Faculty Bibliography

The NIDA funded Substance Abuse Education, Research and Training (SARET) Program addresses the compelling need for health professionals prepared to engage in substance use disorders (SUD) research. The goal of this interprofessional project, structured by an Executive Committee of co-investigators from the disciplines of medicine, nursing, social work and dentistry, is to increase the skills of students from each discipline for interprofessional research collaboration and early career-development opportunities in SUD research. The development of web-based modules, interprofessional seminars and a model mentorship program were designed as well, for dissemination and evaluation by other health professional schools. The educational format is 6 interactive web-based learning modules, providing an overview of core content on Substance Use Disorders (SUD), summer or year-long mentored research experiences with NIH-funded researchers and small interprofessional seminars and site visits. Assessment consists of self-reported annual student learning outcomes and external editorial and advisory board project and curricular materials review. These reviews encourages the updating of materials and provide flexibility for participating "champions" at other schools who use the modules. Quantitative and qualitative outcomes of student research activities and data on dissemination of modules support the fit between project content and interprofessional teaching modalities. The learning modules are available without charge to individuals, students, faculty or health professional programs from the project's website.

Study Objectives: To help address the growing opioid overdose epidemic and help teach a core toxicological emergency, the authors taught the use of naloxone as an antidote to an opioid overdose, for all first-year medical students as a part of first responder training using cardiopulmonary resuscitation, as an online and in-person training over three years. Previously we demonstrated that in-person opioid overdose prevention training as an adjunct to BLST improves knowledge and preparedness. To compare the educational outcomes; knowledge, preparedness, and attitudes, for online vs in-person opioid overdose prevention training. Methods: Opioid overdose prevention trainings were conducted in person in 2014 and 2015, and online in 2016. First year students completed pre-and post-training surveys covering three measures: knowledge (11-point scale), attitudes (66-point scale) towards patients with opioid use disorders, and self-reported preparedness (60-point scale) to respond to an opioid overdose. Online and in-person scores across all three measures were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods across two years of trainings. Results: After controlling for pre-test scores, there were very small and not meaningful differences in attitude and knowledge scores between in-person training and online training. The estimated difference for knowledge was-0.06 (95% CI-0.48-0.35) and for attitudes was 0.64 (95% CI-0.22-1.50). The average scores related to preparedness were higher for the students who took the course online, estimated at 2.10 points (95% CI 0.97-3.22). Feedback was generally positive, with 96% of the in-person group saying future classes should receive the training and 95% of the online group saying all medical schools should provide the training. Conclusions: Online training has become a more common method of medical education due to its many advantages including standardization, scalability and flexibility to accommodate asynchronous learning. However, few studies have performed analyses of online training vs in-person training for relative effectiveness. The authors have demonstrated that for training medical students to administer naloxone as an antidote to an opioid overdose, online training is comparable to in-person training. These results support the use of online training for adding training on administering naloxone

: The presence of structured addiction research training programs helps to ensure that the scientific workforce includes well-trained, diverse scientists necessary to reduce the negative impact of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use disorders. Although the field has made significant progress in the development of standards for clinical training in addiction medicine, there remains significant room for improvement in the training of addiction researchers, and also opportunities to synergize across addiction research training programs. The purpose of this commentary is to describe 4 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored addiction research training programs, highlight critical components, and provide recommendations for more comprehensive and effective program evaluation. Moving forward, evaluation of addiction research training programs would be enhanced by the use of conceptual models to inform process and outcome evaluations, the application of innovative methods to ensure long-term data collection, the improvement of mentorship evaluation measures, and the integration of training methods from other fields of study. We encourage NIH and others in the field to be proactive in establishing core metrics for evaluation across programs. Furthermore, centralized tracking of NIH-funded addiction research trainees, analysis of aggregate data across programs, and innovative methods to effectively disseminate program materials and processes are recommended.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics are effective and appropriate therapy for many types of acute pain. Epidemiologic evidence supports a direct relationship between increased opioid prescribing and increases in opioid use disorders and overdoses. OBJECTIVE: To tailor our residency curriculum, we designed and fielded an unannounced standardized patient (USP) case involving a patient with acute back pain who is requesting Vicodin (5/325 mg). We describe residents' case management and examine whether their management decisions, including opioid prescribing, were related to their core clinical skills. METHODS: Results are based on 50 (USP) visits with residents in 2 urban primary care clinics. Highly trained USPs portrayed a patient with acute lower back pain who was taking leftover Vicodin with effective pain relief but was running out. We describe how residents managed this case, using both USP report and chart review data, and compare summary clinical skills scores between those who prescribed Vicodin and those who did not. RESULTS: Of the 50 residents, 18 prescribed Vicodin (10-60 pills). Among those who did not prescribe (32/50), most (50%) prescribed ibuprofen. Eighty-three percent of the prescribers and 72% of nonprescribers ordered physical therapy (nonsignificant). Of the 18 prescribers, 13 documented checking the prescription monitoring database. Prescribers had significantly better communication scores than nonprescribers (relationship development: 80% vs. 58% well done, P = .029; patient education: 59% vs. 31% well done, P = .018). Assessment summary scores were also higher (60% vs. 46%) but not significantly (P = .060). Patient satisfaction and activation scores were higher in the prescribers than nonprescribers (71% vs. 39%, P = .004 and 48% vs. 26%, P = .034, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most Vicodin prescribers did not follow prescribing guidelines, and they demonstrated better communication and assessment skills than the nonprescribers. Results suggest the need to guide residents in using a systematic approach to prescribing opioids safely and to develop an acceptable alternative pain management plan when they decide against prescribing.