The impact of access to addiction specialist on attitudes, beliefs and hospital-based opioid use disorder related care: A survey of hospitalist physicians.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Hospitalizations for complications related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing. Hospitalists care for most hospitalized patients in the United States, yet little is known about their attitudes, beliefs, and clinical practices regarding OUD-related care.Methods: We distributed an online survey to hospitalists in the United States to measure how access to addiction specialists affected attitudes and beliefs regarding hospital-based OUD care, OUD screening practices, naloxone prescribing, and buprenorphine initiation.Results: Among 262 respondents, 67.9% (n = 178) reported having access to addiction specialists. While 84.5% (n = 221) reported often or always caring for patients with OUD, 48.2% (n = 126) rarely or never screened for OUD, 57.1% (n = 149) rarely or never prescribed or recommended naloxone as harm reduction, and 88.9% (n = 233) rarely or never initiated buprenorphine. In multivariable analyses, compared to hospitalists without access to addiction specialists, hospitalist with access to addiction specialists were more likely to feel supported to screen and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 4.4, 95% CI 2.1 - 9.1; ρ < 0.001), to be aware of local treatment resources (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 - 6.3; ρ < 0.001), and refer patients to treatment (aOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.7 - 5.6; ρ < 0.001).Conclusions: Many hospitalists do not provide life-saving treatment to patients with OUD. Access to addiction specialists may increase provision of OUD-related care by hospitalists.
SUBMITTER: Calcaterra SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7541600 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThroughout history, ideas about addiction have been informed and influenced by religious belief and practice. Even continuing into the present, religion and spirituality are often thought to impact attitudes towards addiction and its treatment, particularly given the use of religion and spirituality in various well-known treatments such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Although research has flourished with regards to the role that addiction and spirituality might play in vulnerability to addiction or the treatment of addiction, there has been comparatively less research examining how religion might impact attitudes toward addiction more broadly.MethodThe present work sought to examine the current state of empirical literature evaluating the relationships between religion and attitudes toward addiction and addiction treatment. In service of the above aim, a scoping review was conducted.ResultsThis summary of peer-reviewed, quantitative studies (n = 36) found that higher religiosity is related to more belief in the disease model of addiction in providers, negative attitudes towards addiction, and a stronger support for spiritually-based treatments. However, results varied based on the measures used and many relationships tested were not significant. There also appeared to be differences in the interaction between religion and spirituality and other variables, such as the respondent's sex or whether the individual was a student or provider, in terms of attitudes.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to fully understand the nuances in the relationship between these variables, including more clear operationalization and standardized measurement. Until such research is conducted, no cohesive conclusions can be drawn, and clinical implications remain unclear.
| S-EPMC8664870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDespite a sharp increase in e-cigarette use, there is debate about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction, and the forms that regulation should take. Healthcare providers can be effective in offering guidance to patients and their families and shaping regulatory policy. We described lung cancer specialists' attitudes toward e-cigarettes and its regulation.MethodsWe undertook a nationwide survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer. Survey items included beliefs and attitudes toward e-cigarettes, attitudes toward e-cigarette regulation and preparedness on discussing e-cigarettes with their patients.ResultsMost respondents believed that e-cigarettes are not safer than conventional tobacco cigarettes (75.7%) or smokeless tobacco (83.2%), and feared that discussing e-cigarettes with the patients would encourage use (65.4%). They did not consider it a smoking cessation treatment (78.3%), and thus would not recommend it to smokers who do not want to quit (82.2%) or who failed to quit with conventional smoking cessation treatment (74.1%). Most respondents supported all examples of e-cigarette regulations, including the safety and quality check (97.8%), warning label (97.8%), advertisement ban (95.1%), restriction of flavoring (78.4%), minimum purchasing age (99.5%), and restriction of indoor use (94.6%). Most learned about e-cigarettes from media and advertisements, or conversation with patients rather than through professional scientific resources, and reported discomfort when discussing e-cigarette with patients.ConclusionLung cancer specialist physicians in Korea doubt the safety of e-cigarette and use of e-cigarette as smoking cessation treatment, and supported strict regulation. However, only 20% reported that they obtained information on e-cigarettes from the scientific literature and many lacked adequate knowledge based on scientific evidence, suggesting the need for better preparedness. Nevertheless, the views of professionals revealed from our study could help to develop clinical guidelines and regulatory guidance.
| S-EPMC5325291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccording to a landmark decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are now eligible for disability benefits if their disorder impairs their ability to work. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most common SUDs in Switzerland and is associated with high societal and economic costs. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the views of professional stakeholder groups regarding AUD and their opinions on the new legal precedent.MethodsSwiss social insurance lawyers, insurance medical experts, and addiction-specialist therapists (N = 79) answered an online questionnaire. Due to violations of the assumption of normality, non-parametric tests are reported in most cases.ResultsTherapists held significantly higher regard for patients with AUD than both lawyers and insurance medical experts. All three groups strongly supported a disease view of AUD but agreed significantly less that it was a disease like cancer, suggesting that AUDs might be seen as at least partially self-inflicted. Overall, moralist views of AUD received considerably less support than the disease view, with lawyers agreeing with moralist views more than therapists. All groups were well-informed and largely supportive about the new legal precedent. When asked about stipulating participation in medical treatment to mitigate damages associated with a claim, attending therapy was supported the most amongst the groups (80% of participants felt this was somewhat or fully appropriate), followed by a reduction in drinking quantity (58%), and abstinence (18%). In all three groups, we identified associations between certain views and opinions on AUD and support for the new legal precedent.ConclusionsWhilst there were differences between the stakeholder groups in their regard for and views of AUD, all three adopted a clear harm-reduction approach with respect to measures to mitigate damages associated with the insurance disability claim. A possible connection of this stance with the Swiss national drug policy in recent years is discussed together with limitations of the study and practical implications of the findings.
| S-EPMC9615404 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10911981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalizations related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide OUD treatment to hospitalized patients, but barriers to initiating and continuing medications for OUD remain. We examined facilitators and barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation from the perspective of patients and healthcare workers in the context of an ACS.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we sought input using key informant interviews and focus groups from patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization and from hospitalists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurses who work in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using a directed content analysis.FindingsWe conducted 20 key informant interviews with patients, nine of whom were interviewed following hospital discharge and 12 of whom were interviewed during a rehospitalization. We completed six focus groups and eight key informant interviews with hospitalists and hospital-based medical staff (n = 62). Emergent themes related to hospital-based OUD treatment included the following: the benefit of an ACS to facilitate OUD treatment engagement; expanded use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal; the triad of hospitalization, self-efficacy, and easily accessible, patient-centered treatment motivates change in opioid use; adequate pain control and stabilization of mental health conditions among patients with OUD contributed to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) continuation; and stable housing and social support are prerequisites for OAT uptake and continuation.ConclusionModifiable factors which facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation include availability of in-hospital addiction expertise to offer easily accessible, patient-centered treatment and the use of methadone or buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal. Further research and public policy efforts are urgently needed to address reported barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation which include unstable housing, poorly controlled chronic medical and mental illness, and lack of social support.
| S-EPMC8722657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To understand clinicians' beliefs about practice variation and how variation might be reduced.We surveyed board-certified physicians (N = 178), nurse practitioners (N = 60), and physician assistants (N = 12) at an academic medical center and two community clinics, representing family medicine, general internal medicine, and cardiology, from February-April 2016. The Internet-based questionnaire ascertained clinicians' beliefs regarding practice variation, clinical practice guidelines, and costs.Respondents agreed that practice variation should be reduced (mean [SD] 4.5 [1.1]; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), but agreed less strongly (4.1 [1.0]) that it can realistically be reduced. They moderately agreed that variation is justified by situational differences (3.9 [1.2]). They strongly agreed (5.2 [0.8]) that clinicians should help reduce healthcare costs, but agreed less strongly (4.4 [1.1]) that reducing practice variation would reduce costs. Nearly all respondents (234/249 [94%]) currently depend on practice guidelines. Clinicians rated differences in clinician style and experience as most influencing practice variation, and inaccessibility of guidelines as least influential. Time to apply standards, and patient decision aids, were rated most likely to help standardize practice. Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (vs physicians) and less experienced (vs senior) clinicians rated more favorably several factors that might help to standardize practice. Differences by specialty and academic vs community practice were small.Clinicians believe that practice variation should be reduced, but are less certain that this can be achieved. Accessibility of guidelines is not a significant barrier to practice standardization, whereas more time to apply standards is viewed as potentially helpful.
| S-EPMC5792011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough substantial evidence supports buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in controlled trials, prospective study of patient outcomes in clinical implementation of emergency department (ED) buprenorphine treatment is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine the association between buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up engagement in OUD treatment 1 month later.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite cohort study was conducted in 7 California EDs participating in a statewide implementation project to improve access to buprenorphine treatment. The study population included ED patients aged at least 18 years identified with OUD between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Data analysis was performed in October 2023.ExposureAll participants were offered buprenorphine treatment for OUD (either in ED administration, prescription, or both), the uptake of which was examined as the exposure of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was engagement in OUD treatment 30 days after the ED visit, determined by patient report or clinical documentation. The association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement was estimated using hierarchical generalized linear models.ResultsThis analysis included 464 ED patients with OUD. Their median age was 36.0 (IQR, 29.0-38.7) years, and most were men (343 [73.9%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 64 patients (13.8%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 183 (39.4%) as Hispanic, and 185 as non-Hispanic White (39.9%). Most patients (396 [85.3%]) had Medicaid insurance, and more than half (262 [57.8%]) had unstable housing. Self-reported fentanyl use (242 [52.2%]) and a comorbid mental health condition (328 [71.5%]) were common. Interest in buprenorphine treatment was high: 398 patients (85.8%) received buprenorphine treatment; 269 (58.0%) were administered buprenorphine in the ED and 339 (73.1%) were prescribed buprenorphine. With regard to OUD treatment engagement at 30 days after the ED visit, 198 participants (49.7%) who received ED buprenorphine treatment remained engaged compared with 15 participants (22.7%) who did not receive ED buprenorphine treatment. An association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement at 30 days was observed (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.27-3.07]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that among patients with OUD presenting to EDs implementing low-threshold access to medications for OUD, buprenorphine treatment was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of follow-up treatment engagement 1 month later. Future research should investigate techniques to optimize both the uptake and effectiveness of buprenorphine initiation in low-threshold settings such as the ED.
| S-EPMC10825722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPain is a frequent symptom among patients in the hospital. Pain management is a key quality indicator for hospitals, and hospitalists are encouraged to frequently assess and treat pain. Optimal opioid prescribing, described as safe, patient-centered, and informed opioid prescribing, may be at odds with the priorities of current hospital care, which focuses on patient-reported pain control rather than the potential long-term consequences of opioid use.ObjectiveWe aimed to understand physicians' attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward opioid prescribing during hospitalization and discharge.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews.SettingTwo university hospitals, a safety-net hospital, a Veterans Affairs hospital, and a private hospital located in Denver, Colorado or Charleston, South Carolina.ParticipantsHospitalists (N = 25).MeasurementsWe systematically analyzed transcribed interviews and identified emerging themes using a team-based mixed inductive and deductive approach.ResultsAlthough hospitalists felt confident in their ability to control acute pain using opioid medications, they perceived limited success and satisfaction when managing acute exacerbations of chronic pain with opioids. Hospitalists recounted negative sentinel events that altered opioid prescribing practices in both the hospital setting and at the time of hospital discharge. Hospitalists described prescribing opioids as a pragmatic tool to facilitate hospital discharges or prevent readmissions. At times, this left them feeling conflicted about how this practice could impact the patient over the long term.ConclusionsStrategies to provide adequate pain relief to hospitalized patients, which allow hospitalists to safely and optimally prescribe opioids while maintaining current standards of efficiency, are urgently needed. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:536-542. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.
| S-EPMC4970927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSickle cell disease (SCD) is a complex chronic disease requiring multidisciplinary care that involves primary care physicians (PCPs) working with a hematologist or SCD specialists. However, PCPs often lack access to SCD specialists and are unaware of SCD guidelines or efficacious treatment.MethodsWe partnered with Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) to identify assigned PCPs for SCD patients with Medicaid across North Carolina. CCNC network administrators distributed a web-based questionnaire for completion. The questionnaire involved 12 self-reported items on a yes-no or a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale that assessed PCP attitudes toward SCD care, awareness of recent guidelines, and comanaging hydroxyurea.ResultsOf the 53 PCPs who completed the electronic survey, 73% felt they were comfortable with the number of SCD patients in their practice. Most PCPs reported having infrequent communications with an SCD specialist (67%) and most were also not aware of the 2014 SCD guidelines (66%). Many reported that they would frequently use the new SCD guidelines if provided to them (76%). Furthermore, 51% of PCPs expressed comfort with using mobile apps to access SCD guidelines and provided email contact to receive further information. The majority also reported being comfortable comanaging hydroxyurea with an SCD specialist (65%).ConclusionFew PCPs in North Carolina were aware of the new SCD guidelines or had regular communication with an SCD specialist. The majority of PCPs, however, demonstrated a favorable attitude toward receiving the SCD guidelines and comanaging hydroxyurea with a specialist. In response to this gap in care, we have developed a mobile-based SCD toolbox specifically for PCPs to provide guidelines, algorithms, and a method to communicate with local SCD specialists. With the interest in receiving these guidelines, we are confident the toolbox will provide an easy to use platform to assist PCPs to utilize the SCD guidelines.
| S-EPMC5932651 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Palliative care teams face complex medical situations on a daily basis. These situations require joint reflection and decision making to propose appropriate patient care. Sometimes, sedation is one of the options to be considered. In addition to medical and technical criteria justifying the use of sedation, multiple psychosocial criteria impact the decision making of palliative care teams and guide, give sense to, and legitimize professional practices. Objective: The main goal of this study was to explore perceptions, experiences, and beliefs of palliative care teams about sedation practices in a legislative context (Claeys-Leonetti law, 2016; France), which authorizes continuous deep sedation (CDS) until death. Methods: This is a qualitative study using 28 semistructured interviews with physicians and nurses working in a palliative care team in France (PACA region). All verbal productions produced during interviews were fully transcribed and the contents analyzed. Findings: Content analysis revealed four themes: (1) sedation as a "good death," (2) emotional experiences of sedations, (3) the practice of CDS, and (4) the ambiguous relationship with the Claeys-Leonetti law. Conclusions: This qualitative study provides evidence of a form of "naturalization" of the practice of sedation. However, the Claeys-Leonetti law exacerbates differences of opinion between palliative caregivers on sedation and questions the interest of this law for society and palliative care practices. clinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04016038.
| S-EPMC8241398 | biostudies-literature