No abstract

Across the USA, morbidity and mortality from substance use are rising as reflected by increases in acute care hospitalisations for substance use complications and substance-related deaths. Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) have long and costly hospitalisations and higher readmission rates compared to those without SUD. Hospitalisation presents an opportunity to diagnose and treat individuals with SUD and connect them to ongoing care. However, SUD care often remains unaddressed by hospital providers due to lack of a systems approach and addiction medicine knowledge, and is compounded by stigma. We present a blueprint to launching an interprofessional inpatient addiction care team embedded in the hospital medicine division of an urban, safety-net integrated health system. We describe key factors for successful implementation including: (1) demonstrating the scope and impact of SUD in our health system via a needs assessment; (2) aligning improvement areas with health system leadership priorities; (3) involving executive leadership to create goal and initiative alignment; and (4) obtaining seed funding for a pilot programme from our Medicaid health plan partner. We also present challenges and lessons learnt.

Background: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) improves identification and intervention for patients at risk for developing an alcohol use disorder (AUD). Residency curriculum is designed to teach SBIRT skills, but resources are needed to promote skill implementation. The electronic health record (EHR) can facilitate implementation through integration of decision-support tools. The authors developed electronic tools to facilitate documentation of alcohol assessment and brief intervention and to reinforce skills from an SBIRT curriculum. This prospective cohort study assessed primary care internal medicine residents’ use of SBIRT skills and EHR tools in practice using chart-stimulated recall (CSR). Methods: Postgraduate year 2 and 3 residents received a 5-hour SBIRT curriculum with skills practice and instruction on SBIRT electronic tools. Participants were then given a list of their patients seen in a 1-year period who were drinking at/above the recommended limit. Trainees selected 3 patients to review with a faculty member in a CSR. Faculty used a 24-item chart checklist to assess application of SBIRT skills and electronic tool use and met with residents to complete a CSR interview. CSR interview notes were analyzed qualitatively to understand application of SBIRT skills and EHR tool use. Results: Eighteen of 20 residents participated in the CSR, and 5 faculty reviewed 46 patient charts. Residents documented alcohol use (84.2% of charts) and assessment of quantity/frequency of use (71.0%) but were less likely to document assessment for an AUD (34%), an appropriate plan (50.0%), or follow-up (55%). Few residents used EHR tools. Residents reported barriers in addressing alcohol use, including lack of knowledge, patient barriers, and time constraints. Conclusions: More intensive training in SBIRT with opportunities for practice and feedback may be necessary for residents to consistently apply SBIRT skills in practice. EHR tools need to be better integrated into the clinic workflow in order to be useful.

No abstract

No abstract

In this academic clinical setting, patients with a resident primary care provider are less likely to receive higher-risk opioid prescriptions, as are Hispanic, Asian, and older patients. Black patients complete urine drug tests more frequently independent of other patient and provider characteristics. Additional studies are needed to assess why patients who travel larger distances to their primary care clinic are prescribed higher doses of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

Background: Buprenorphine availability for the treatment of opioid use disorders (OUD) has expanded in the United States. Programs that previously offered only methadone treatment to patients with OUD now offer an equal choice between buprenorphine and methadone at the same location, yet little is known about patient preferences for buprenorphine over methadone in these settings. We sought to understand the decision-making factors and motivations underlying why patients opt for buprenorphine over methadone for the treatment of OUD when both are offered in a safety-net hospital-based opioid treatment program (OTP). Methods: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients receiving buprenorphine, in which we asked about substance use and treatment history, reasons for choosing buprenorphine, advantages, and disadvantages of choosing buprenorphine, and what they would like to change in their treatment experience. Results: Participants had varied exposure to buprenorphine prior to their current treatment, ranging from none to years of experience in multiple settings. Increased flexibility with take-home doses was a widespread motivation for choosing buprenorphine over methadone. Participants described decreased sedation and greater effectiveness in preventing opioid use compared to methadone as advantages during their treatment with buprenorphine. Difficulty with the transition to buprenorphine was a noteworthy challenge for many. Conclusions: Overall, patients maintained on buprenorphine at an urban safety-net hospital OTP viewed their treatment favorably compared to methadone. Increased autonomy in light of federal regulation differences and an improved physical profile were significant decision-making factors, although the number of patients choosing buprenorphine at the OTP remained low. Targeted patient education about induction and focus on improving structural barriers such as dosing efficiency may enhance patient experiences.

No abstract