 2 average drinks/day on TLFB, 61% reported > 1 average drinks/day on TLFB, and 72% had an AUDIT-C ≥ 4. Relative to PEth, sensitivity for AUDIT-C ≥ 4 was 84% (kappa = 0.36), and for TLFB > 1 average drink/day was 76% (kappa = 0.44). Change in alcohol use appeared greater using TLFB measures than PEth. Strategies to robustly assess alcohol use in PWH may require both self-report and biomarkers.

The role of social network support in treatment outcomes for medication for opioid use disorder: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Social connections can lead to contagion of healthy behaviors. Successful treatment of patients with opioid use disorder may lay in rebuilding social networks. Strong social networks of support can reinforce the benefits of medication treatments that are the current standard of care and the most effective tool physicians have to fight the opioid epidemic. METHODS: The research team conducted a systematic review of electronic research databases, specialist journals and grey literature up to August 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials of social network support in patient populations receiving medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). The research team placed the studies into a framework of dynamic social networks, examining the role of networks before MOUD treatment is initiated, during the treatment, and in the long-term following the treatment. The research team analyzed the results across three sources of social network support: partner relationships, family, and peer networks. RESULTS: Of 5193 articles screened, eight studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. Five studies indicated that social network support had a statistically significant effect on improved MOUD treatment outcomes. We find the strongest support for the positive impact of family social network support. CONCLUSIONS: Social networks significantly shape effectiveness of opioid use disorder treatments. While negative social ties reinforce addiction, positive social support networks can amplify the benefits of medication treatments. Targeted interventions to improve treatment outcomes can be designed and added to MOUD treatment with their effects evaluated in improving patients' odds of recovery from opioid use disorder and reversing the rising trend in opioid deaths.

The design and conduct of a randomized clinical trial comparing emergency department initiation of sublingual versus a 7-day extended-release injection formulation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder: Project ED Innovation.

ED-INNOVATION (Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION) is a Hybrid Type-1 Implementation-Effectiveness multisite emergency department (ED) study funded through The Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM Initiative, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM efforts to increase access to medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). We use components of Implementation Facilitation to enhance adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) at approximately 30 sites. Subsequently we compare the effectiveness of two BUP formulations, sublingual (SL-BUP) and 7-day extended-release injectable (CAM2038, XR-BUP) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of approximately 2000 patients with OUD on the primary outcome of engagement in formal addiction treatment at 7 days. Secondary outcomes assessed at 7 and 30 days include self-reported opioid use, craving and satisfaction, health service utilization, overdose events, and engagement in formal addiction treatment (30 days) and receipt of medications for OUD (at 7 and 30 days). A sample size of 1000 per group provides 90% power at the 2-sided significance level to detect a difference in the primary outcome of 8% and accommodates a 15% dropout rate. We will compare the cost effectiveness of the two treatments on the primary outcome using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We will also conduct an ancillary study in approximately 75 patients experiencing minimal to no opioid withdrawal who will undergo XR-BUP initiation. If the ancillary study demonstrates safety, we will expand the eligibility criteria for the RCT to include individuals with minimal to no opioid withdrawal. The results of these studies will inform implementation of ED-initiated BUP in diverse EDs which has the potential to improve treatment access.

A qualitative study of emergency department patients who survived an opioid overdose: Perspectives on treatment and unmet needs.

OBJECTIVE: Emergency medicine clinicians are uniquely positioned to deliver interventions to enhance linkage to evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the acute overdose period, yet little is known about patient perspectives to effectively engage patients immediately following opioid overdose. Our objective was to explore patients' perspectives on substance use treatment, perceived needs, and contextual factors that shape the choice of patients seen in the emergency department (ED) to engage with treatment and other patient support services in the acute post-opioid overdose period. METHODS: We administered a brief quantitative survey and conducted semistructured interviews with 24 adult ED patients receiving care after an acute opioid overdose between June 2016 and August 2017 in an urban, academic ED. We used constant comparison method and thematic analysis to identify themes across four levels of a modified social ecologic model (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and structural). RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age of the sample was 33.5 (±9.33) years; 83% were White and 12% were Black; 67% were male; and 83% were diagnosed with OUD, with a mean (±SD) of 3.25 (±2.64) self-reported lifetime opioid overdoses. Eight themes were identified as influencing participants' consideration of OUD treatment and other services: (1) perceptions about control of drug use, (2) personal experience with substance use treatment, (3) role of interpersonal relationships, (4) provider communication skills, (5) stigma, (6) availability of ED resources, (7) impact of treatment policies, and (8) support for unmet basic needs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving ED care following overdose in our ED are willing to discuss their opioid use and its treatment in the ED and report a variety of unmet needs. This work supports a role for ED-based research evaluating a patient-oriented approach to engage patients after opioid overdose.

Emergency department patients with untreated opioid use disorder: A comparison of those seeking versus not seeking referral to substance use treatment.

BACKGROUND Little is known regarding the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients with untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) and the relationship of those characteristics with whether they were seeking a referral to substance use treatment at the time of their ED visit. METHODS Using data collected from 2/2017-1/2019 from participants enrolled in Project ED Health (CTN-0069), we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of patients with untreated moderate to severe OUD presenting to one of four EDs in Baltimore, New York City, Cincinnati, or Seattle. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates, and International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes related to opioid withdrawal, injection-related infection, other substance use, overdose, and OUD of those seeking and not seeking a referral to substance use treatment on presentation were compared using univariate analyses. RESULTS Among 394 study participants, 15.2 % (60/394) came to the ED seeking a referral to substance use treatment. No differences in age, gender, education, health insurance status or housing stability were detected between those seeking and not seeking referral to substance use treatment. Those seeking a referral to substance use treatment were less likely to have urine toxicology testing positive for amphetamine [17 % (10/60) vs 31 % (104/334), p = 0.023] and methamphetamine [23 % (14/60) vs 40 % (132/334), p = 0.017] compared to those not seeking a referral. CONCLUSION Most patients with untreated OUD seen in the EDs were not seeking a referral to substance use treatment. Active identification, treatment initiation, and coding may improve ED efforts to address untreated OUD.

Addiction Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine: The Evolution of Addiction Physician Specialists.

Addiction Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine are two physician subspecialities recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that focus on providing care for patients with substance use disorders. Their shared and distinct historical roots are reviewed, and their respective ABMS board examination content areas and Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) fellowship training program requirements are compared. Addiction Psychiatry, a subspecialty under the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, began certifying diplomates in 1993, currently has 1202 active diplomates, and certifies around 150 diplomates every 2 years through 50 ACGME-accredited fellowships. Addiction Medicine, a subspecialty under the American Board of Preventive Medicine, began certifying diplomates in 2018, has 2604 diplomates with more expected before the practice pathway closes (anticipated in 2021), after which a fellowship training becomes required. Currently there are 78 accredited Addiction Medicine fellowships and more under development. The fields display substantial overlap between their respective examination content areas and fellowship training requirements, covering similar knowledge and skills for evaluation and treatment of substance use disorders and psychiatric and medical comorbidities across the full range of clinical settings, from general medical to addiction specialty settings. Key differences include that Addiction Psychiatry is open only to Board-certified psychiatrists and places extra emphasis on psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological management strategies. Addiction Medicine is open to any ABMS primary specialty, including psychiatry. Opportunities for collaboration are discussed as both fields pursue the common goal of providing a well-trained workforce of physicians to meet the public health challenge presented by addiction. (Am J Addict 2020;00:00-00).

Integrated stepped alcohol treatment for patients with HIV and at-risk alcohol use: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: At-risk levels of alcohol use threaten the health of patients with HIV (PWH), yet evidence-based strategies to decrease alcohol use and improve HIV-related outcomes in this population are lacking. We examined the effectiveness of integrated stepped alcohol treatment (ISAT) on alcohol use and HIV outcomes among PWH and at-risk alcohol use. METHODS: In this multi-site, randomized trial conducted between January 28, 2013 through July 14, 2017, we enrolled PWH and at-risk alcohol use [defined as alcohol consumption of ≥ 14 drinks per week or ≥ 4 drinks per occasion in men ≤ 65 years old or ≥ 7 drinks per week or ≥ 3 drinks per occasion in women or men > 65 years old]. ISAT (n = 46) involved: Step 1- Brief Negotiated Interview with telephone booster, Step 2- Motivational Enhancement Therapy, and Step 3- Addiction Physician Management. Treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 47) involved receipt of a health handout plus routine care. Analyses were conducted based on intention to treat principles. RESULTS: Despite a multi-pronged approach, we only recruited 37% of the target population (n = 93/254). Among ISAT participants, 50% advanced to Step 2, among whom 57% advanced to Step 3. Participants randomized to ISAT and TAU had no observed difference in drinks per week over the past 30 days at week 24 (primary outcome) [least square means (Ls mean) (95% CI) = 8.8 vs. 10.6; adjusted mean difference (AMD) (95% CI) = - 0.4 (- 3.9, 3.0)]. CONCLUSION: An insufficient number of patients were interested in participating in the trial. Efforts to enhance motivation of PWH with at-risk alcohol use to engage in alcohol-related research and build upon ISAT are needed. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01410123, First posted August 4, 2011.

Inpatient adoption of medications for alcohol use disorder: A mixed-methods formative evaluation involving key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Although the inpatient setting presents an important opportunity for medications for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) adoption, this infrequently occurs. We aimed to develop a comprehensive understanding of barriers and facilitators of inpatient MAUD adoption. METHODS: A convergent mixed-method study conducted from April to September 2018 of non-prescribing (registered nurse, pharmacist, and social work) and prescribing (physician or advanced practice provider hospitalist, general internist, and psychiatrist) professionals at a large urban academic medical center. Survey assessed organizational readiness to adopt MAUD and focus groups guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven participants completed surveys and one of seven focus groups. Health professionals perceived clinical evidence (mean 4.0, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 3.9, 4.2) as supportive and patient preferences (mean 3.4, 95 % CI: 3.2, 3.6) and availability of resources (mean 3.1, 95 % CI: 2.8, 3.3) as less supportive of MAUD adoption. Stakeholders identified barriers across CFIR constructs; 1) Intervention characteristics: limited knowledge of MAUD effectiveness and concerns about side effects, 2) Outer setting: perceived patient vulnerability to care interruptions and a lack of external incentives, 3) Inner setting: a lack of organizational prioritization, and 4) Characteristics of individuals: stigma of people with AUD. Facilitators included: 1) Intervention characteristics: adaptation of workflows and 2) Characteristics of individuals: harm reduction as treatment goal. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified multiple intersecting barriers and facilitators of inpatient MAUD adoption. Implementation interventions should prioritize strategies that increase health professional knowledge of MAUD and organizational prioritization of treating AUD.

Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Substance Use Disorders in a Specialized Primary Care Practice: A Randomized Feasibility Trial to Address the RT Component of SBIRT.

OBJECTIVES: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) has demonstrated efficacy for addressing unhealthy alcohol use in primary care, yet recent research indicates weaker efficacy for drug use as well as very limited success in referral to specialty care for patients with substance use disorder (SUD). Technology-based interventions for SUD delivered in primary care settings are a potential strategy of efficiently delivering treatment to those who need it. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial evaluating feasibility, satisfaction, and substance use outcomes for 58 individuals with SUD. Participants being treated in a primary care practice which provides integrated addiction treatment were randomized to standard care or standard care plus access to a web-based SUD intervention (computer-based training in cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT4CBT). Self-reported substance use and urine toxicology screens were assessed at 8 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Uptake of CBT4CBT in this setting was high; 77% of those assigned to this condition accessed the program at least once; of those, 77% completed all 7 modules. Satisfaction with the program was very high. Participants reported >90% days abstinent for all classes of drugs; with no significant differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates feasibility of implementing technology-based treatments in primary care settings to address weak follow-through with the referral component of SBIRT. The overall positive outcomes in this specialized, integrated treatment setting may have undercut the ability to demonstrate differential effects on substance use; results suggest evaluation in less specialized primary care settings is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03013478.

Barriers and Facilitators to Clinician Readiness to Provide Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine.

Importance: Treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians. Objective: To characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data collected from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, this mixed-methods formative evaluation grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework included 4 geographically diverse academic EDs. Attending physicians (n = 113), residents (n = 107), and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (n = 48) completed surveys electronically distributed to all ED clinicians (n = 396). A subset of participants (n = 74) also participated in 1 of 11 focus group discussions. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2018, to February 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician readiness to initiate buprenorphine and provide referral for ongoing treatment for patients with OUD treated in the ED was assessed using a visual analog scale. Responders (268 of 396 [67.7%]) were dichotomized as less ready (scores 0-6) or most ready (scores 7-10). An ED-adapted Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and 11 focus groups were used to assess ratings and perspectives on evidence and context-related factors to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for ongoing treatment, respectively. Results: Among the 268 survey respondents (153 of 260 were men [58.8%], with a mean [SD] of 7.1 [9.8] years since completing formal training), 56 (20.9%) indicated readiness to initiate buprenorphine for ED patients with OUD. Nine of 258 (3.5%) reported Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 training completion. Compared with those who were less ready, clinicians who were most ready to initiate buprenorphine had higher mean scores across all ORCA Evidence subscales (3.50 [95% CI, 3.35-3.65] to 4.33 [95% CI, 4.13-4.53] vs 3.11 [95% CI, 3.03-3.20] to 3.60 [95% CI, 3.49-3.70]; P < .001) and on the Slack Resources of the ORCA Context subscales (3.32 [95% CI, 3.08-3.55] vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.87-3.12]; P = .02). Barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine included lack of training and experience in treating OUD with buprenorphine, concerns about ability to link to ongoing care, and competing needs and priorities for ED time and resources. Facilitators to ED-initiated buprenorphine included receiving education and training, development of local departmental protocols, and receiving feedback on patient experiences and gaps in quality of care. Conclusions and Relevance: Only a few ED clinicians had a high level of readiness to initiate buprenorphine; however, many expressed a willingness to learn with sufficient supports. Efforts to promote adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine will require clinician and system-level changes.

Stitching a solution to the addiction epidemic: A longitudinal addiction curricular thread across four years of medical training.

BACKGROUND: Despite the enormous burden and public health impact, addiction continues to be one of the most under-treated chronic diseases primarily because of the lack of adequately trained work force of medical providers. To address this issue, medical schools should greatly expand education on addiction. Methods: The six-step Kern model of curriculum development was used as a framework to create an addiction curriculum which includes didactic activities, workshop exercises, practice-based learning activities, clinical simulations, and clinical experiences. Results: The authors and other members of the addiction thread committee conducted a comprehensive needs assessment, developed curriculum goals and objectives, and worked with course and clerkship directors to develop and enhance educational strategies and implement a longitudinal curricular thread woven across all four years of medical school curriculum. Conclusion: Development and implementation of a comprehensive addiction curriculum is feasible, and this model could lay the ground work for implementation at other institutions.

Validating Self-Reported Unhealthy Alcohol Use With Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) Among Patients With HIV.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare self-reported alcohol consumption using Timeline Followback (TLFB) to biomarker-based evidence of significant alcohol use (phosphatidylethanol [PEth] > 20 ng/ml). Using data from patients with HIV (PWH) entering a clinical trial, we asked whether TLFB could predict PEth > 20 ng/ml and assessed the magnitude of association between TLFB and PEth level. METHODS: We defined unhealthy alcohol use as any alcohol use in the presence of liver disease, at-risk drinking, or alcohol use disorder. Self-reported alcohol use obtained from TLFB interview was assessed as mean number of drinks/day and number of heavy drinking days over the past 21 days. Dried blood spot samples for PEth were collected at the interview. We used logistic regression to predict PEth > 20 ng/ml and Spearman correlation to quantify the association with PEth, both as a function of TLFB. RESULTS: Among 282 individuals (99% men) in the analytic sample, approximately two-thirds (69%) of individuals had PEth > 20 ng/ml. The proportion with PEth > 20 ng/ml increased with increasing levels of self-reported alcohol use; of the 190 patients with either at-risk drinking or alcohol use disorder based on self-report, 82% had PEth > 20 ng/ml. Discrimination was better with number of drinks per day than heavy drinking days (AUC: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.85] vs. 0.74 [95% CI: 0.68 to 0.80]). The number of drinks per day and PEth were significantly and positively correlated across all levels of alcohol use (Spearman's R ranged from 0.29 to 0.56, all p values < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of PWH entering a clinical trial, mean numbers of drinks per day discriminated individuals with evidence of significant alcohol use by PEth. PEth complements self-report to improve identification of self-reported unhealthy alcohol use among PWH.