Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:For many reasons, the emergency department (ED) is a critical venue to initiate OUD interventions. The prevailing culture of the ED has been that substance use disorders are non-emergent conditions better addressed outside the ED where resources are less constrained. This study, its rapid funding mechanism, and accelerated timeline originated out of the urgent need to learn whether ED-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) with referral for treatment of OUD is generalizable, as well as to develop strategies to facilitate its adoption across a variety of ED settings and under real-world conditions. It both complements and uses methods adapted from Project ED Health (CTN-0069), a Hybrid Type 3 implementation-effectiveness study of using Implementation Facilitation (IF) to integrate ED-initiated BUP and referral programs. METHODS:ED-CONNECT (CTN 0079) was a three-site implementation study exploring the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of introducing ED-initiated BUP in rural and urban settings with high-need, limited resources, and different staffing structures. We used a multi-faceted approach to develop, introduce and iteratively refine site-specific ED clinical protocols and implementation plans for opioid use disorder (OUD) screening, ED-initiated BUP, and referral for treatment. We employed a participatory action research approach and use mixed methods incorporating data derived from abstraction of medical records and administrative data, assessments of recruited ED patient-participants, and both qualitative and quantitative inquiry involving staff from the ED and community, patients, and other stakeholders. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study was designed to provide the necessary, time-sensitive understanding of how to identify OUD and initiate treatment with BUP in the EDs previously not providing ED-initiated BUP, in communities in which this intervention is most needed: high need, low resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:The study was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03544112) on June 01, 2018: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03544112 .

BACKGROUND:As the USA grapples with an opioid epidemic, medical emergency departments (EDs) have become a critical setting for intervening with opioid-dependent patients. Brief interventions designed to bridge the gap from acute ED care to longer-term treatment have shown limited efficacy for this population. Strength-based case management (SBCM) has shown strong effects on treatment linkage among patients with substance use disorders in other healthcare settings. This study aimed to investigate whether SBCM is an effective model for linking opioid-dependent ED patients with addiction treatment and pharmacotherapy. Here, we describe the implementation and challenges of adapting SBCM for the ED (SBCM-ED). Study rationale, design, and baseline characteristics are also described. METHODS:This study compared the effects of SBCM-ED to screening, assessment, and referral alone (SAR) on treatment linkage, substance use, and functioning. We recruited participants from a public hospital in NYC. Working alliance between case managers and participants and the feasibility of SBCM implementation were evaluated. Baseline data from the randomized sample were analyzed for group equivalency. Outcomes analyses are forthcoming. RESULTS:Three hundred adult participants meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid dependence were randomly assigned to either SBCM, in which they received a maximum of six case management sessions within 90 days of enrollment, or SAR, in which they received a comprehensive referral list and pamphlet outlining drug use consequences. No significant differences were found between groups at baseline on demographic or substance use characteristics. All SAR participants and 92.6% of SBCM-ED participants initiated their assigned intervention. Over half of SBCM-ED first sessions occurred in the ED on the day of enrollment. Case managers developed a strong working alliance with SBCM-ED participants after just one session. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Interventions that exceed SBIRT were accepted by an opioid-dependent patient population seen in an urban medical ED. At the time of study funding, this trial was one of the first to focus specifically on this population in this challenging setting. The successful implementation of SBCM demonstrates its adaptability to the ED and may serve as a potential model for EDs seeking to adopt an intervention that overcomes the barrier between the ED encounter and more intensive treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02586896 . Registered on 27 October 2015.

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