Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical impact of telemedicine-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone following the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS:Participants included in this retrospective analysis consisted of adult New York City residents with opioid use disorder eligible for enrollment in the NYC Health+Hospitals Virtual Buprenorphine Clinic between March and May 2020 (n = 78). Follow-up data were comprised of rates of retention in treatment at 2 months, referrals to community treatment, and induction-related events. RESULTS:During the initial 9 weeks of clinic operations, the clinic inducted 78 patients on to buprenorphine-naloxone and completed 252 visits. Patient referrals included non-NYC Health + Hospitals (n = 22, 28.2%) and NYC Health + Hospitals healthcare providers (n = 17, 21.8%), homeless shelter staff (n = 13, 16.7%), and the NYC Health + Hospitals jail reentry program in Rikers Island (n = 11, 14.1%). At 8 weeks, 42 patients remained in care (53.8%), 21 were referred to a community treatment program (26.9%), and 15 were lost to follow-up (19.2%). No patients were terminated from care due to disruptive behavior or suspicions of diversion or misuse of Buprenorphine. Adverse clinical outcomes were uncommon and included persistent withdrawal symptoms (n = 8, 4.3%) and one nonfatal opioid overdose (0.5%). CONCLUSIONS:Telemedicine-based opioid treatment and unobserved home induction on buprenorphine-naloxone offers a safe and feasible approach to expand the reach of opioid use disorder treatment, primary care, and behavioral health for a highly vulnerable urban population during an unprecedented natural disaster.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The number of older adults on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for opioid use disorder is increasing, but little is known about the characteristics and healthcare needs of this aging treatment population. This population may experience accelerated aging due to comorbidities and health behaviors. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of geriatric conditions among adults age ≥50 on MMT to a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling older adults. METHODS:We performed a geriatric assessment on 47 adults age ≥50 currently on MMT enrolled in 2 opioid treatment programs, in New York City and in East Providence, Rhode Island. We collected data on self-reported geriatric conditions, healthcare utilization, chronic medical conditions, physical function, and substance use. The results were compared to 470 age, sex, and race/ethnicity-matched adults in the national Health and Retirement Study. RESULTS:The mean age of the study sample was 58.8 years and 23.4% were female. The most common chronic diseases were hypertension (59.6%) and arthritis (55.3%) with 66% reporting ≥2 diseases. For geriatric conditions, adults on MMT had a significantly higher prevalence of mobility, hearing, and visual impairments as well as falls, urinary incontinence, chronic pain, and insomnia than the Health and Retirement Study sample. CONCLUSIONS:Older adults on MMT in 2 large opioid treatment programs have a high prevalence of geriatric conditions. An interdisciplinary, geriatric-based approach to care that focuses on function and addresses geriatric conditions is needed to improve the health of this growing population.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The SUSIT significantly increased delivery of BI for drug use by PCPs during routine primary care encounters.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to report the "Outcome Reporting in Brief Intervention Trials: Alcohol" (ORBITAL) recommended core outcome set (COS) to improve efficacy and effectiveness trials/evaluations for alcohol brief interventions (ABIs). METHOD:A systematic review identified 2,641 outcomes in 401 ABI articles measured by 1,560 different approaches. These outcomes were classified into outcome categories, and 150 participants from 19 countries participated in a two-round e-Delphi outcome prioritization exercise. This process prioritized 15 of 93 outcome categories for discussion at a consensus meeting of key stakeholders to decide the COS. A psychometric evaluation determined how to measure the outcomes. RESULTS:Ten outcomes were voted into the COS at the consensus meeting: (a) typical frequency, (b) typical quantity, (c) frequency of heavy episodic drinking, (d) combined consumption measure summarizing alcohol use, (e) hazardous or harmful drinking (average consumption), (f) standard drinks consumed in the past week (recent, current consumption), (g) alcohol-related consequences, (h) alcohol-related injury, (i) use of emergency health care services (impact of alcohol use), and (j) quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:The ORBITAL COS is an international consensus standard for future ABI trials and evaluations. It can improve the synthesis of new findings, reduce redundant/selective reporting (i.e., reporting only some, usually significant outcomes), improve between-study comparisons, and enhance the relevance of trial and evaluation findings to decision makers. The COS is the recommended minimum and does not exclude other, additional outcomes.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93 114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results/UNASSIGNED:Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948.

Growing concerns about the safety of long-term opioid therapy and its uncertain efficacy for non-cancer pain have led to relatively rapid opioid deprescribing in chronic pain patients who have been taking opioid for years. To date, empirically supported processes for safe and effective opioid tapering are lacking. Opioid tapering programs have shown high rates of dropouts and increases in patient distress and suicidal ideation. Therefore, safe strategies for opioid deprescribing that are more likely to succeed are urgently needed. In response to this demand, the EMPOWER study has been launched to examine the effectiveness of behavioral medicine strategies within the context of patient-centered opioid tapering in outpatient settings (https://empower.stanford.edu/). The EMPOWER protocol requires an efficient process for ensuring that collaborative opioid tapering would be offered to the most appropriate patients while identifying patients who should be offered alternate treatment pathways. As a first step, clinicians need a screening tool to identify patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and to assess for OUD severity. Because such a tool is not available, the study team composed of eight chronic pain and/or addiction experts has extended a validated screening instrument to develop a brief and novel consensus screening tool to identify OUD and assess for OUD severity for treatment stratification. Our screening tool has the potential to assist busy outpatient clinicians to assess OUD among patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND:Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS:PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be > 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ("electronic health records," [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings. Trial registration # NCT03407638 (February 28, 2018); CTN-0074 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407638?term=CTN-0074&draw=2&rank=1.

BACKGROUND: Under-treatment of drug and alcohol use in primary care settings has been attributed, in part, to medical providers' negative attitudes toward substance use. As a part of an implementation study of electronic health record-integrated substance use screening in primary care clinics, conducted in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network, we assessed baseline attitudes among medical staff.
METHOD(S): Eligible participants were primary care providers and medical assistants in 4 urban academic primary care clinics. Prior to implementation of a substance use screening program, participants completed the Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey (SAAS), a validated 50-item self-administered survey that measures attitudes to substance use in 5 domains: permissiveness, non-moralism, nonstereotyping, treatment intervention, and treatment optimism. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item on a five-point Likert scale.
RESULT(S): In total, 131/191 (69% response rate) eligible staff completed the survey. Participants had mean age 42; 76% were female; 11% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Black, 25% Asian. The majority of the sample was physicians (78%), while 11% were nurse practitioners, and 11% were medical assistants. Participants had an overall average of 13.2 years in practice. Approximately onethird reported moderate to high satisfaction treating patients with drug problems (35.1%) and alcohol problems (33.6%). The proportion of participants having positive attitudes in each of the following domains were: non-moralism (64.1%); non-stereotyping (55.7%); treatment intervention (47.3%); treatment optimism (48.9%); and permissiveness (44.3%). Negative attitudes toward permissiveness reflect responses to items addressing health effects of substance use, especially among teens.
CONCLUSION(S): While most primary care staff did not endorse moralistic or stereotyping statements about alcohol and drug use, attitudes toward addiction treatment were mixed, with less than half endorsing positive attitudes toward treatment effectiveness. These results suggest a need to improve attitudes, particularly toward addiction treatment. This could be accomplished through education and increased exposure to effective interventions that can be delivered by primary care providers, including officebased treatment for alcohol and opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and drug use are often under-identified in primary care settings. While prior research indicates that patients are generally supportive of alcohol screening, less is known about attitudes toward drug screening or the collection of this information in electronic health records (EHRs). As a part of an implementation study of EHRintegrated substance use screening in primary care, conducted in the NIDA Clinical Trials Network, patients were surveyed on their attitudes toward screening for substance use during medical visits.
METHOD(S): Surveys were administered to patients in four urban academic primary care clinics on a quarterly basis, for one year following the introduction of a screening program. English-speaking adult patients presenting for a primary care visit were eligible. Participants were recruited from the waiting room and self-administered an 18-item survey exploring attitudes toward screening and discussing substance use with healthcare providers.
RESULT(S): A total of 479 patients completed the survey (mean age 54.1; 58% female; 58% white, 23% black; 19% Hispanic/Latino). Participants overwhelmingly felt that they should be asked about their substance use (91%), and deemed it appropriate for their doctor to recommend reducing use if it could adversely affect their health (92%). Most (87%) were equally comfortable discussing alcohol or drug use. A majority (63%) preferred discussing substance use with their doctor over other medical staff. Responses weremixed regarding screening modality: 55%preferred face-to-face, 22% had no preference, 14% preferred self- administration. Participants reported that they would be honest with their provider (94%), but 32% were concerned about medical record confidentiality.
CONCLUSION(S): Primary care patients strongly supported being screened for drug and alcohol use, and would be comfortable discussing it with their doctor. However, patients' concerns about having their substance use documented in their medical record could pose a barrier to achieving accurate responses. These findings suggest a need to educate patients on the confidentiality of medical records and the value of disclosing substance use for their medical care