Faculty Bibliography

Purpose: Almost uniformly, patients with frequent Emergency Department (ED) use and severe alcohol use disorders (AUDs) do not receive alcohol pharmacotherapy and are excluded from research as they are difficult to engage and retain and suffer from myriad bio-psychosocial comorbidities. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of initiating and continuing treatment with extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) as well as studying its effects in this challenging population and clinical setting.
Method(s): In this randomized, open-label study, ED patient-participants with > 4 ED visits and moderate- severe AUD were randomized (1:1) to XR-NTX and research assistant-delivered care management or treatment as usual enhanced by a one-time warm referral and motivation enhancement. XR-NTX was first administered during the index ED visit. Thereafter, participants could receive up to 11 additional doses at clinic visits with arrangements to allow unscheduled visits. Non-clinical research visits (both arms) were scheduled at 3, 6, and 12 months with a considerable date variation permitted and expected. Drinking was assessed via 30-day timeline followback with heavy drinking day (HDD) thresholds of 5 for males and 4 for females. Resuts: The 48 participants were aged 55.0 +/- 8.2, 88% male, 51% white, 79% homeless, and reported an average of 23.4 HDDs in the priormonth and 24.4 standard drinks/drinking day. Approximately 70%lacked reliable contact information. Research visit attendance was 70.8%, 77.1%, and 70.8%with a median time to first visit of 126 days [Interquartile Range: 89-242]. In the XR-NTX arm (N = 24), a total of 173 injections were administered with amean of 7.2 per participant; 20 (83%) participants received 2 or more injections, 14 (56%) received 6 or more injections, and 6 (24%) received 12 injections. There was a significantly greater decrease in HDDs per month among those receiving XR-NTX compared to those who did not: 15.3 (95%CI 9.7-21.0) and 9.6 (95%CI 1.5-17.6), respectively. Baseline rates were imputed for two missing participants in each arm.
Conclusion(s): Among this population whose complicated AUDs pose considerable challenges from clinical and research perspectives, initiating and continuing treatment with XR-NTX was feasible, acceptable, and demonstrated promising preliminary drinking outcomes. Additional sensitivity analyses and evaluation of other outcomes of interest are underway. Further study on a larger scale is warranted

Background and Objectives: To rapidly develop, implement, and evaluate emergency department (ED) clinical protocols for initiation of buprenorphine (E

Background: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have improved outcomes on buprenorphine (BUP) and are twice as likely to be in treatment if BUP is initiated in the Emergency Department (ED) compared with standard referral. Our objective is to assess staff readiness for ED-initiated BUP with referral in highneed, low-resource community and academic EDs in New Hampshire and Manhattan.
Method(s): As part of an implementation study, in summer 2018, we conducted a mixed-methods formative evaluation using the modified Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and rulers of readiness to begin ED-BUP on a scale of 0 (not) to 10 (completely), in EDs of one critical access hospital, one community hospital with urban/rural catchment, and one academic public safety-net hospital. ORCAs were administered electronically prior to inperson focus groups with ED physicians, PA/APRNs, nurses, social workers, and community providers. ORCAs and rulers were compared across sites and between EDs and the community providers. We conducted focus groups guided by an implementation framework to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ED-BUP at each site. Findings were reported back to stakeholders, and used to develop site-specific clinical protocols and implementation strategies, along with education and resources designed to enhance uptake of ED-BUP at each site.
Result(s): ORCA completion rates at each site were 32%, 52%, and 17%. The ORCA showed that ED staff at two sites were ambivalent as to whether ED-BUP will improve treatment follow-up; one site agreed. ED staff and community providers reported respective readiness for ED-BUP with referral at each site of 3.5 (N=15) and 6.7 (N=36); 2.0 (N=11) and 6.3(N=28); 3.5 (N=28) and 9.3 (N=6). Nine focus groups of 36 stakeholders identified several barriers (lack of knowledge/experience with BUP, workflow integration, increased time/patient burden, and limited knowledge of local treatment options) and facilitators (improved patient care, a sense of moral imperative, and local champions/leadership buy-in).
Conclusion(s): A mixed-methods formative evaluation with facilitation and stakeholder input identified ambivalence in ED staff, as well as barriers and facilitators, including specific opportunities for education and facilitation, which may enhance site-specific implementation of ED-initiated BUP

BACKGROUND:Homelessness and substance use often coexist, resulting in high morbidity. Emergency department (ED) patients have disproportionate rates of both homelessness and substance use, yet little research has examined the overlap of these issues in the ED setting. We aimed to characterize alcohol and drug use in a sample of homeless vs. non-homeless ED patients. METHODS:A random sample of urban hospital ED patients were invited to complete an interview regarding housing, substance use, and other health and social factors. We compared substance use characteristics among patients who did vs. did not report current literal (streets/shelter) homelessness. Additional analyses were performed using a broader definition of homelessness in the past 12-months. RESULTS:Patients who were currently homeless (n = 316, 13.7%) versus non-homeless (n = 1,993, 86.3%) had higher rates of past year unhealthy alcohol use (44.4% vs. 30.5%, p < .0001), any drug use (40.8% vs. 18.8%, p < .0001), heroin use (16.7% vs. 3.8%, p < .0001), prescription opioid use (12.5% vs. 4.4%, p < .0001), and lifetime opioid overdose (15.8% vs. 3.7%, p < .0001). In multivariable analyses, current homelessness remained significantly associated with unhealthy alcohol use, AUDIT scores among unhealthy alcohol users, any drug use, heroin use, and opioid overdose; past 12-month homelessness was additionally associated with DAST-10 scores among drug users and prescription opioid use. CONCLUSIONS:Patients experiencing homelessness have higher rates and greater severity of alcohol and drug use than other ED patients across a range of measures. These findings have implications for planning services for patients with concurrent substance use and housing problems.

Background: Substance use (SU) is common among ED patients, with 1 in 10 ED users having an alcohol or drug use disorder. ED patients also have high levels of social needs such as homelessness and food insecurity. Yet, little research has examined how such social determinants of health (SDOH) intersect with SU among ED patients. In this study, we compared the prevalence of several SDOH among ED patients who did and did not screen positive for unhealthy alcohol and drug use. Methods: We surveyed a random sample of ED patients at a NYC public hospital from Nov 2016-Sept 2017. Eligible patients were >=18 years old, medically/psychiatrically stable, not in prison/police custody, and spoke English or Spanish. RA shifts occurred during all days of the week and hours of the day. RAs administered a 20-40 minute survey with validated single-item screeners for unhealthy alcohol and drug use and questions on self-reported past year social needs from national surveys or prior studies. We compared prevalence of SDOH by SU screening status in bivariate analyses with chisquare tests. Results: About half of patients (52.0%) approached were ineligible, primarily because they were medically unfit, intoxicated, or in prison/police custody. 2,396 of 2,925 eligible patients participated (81.9%); 76 duplicate patient records were removed, leaving a final sample size of 2,321 patients. Nearly one-third (32.3%) screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use and 21.8% for any drug use. Regarding SDOH, rates among patients overall vs. those with unhealthy alcohol use vs. those with drug use were: 1) homelessness 13.8%, 18.7% (X2 p<0.01 for difference between those who did vs. did not screen positive), 25.8% (p<0.01); 2) housing instability 25.2%, 29.5% (p<0.01), 35.9% (p<0.01); 3) food insecurity 50.9%, 56.3% (p<0.01), 63.4% (p<0.01); 4) inability to meet essential expenses 40.8%, 45.9% (p<0.01), 52.7% (p<0.01); and 5) unemployment 43.3%, 45.1% (p=0.23), 55.1% (p<0.01). Conclusion: Rates of homelessness and other social needs were high among ED patients in this study, suggesting the importance of considering SDOH in emergency medicine practice. We add to prior literature by showing that these needs were even higher among patients who screened positive for SU. These findings are important, as patients' significant comorbid social needs may affect the success of ED-based efforts to address substance use