Background Alcohol and drug use are leading causes of morbidity and mortality that frequently go unidentified in medical settings. As part of a multi-phase study to implement electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, we interviewed key clinical stakeholders to identify current substance use screening practices, barriers to screening, and recommendations for its implementation.MethodsFocus groups and individual interviews were conducted with 67 stakeholders, including patients, primary care providers (faculty and resident physicians), nurses, and medical assistants, in two urban academic health systems. Themes were identified using an inductive approach, revised through an iterative process, and mapped to the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework, which guides the implementation of new clinical practices (Graham et al. in J Contin Educ Health Prof 26(1):13–24, 2006).ResultsFactors affecting implementation based on KTA elements were identified from participant narratives. Identifying the problem: Participants consistently agreed that having knowledge of a patient’s substance use is important because of its impacts on health and medical care, that substance use is not properly identified in medical settings currently, and that universal screening is the best approach. Assessing barriers: Patients expressed concerns about consequences of disclosing substance use, confidentiality, and the individual’s own reluctance to acknowledge a substance use problem. Barriers identified by providers included individual-level factors such as lack of clinical knowledge and training, as well as systems-level factors including time pressure, resources, lack of space, and difficulty accessing addiction treatment. Adapting to the local context: Most patients and providers stated that the primary care provider should play a key role in substance use screening and interventions. Opinions diverged regarding the optimal approach to delivering screening, although most preferred a patient self-administered approach. Many providers reported that taking effective action once unhealthy substance use is identified is crucial. ConclusionsParticipants expressed support for substance use screening as a valuable part of medical care, and identified individual-level as well as systems-level barriers to its implementation. These findings suggest that screening programs should clearly communicate the goals of screening to patients and proactively counteract stigma, address staff concerns regarding time and workflow, and provide education as well as treatment resources to primary care providers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

EPENDENCE ON OPIOIDS, IN THE form of heroin or prescription pain medications, is a significant health concern. 1-3 Methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence reduces morbidity, mortality, and the spread of infectious diseases 4 but is restricted to licensed specialty clinics in the United States, requires frequent clinic visits, and has a risk of mortality with overdose. 5 These issues have led to increased use of buprenorphine, and numerous studies support the efficacy of sublingually administered buprenorphine. 6 In the United States, buprenorphine can be prescribed in office-based physician practice. 7 Because it is a partial agonist, buprenorphine has less risk of overdose than methadone. 8 However, there are concerns about diversion and nonmedical use of sublingual buprenorphine, even when a buprenorphine-naloxone combination (designed to reduce misuse) is used. 9-11 Poor treatment adherence, resulting in craving and withdrawal symptoms that increase the likelihood of relapse, is also a concern with sublingual buprenorphine. 12

National attention continues to focus on the need to improve care for individuals with co-occurring mental illnesses and substance use disorders, as emphasized in the 2003 President's New Freedom Commission Report on Mental Health and recent publications from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These reports document the need for best practice recommendations that can be translated into routine clinical care. Although efforts are underway to synthesize literature in this area, few focused recommendations are available that include expert opinion and evidence-based findings on the management of specific co-occurring disorders, such as schizophrenia and addiction. In response to the need for user-friendly recommendations on the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction, a consensus conference of experts from academic institutions and state mental health systems was organized to 1) frame the problem from clinical and systems-level perspectives; 2) identify effective and problematic psychosocial, pharmacological, and systems practices; and 3) develop a summary publication with recommendations for improving current practice. The results of the consensus meeting served as the foundation for this publication, which presents a broad set of recommendations for clinicians who treat individuals with schizophrenia. "Integrated treatment" is the new standard for evidence-based treatment for this population and recommendations are given to help clinicians implement such integrated treatment. Specific recommendations are provided concerning screening for substance use disorders in patients with schizophrenia, assessing motivation for change, managing medical conditions that commonly occur in patients with dual diagnoses (e.g., cardiovascular disease, liver complications, lung cancer, HIV, and hepatitis B or C infections) and selecting the most appropriate medications for such patients to maximize safety and minimize drug interactions, use of evidence-based psychosocial interventions for patients with dual diagnoses (e.g., Dual Recovery Therapy, modified cognitive-behavioral therapy, modified motivational enhancement therapy, and the Substance Abuse Management Module), and key pharmacotherapy principles for treating schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and comorbid anxiety, depression, and sleep problems in this population. Finally the article reviews programmatic and systemic changes needed to overcome treatment barriers and promote the best outcomes for this patient population. An algorithm summarizing the consensus recommendations is provided in an appendix.

Aims To evaluate safety and efficacy of buprenorphine implants (BI) versus placebo implants (PI) for the treatment of opioid dependence. A secondary aim compared BI to open-label sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets (BNX). Design Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received either 4 buprenorphine implants (80 mg/implant) (n=114), 4 placebo implants (n=54), or open-label BNX (12–16 mg/d) (n=119). Setting 20 addiction treatment centers. Participants Adult outpatients (ages 18 to 65) with DSM-IV-TR opioid dependence. Measurements The primary efficacy endpoint was the percent of urine samples negative for opioids collected from weeks 1 to 24, examined as a cumulative distribution function (CDF). Findings The BI CDF was significantly different from placebo (P<.0001). Mean (95% CI) proportions of urines negative for opioids were: BI: 31.2% (25.3, 37.1) and PI: 13.4% (8.3, 18.6). BI subjects had a higher study completion rate relative to placebo (64% vs. 26%, P<.0001), lower clinician-rated (P<.0001) and patient-rated (P<.0001) withdrawal, lower patient-ratings of craving (P<.0001), and better subjects’ (P=.031) and clinicians’ (P=.022) global ratings of improvement. BI also resulted in significantly lower cocaine use (P=.0016). Minor implant-site reactions were comparable in the buprenorphine (27.2% [31/114]) and placebo groups (25.9% [14/54]). BI were non-inferior to BNX on percent urines negative for opioids [mean (95% CI): 33.5 (27.3, 39.6); CI for the difference of proportions, (−10.7, 6.2)]. Conclusions Compared with placebo, buprenorphine implants result in significantly less frequent opioid use, and are non-inferior to sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone tablets.