The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) teaches participating treatment centers to use process improvement strategies. A cross-site evaluation monitored impacts on days between first contact and first treatment and percent of patients who started treatment and completed two, three and four units of care (i.e., one outpatient session, one day of intensive outpatient care, and one week of residential treatment). The analysis included 13 agencies that began participation in August 2003, submitted 10 to 15 months of data, and attempted improvements in outpatient (n = 7), intensive outpatient (n = 4) or residential treatment services (n = 4) (two agencies provided data for two levels of care). Days to treatment declined 37% (from 19.6 to 12.4 days) across levels of care; the change was significant overall and for outpatient and intensive outpatient services. Significant overall improvement in retention in care was observed for the second unit of care (72% to 85%; 18% increase) and the third unit of care (62% to 73%; 17% increase); when level of care was assessed, a significant gain was found only for intensive outpatient services. Small incremental changes in treatment processes can lead to significant reductions in days to treatment and consistent gains in retention.

Aims Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout healthcare to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective. Design An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings), and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group. Setting Outpatient addiction treatment clinics in the U.S. Participants 201 clinics in 5 states. Measurements Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percent of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session), and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings Waiting time declined significantly for 3 groups: coaching (an average of −4.6 days/clinic, P=0.001), learning sessions (−3.5 days/clinic, P=0.012), and the combination (−4.7 days/clinic, P=0.001). The coaching and combination groups significantly increased the number of new patients (19.5%, P=0.028; 8.9%, P=0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effects on outcomes. None of the groups significantly improved retention. The estimated cost/clinic was $2,878 for coaching versus $7,930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost effective. Conclusions When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.

The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) applies process improvement strategies to enhance the quality of care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. A prior analysis reported significant reductions in days to treatment and significant increases in retention in care [McCarty, D., Gustafson, D. H., Wisdom, J. P., Ford, J., Choi, D., Molfenter, T., Capoccia, V., Cotter, F. 2007. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): enhancing access and retention. Drug Alcohol Depend. 88, 138-145]. A second cohort of outpatient (n=10) and intensive outpatient (n=4) treatment centers tested the replicability of the NIATx model. An additional 20 months of data from the original cohort (7 outpatient, 4 intensive outpatient, and 4 residential treatment centers) assessed long-term sustainability. The replication analysis found a 38% reduction in days to treatment (30.7 to 19.4 days) during an 18-month intervention. Retention in care improved 13% from the first to second session of care (from 75.4% to 85.0%), 12% between the first and third session of care (69.2-77.7%), and 18% between the first and fourth session of care (57.1-67.5%). The sustainability analysis suggested that treatment centers maintained the reductions in days to treatment and the enhanced retention in care. Replication of the NIATx improvements in a second cohort of treatment centers increases confidence in the application of process improvements to treatment for alcohol and drug disorders. The ability to sustain the gains after project awards were exhausted suggests that participating programs institutionalized the organizational changes that led to the enhanced performance.

Researchers have questioned whether the addictions treatment infrastructure will be able to deliver high quality care to the large numbers of people in need. In this context, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) created a nationwide network to improve access and retention in treatment. Applicant agencies described results of an admissions process "walk-through." This qualitative study used narrative text from 327 applications to RWJF, focusing on admissions-related problems. We developed and applied a coding scheme, then extracted themes from code-derived text. Primary themes described problems reported during treatment admissions: poor staff engagement with clients, burdensome procedures and processes, difficulties addressing the clients' complex lives and needs, and infrastructure problems. Sub-themes elucidated specific process-related problems. Though findings from our analyses are descriptive and exploratory, they suggest the value of walk-through exercises for program assessment and programlevel factors that may affect treatment access and retention.

Objectives-Drug and alcohol treatment programs often have long delays between assessment and treatment admission. The study examined the impact of days to treatment admission on the probability of completing four sessions of care within an addiction treatment program implementing improvements in their admission process. Methods-Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to test the effect of wait time on retention in care.Results-Findings demonstrate a strong decrement in the probability of completing four sessions of treatment with increasing time between the clinical assessment and first treatment session.

The Affordable Care Act is aimed at extending health insurance to more than thirty million Americans, including many with untreated substance use disorders. Will those who need addiction treatment receive it once they have insurance? To answer that question, we examined the experience of Massachusetts, which implemented its own universal insurance law in 2007. As did the Affordable Care Act, the Massachusetts reform incorporated substance abuse services into the essential benefits to be provided all residents. Prior to the law's enactment, the state estimated that a half-million residents needed substance abuse treatment. Our mixed-methods exploratory study thus asked whether expanded coverage in Massachusetts led to increased addiction treatment, as indicated by admissions, services, or revenues. In fact, we observed relatively stable use of treatment services two years before and two years after the state enacted its universal health care law. Among other factors, our study noted that the percentage of uninsured patients with substance abuse issues remains relatively high--and that when patients did become insured, requirements for copayments on their care deterred treatment. Our analysis suggests that expanded coverage alone is insufficient to increase treatment use. Changes in eligibility, services, financing, system design, and policy may also be required.

Addiction treatment agencies typically do not prioritize data collection, management, and analysis, and these agencies may have barriers to integrating data in agency quality improvement. This article describes qualitative findings from an intervention designed to teach 23 addiction treatment agencies how to make data-driven decisions to improve client access to and retention in care. Agencies demonstrated success adopting process improvement and data-driven strategies to make improvements in care. Barriers to adding a process improvement and data-driven focus to care included a lack of a data-based decision making culture, lack of expertise and other resources, treatment system complexity, and resistance. Factors related to the successful adoption of process-focused data include agency leadership valuing data and providing resources, staff training on data collection and use, sharing of change results, and success in making data-driven decisions.

The Medication Research Partnership (a national health plan and nine addiction treatment centers contracted with the health plan) sought to facilitate the adoption of pharmacotherapy for alcohol and opioid use disorders. Qualitative analysis of interviews with treatment center change leaders, individuals working for the manufacturer and its technical assistance contractor, and health plan managers extracted details on the processes used to order, store, bill for, and administer extended-release naltrexone. Qualitative themes were categorized using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and provider characteristics). Characteristics of XR-NTX that inhibited use included the complexity of ordering and using the medication; cost was also a barrier. Outer setting barriers reflected patient needs and external health plan policies on formulary coverage, benefit management, and reimbursement. Program structures, the lack of physician linkages, a culture resistant to the use of medication, and unease with change were inner setting elements that limited use of XR-NTX. Patient stereotypes and a lack of knowledge about XR-NTX affected practitioner willingness to treat patients and prescribe XR-NTX. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research provided a useful lens to understand and interpret the processes affecting access to XR-NTX.