Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In response to the heavy burden of untreated substance use disorders (SUD) in hospital patients, many health systems are implementing addiction consult services staffed by interprofessional teams that diagnose SUD, make recommendations for SUD care in the hospital, and link patients to post-discharge treatment. In 2018, the New York City public hospital system began rolling out the Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH) program in six hospitals. CATCH teams are comprised of an addiction-trained medical provider, social worker or addiction counselor, and peer counselor. METHODS:The study conducted qualitative interviews with CATCH staff at all six participating hospitals as part of a pragmatic trial studying the effectiveness and implementation of CATCH. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework guided interviews conducted from 2018 to 2021 with 26 staff at the start of implementation and with 33 staff 9-12 months post-implementation. The study team created a codebook a priori and further refined it through additional coding of initial interviews. Codes were systematically analyzed using the CFIR. RESULTS:Barriers and facilitators spanned four CFIR domains: inner setting, outer setting, process, and individual characteristics. Barriers identified were primarily related to the outer and inner settings, including patient characteristics and limited resources (e.g. medical comorbidities, homelessness), insurance, CATCH team role confusion, and infrastructure deficits (e.g., availability of physical space). Additional barriers related to process (workload burden), and characteristics of individuals (stigma and lack of comfort treating SUD among medical teams). Facilitators were mostly related to the characteristics of individuals on the CATCH team (advantages and expertise of the CATCH peer counselor, CATCH team communication and cohesiveness) and inner setting (CATCH team relationships with hospital staff, hospital leadership buy-in and support, and infrastructure). Community networks (outer setting) and CATCH training resources (process) were also facilitators of program implementation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Addiction consult services have great potential for improving care for hospital patients with SUD, but as new programs in busy hospital settings they face barriers to implementation that could impact their effectiveness. Barriers may be particularly impactful for programs operating in safety-net hospitals, given limited resources within the health system and the multiple and complex needs of their patients. Understanding the strengths of these programs as well as the barriers to their implementation is critical to utilizing addiction consult services effectively.

OBJECTIVE:This analysis evaluated the validation results of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) tool for older adults. METHODS:We performed a subgroup analysis of older adults aged ≥65 (n = 184) from the TAPS tool validation study conducted in 5 primary care clinics. We compared the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS tool at a cutoff of ≥1 for identifying problem use with a reference standard measure, the modified World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS:The mean age was 70.6 ± 5.9 years, 52.7% were female, and 49.5% were non-Hispanic Black. For identifying problem use, the self-administered TAPS tool had sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.75-0.98) and specificity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95) for tobacco; sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.45-0.86) and specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.93) for alcohol; and sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI: 0.42-1.00) and specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97) for cannabis. The interviewer-administered TAPS tool had similar results. We were unable to evaluate its performance for identifying problem use of individual classes of drugs other than cannabis in this population due to small sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS:While the TAPS had excellent sensitivity and specificity for identifying tobacco use among older adults, the results for other substances lack precision, and we were unable to evaluate its performance for prescription medications and individual illicit drugs in this sample. This analysis underlines the critical need to adapt and validate screening tools for unhealthy substance use, specifically for older populations who have unique risks.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Screening for unhealthy alcohol and drug use is recommended in primary care, and effective implementation requires understanding patients' perspectives. Failure to identify and address potential differences in attitudes toward screening across demographic groups may result in care gaps, but research examining this is limited. METHODS:We surveyed 977 adult patients in 9 primary care clinics that participated in a screening implementation study. The survey collected demographics and attitudes toward screening/discussion of alcohol/drug use in primary care. We described responses overall and compared across age, gender, race, and ethnicity using Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS:Mean age was 51.1 years, and the sample was 39% male, 61% female, 72% White non-Hispanic, 11% Hispanic, 10% Black non-Hispanic, and 6% other/unknown race non-Hispanic. Most participants across all demographic groups reported supportive attitudes. Comfort reporting drug use was lower among young, male, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic patients, and comfort with screening overall was lower among middle-aged, Black non-Hispanic, and Hispanic patients. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that screening/discussion of alcohol/drug use in primary care is generally highly acceptable to patients across demographic groups. Strategies are needed to increase comfort and alleviate concerns about how medical information will be used, particularly among middle-aged, Black, and Hispanic patients.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The United States is facing an opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic, marked by unprecedented overdose death rates. In New York State, synthetic opioids significantly contribute to the increasing overdose deaths, disproportionately impacting Black and Latinx communities. There is an urgent need to address issues related to equitable access to and the quality of care provided by substance use disorder (SUD) treatment programs. In light of this, the Quality Measurement and Management Research Center (QM2-RC) brought together an academic-government partnership to develop a person-centered quality measurement system and to assess its impact on a statewide treatment system that serves approximately 180,000 individuals per year. METHODS AND ANALYSIS/METHODS:The QM2-RC encompasses three interconnected projects (Project 1, 2, and 3) aimed at developing a quality management strategy and evaluating its impact on system performance across New York State. This report specifically focuses on Project 3, which involves a stepped-wedge trial with 35 clinics receiving a quality management intervention that includes performance coaching. This intervention will be compared to a treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition for clinics not participating in the trial. Administrative data will be utilized to monitor outcomes over four years. The coaching intervention, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) model, emphasizes interpreting quality measures and applying insights to enhance care. Coaches will provide support on data utilization, patient-centered care, harm reduction strategies, and the use of patient monitoring tools. The trial aims to evaluate clinic staff and leadership attitudes, experiences, and behaviors through surveys, semi-structured interviews, and external facilitator notes. Primary clinic outcomes will be assessed through adverse events, decreased clinic rates of substance use related emergency department visits and hospitalizations as well as mortality among patients within the first 12 months after admission to treatment after adjusting for individual and community level characteristics. This study is being developed over a multi-year period and will be informed by a mixed-methods approach incorporating multiple data sources, qualitative interviews, patient and clinic surveys. The study is being conducted in partnership with New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS) and will be informed by input from patient, providers, health insurers, family members and local governing units. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Project 3 of the QM2 study specifically targets key barriers in measuring the quality of SUD treatment, including technological limitations, unvalidated measures, workforce data literacy, and concerns about fairness in assessing clinical complexity. Through the implementation of a stepped-wedge trial involving 35 clinics, the project aims to develop new quality measures, offer performance feedback, and engage clinic leadership and staff in efforts to improve practices. The ultimate goal of Project 3 is to overcome these barriers, promote person-centered care, and improve SUD treatment practices across New York State.

BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (EDs) are critical touchpoints for overdose prevention efforts. In New York City (NYC), the Health Department's Relay initiative dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" (WAs) to engage with patients in EDs after an overdose and for up to 90 days subsequently. Interest in peer-delivered interventions for patients at risk for overdose has grown nationally, but few studies have explored challenges and opportunities related to implementing such interventions in EDs. METHODS:We conducted in-depth interviews with Relay WAs, ED patients, and ED providers across 4 diverse NYC EDs. Sampling was purposeful and continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide based on key domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were conducted by telephone or web conferencing; audio recordings were professionally transcribed. The study utilized rapid qualitative analysis using template summaries and summary matrices followed by line-by-line coding conducted independently by 3 researchers, then discussed and harmonized at group coding meetings. Coding was both inductive (using an a priori code list based on CFIR domains and study goals) and deductive (new codes allowed to emerge from transcripts). Dedoose software was used for data organization. RESULTS:We conducted 32 in-depth interviews (10 WAs, 12 patients, 10 ED providers). Four overarching themes emerged: 1) EDs are characterized by multiple competing demands (e.g., related to provider time and physical space), underscoring the utility of Relay and leading to some practical challenges for its delivery; 2) There is a strong role distinction of WAs as peers with lived experience; 3) ED providers value Relay, even though they have a limited understanding of its full scope and outcomes; 4) While the role of structural factors (e.g., homelessness and unstable housing) is recognized, responsibility is often placed on patients for controlling their own success. CONCLUSIONS:We identified four themes that shed new light on the implementation of peer-based overdose prevention programs in EDs. Our findings highlight unique ED inner and outer setting factors that may impact program implementation and effectiveness. The findings provide actionable information to inform implementation of similar programs nationally.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Six hospitals within the New York City public hospital system implemented the Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH) program, an interprofessional addiction consult service. A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of CATCH for increasing initiation and engagement in post-discharge medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) treatment among hospital patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). The objective of this study was to identify facility characteristics that were associated with stronger performance of CATCH. METHODS:This study used a mixed methods multiple-case study design. The six hospitals in the CATCH evaluation were each assigned a case rating according to intervention reach. Reach was considered high if ≥50 % of hospitalized OUD patients received an MOUD order. Cross-case rating comparison identified attributes of high-performing hospitals and inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes. RESULTS:Higher-performing hospitals exhibited attributes that were generally absent in lower-performing hospitals, including (1) complete medical provider staffing; (2) designated office space and resources for CATCH; (3) existing integrated OUD treatment resources; and (4) limited overlap between the implementation period and COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS:Hospitals with attributes indicative of awareness and integration of OUD services into general care were generally higher performing than hospitals that had siloed OUD treatment programs. Future implementations of addiction consult services may benefit from an increased focus on hospital- and community-level buy-in and efforts to integrate MOUD treatment into general care.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Methadone and buprenorphine are effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet they are vastly under-utilized across US hospitals. To inform a national trial assessing the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase adoption of an inpatient hospital-based opioid treatment (HBOT) model (NCT04921787), we explored barriers and facilitators to expanding medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) within community hospitals across the United States. METHODS:From November 2021 to March 2022, we used purposeful and snowball sampling to identify and interview participants involved in inpatient care of patients with OUD from twelve community hospitals. We conducted semi-structured interviews on providers' experiences and perspectives on current treatment approaches as well as potential influences on MOUD expansion in their hospitals. We used thematic analysis to identify key barriers and facilitators that could impact implementation of an HBOT model, and organized these findings based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS:From qualitative interviews with 57 participants (30 physicians, 7 pharmacists, 6 nurses, and 14 professionals involved in the care of patients with OUD), we identified key barriers and facilitators mapped to CFIR's internal and outer settings. The most salient inner setting domains included tension for change and relative priority, compatibility, available resources, organizational culture, access to knowledge and information, relational connections and communications, and information technology infrastructure. Outer setting domains included policies and laws, financing, and partnerships and connections. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying potential barriers and facilitators can inform hospital-specific strategies to support implementation of HBOT. Implementation strategies that address barriers such as staff availability, knowledge, and attitudes may support increased HBOT adoption. On a broader scale, national policy changes such as increased financing and public reporting of quality metrics would address other barriers we identified and may also encourage hospitals to adopt HBOT models.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are highly effective, but only 22% of individuals in the US with opioid use disorder receive them. Hospitalization potentially provides an opportunity to initiate MOUD and link patients to ongoing treatment. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To study the effectiveness of interprofessional hospital addiction consultation services in increasing MOUD treatment initiation and engagement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation and effectiveness (hybrid type 1) trial was conducted in 6 public hospitals in New York, New York, and included 2315 adults with hospitalizations identified in Medicaid claims data between October 2017 and January 2021. Data analysis was conducted in December 2023. Hospitals were randomized to an intervention start date, and outcomes were compared during treatment as usual (TAU) and intervention conditions. Bayesian analysis accounted for the clustering of patients within hospitals and open cohort nature of the study. The addiction consultation service intervention was compared with TAU using posterior probabilities of model parameters from hierarchical logistic regression models that were adjusted for age, sex, and study period. Eligible participants had an admission or discharge diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid poisoning/adverse effects, were hospitalized at least 1 night in a medical/surgical inpatient unit, and were not receiving MOUD before hospitalization. INTERVENTIONS/UNASSIGNED:Hospitals implemented an addiction consultation service that provided inpatient specialty care for substance use disorders. Consultation teams comprised a medical clinician, social worker or addiction counselor, and peer counselor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:The dual primary outcomes were (1) MOUD treatment initiation during the first 14 days after hospital discharge and (2) MOUD engagement for the 30 days following initiation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of 2315 adults, 628 (27.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 47.0 (12.4) years. Initiation of MOUD was 11.0% in the Consult for Addiction Treatment and Care in Hospitals (CATCH) program vs 6.7% in TAU, engagement was 7.4% vs 5.3%, respectively, and continuation for 6 months was 3.2% vs 2.4%. Patients hospitalized during CATCH had 7.96 times higher odds of initiating MOUD (log-odds ratio, 2.07; 95% credible interval, 0.51-4.00) and 6.90 times higher odds of MOUD engagement (log-odds ratio, 1.93; 95% credible interval, 0.09-4.18). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This randomized clinical trial found that interprofessional addiction consultation services significantly increased postdischarge MOUD initiation and engagement among patients with opioid use disorder. However, the observed rates of MOUD initiation and engagement were still low; further efforts are still needed to improve hospital-based and community-based services for MOUD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611335.

The current study aimed to understand motivations of high-risk polysubstance use. Semistructured interviews were conducted in New York City with 20 individuals with frequent recent polysubstance use. Two analysts coded the interviews (κ = 93.97). Five themes related to motivation for polysubstance use were found: (1) balance, prolong, or enhance effects, (2) self-medicate physical ailments, (3) cope with emotional distress, (4) drug-induced cravings, and (5) responding to social contexts. Individuals reported simultaneous or sequential co-use to balance, prolong or enhance a 'high' (theme 1). Participants engaged in polysubstance use to alleviate withdrawal symptoms, to induce sleep and self-medicate physical pain (theme 2) and to provide relief from emotional distress (theme 3). Other themes included drug-induced cravings (theme 4) and responding to social contexts (theme 5) including both social situations and economic availability. Motivations for polysubstance use may provide important insight into harm reduction and treatment settings solutions.