Dataset Information

Inequities in access to primary care among opioid recipients in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stigma and high-care needs can present barriers to the provision of high-quality primary care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and those prescribed opioids for chronic pain. We explored the likelihood of securing a new primary care provider (PCP) among people with varying histories of opioid use who had recently lost access to their PCP.

Methods and findings

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data among residents of Ontario, Canada whose enrolment with a physician practicing in a primary care enrolment model (PEM) was terminated between January 2016 and December 2017. We assigned individuals to 3 groups based upon their opioid use on the date enrolment ended: long-term opioid pain therapy (OPT), opioid agonist therapy (OAT), or no opioid. We fit multivariable models assessing the primary outcome of primary care reattachment within 1 year, adjusting for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, and health services utilization. Secondary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visits and opioid toxicity events. Among 154,970 Ontarians who lost their PCP, 1,727 (1.1%) were OAT recipients, 3,644 (2.4%) were receiving long-term OPT, and 149,599 (96.5%) had no recent prescription opioid exposure. In general, OAT recipients were younger (median age 36) than those receiving long-term OPT (59 years) and those with no recent prescription opioid exposure (44 years). In all exposure groups, the majority of individuals had their enrolment terminated by their physician (range 78.1% to 88.8%). In the primary analysis, as compared to those not receiving opioids, OAT recipients were significantly less likely to find a PCP within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.61, p < 0.0001). We observed no significant difference between long-term OPT and opioid unexposed individuals (aHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, p = 0.12). In our secondary analysis comparing the period of PCP loss to the year prior, we found that rates of ED visits were elevated among people not receiving opioids (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.20, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.22, p < 0.0001) and people receiving long-term OPT (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.48, p < 0.0001). We found no such increase among OAT recipients, and no significant increase in opioid toxicity events in the period following provider loss for any exposure group. The main limitation of our findings relates to their generalizability outside of PEMs and in jurisdictions with different financial incentives incorporated into primary care provision.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed gaps in access to primary care among people who receive prescription opioids, particularly among OAT recipients. Ongoing efforts are needed to address the stigma, discrimination, and financial disincentives that may introduce barriers to the healthcare system, and to facilitate access to high-quality, consistent primary care services for chronic pain patients and those with OUD.

SUBMITTER: Gomes T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168863 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe Canadian Addiction Treatment Centre (CATC) cohort was established during a period of increased provision of opioid agonist treatment (OAT), to study patient outcomes and trends related to the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Canada. The CATC cohort's strengths lie in its unique physician network, shared care model and event-level data, making it valuable for validation and integration studies. The CATC cohort is a valuable resource for examining OAT outcomes, providing insights into substance use trends and the impact of service-level factors.ParticipantsThe CATC cohort comprises 32 246 people who received OAT prescriptions between April 2014 and February 2021, with ongoing tri-annual updates planned until 2027. The cohort includes data from all CATC clinics' electronic medical records and includes demographic information and OAT clinical indicators.Findings to dateThis cohort profile describes the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients being treated in a large OAT physician network. As well, we report the longitudinal OAT retention by treatment type during a time of increasing exposure to a contaminated dangerous drug supply. Notable findings also include retention differences between methadone (32% of patients at 1 year) and buprenorphine (20% at 1 year). Previously published research from this cohort indicated that patient-level factors associated with retention include geographic location, concurrent substance use and prior treatment attempts. Service-level factors such as telemedicine delivery and frequency of urine drug screenings also influence retention. Additionally, the cohort identified rising OAT participation and a substantial increase in fentanyl use during the COVID-19 pandemic.Future plansFuture research objectives are the longitudinal evaluation of retention and flexible modelling techniques that account for the changes as patients are treated with OAT. Furthermore, future research aims are the use of conditional models, and linkage with provincial-level administrative datasets.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the contributions of prescribed and non-prescribed opioids to opioid related deaths.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingOntario, Canada, from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016.ParticipantsAll Ontarians who died of an opioid related cause.ExposureActive opioid prescriptions, defined as those with a duration overlapping the date of death, and recent opioid prescriptions, defined as those dispensed in the 30 and 180 days preceding death. Postmortem toxicology results from the Drug and Drug/Alcohol Related Death database were used to characterise deaths on the basis of presence of prescribed and non-prescribed (that is, diverted or illicit) opioids, overall and stratified by year and age.Results2833 opioid related deaths occurred. An active opioid prescription on the date of death was relatively common but declined slightly throughout the study period (38.2% (241/631) in 2013 and 32.5% (278/855) in 2016; P for trend=0.03). Older people and women were relatively more likely to have an active opioid prescription at time of death. In 2016, 46% (169/364) of people aged 45-64 had an active opioid prescription compared with only 12% (8/69) among those aged 24 or younger (P for trend<0.001). Similarly, 46% (124/272) of women had an active opioid prescription at time of death compared with 26.4% (154/583) of men (P<0.001). Among people with active opioid prescriptions at time of death, 37.8% (375/993) also had evidence of a non-prescribed opioid on postmortem toxicology. By 2016, the non-prescribed opioid most commonly identified after death was fentanyl (41%; 47 of 115 cases). Among people without an active opioid prescription at time of death, fentanyl was detected in 20% (78/390) of deaths in 2013, increasing to 47.5% (274/577) by 2016 (P<0.001).ConclusionsPrescribed, diverted, and illicit opioids all play an important role in opioid related deaths. Although more than half of all opioid related deaths still involved prescription drugs (either dispensed or diverted) in 2016, the increased rate of deaths involving fentanyl between 2015 and 2016 is concerning and suggests the need for a multifactorial approach to this problem that considers both the prescribed and illicit opioid environments.

Project description:Patients with chronic kidney disease may not be receiving recommended primary renal care.To use recently established primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease to determine the proportion of patients receiving recommended renal care.Retrospective cohort study using administrative data with linked laboratory information.The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2012.Patients over 40 years with chronic kidney disease or abnormal kidney function in primary care were included.In total, 11 quality indicators were assessed for chronic kidney disease identified through a Delphi panel in areas of screening, monitoring, drug prescribing, and laboratory monitoring after initiating an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).We calculated the proportion and cumulative incidence at the end of follow-up of patients meeting each indicator and stratified results by age, sex, cohort entry, and chronic kidney disease stage.Less than half of patients received follow-up tests after an initial abnormal kidney function result. Most patients with chronic kidney disease received regular monitoring of serum creatinine (91%), but urine albumin-to-creatinine monitoring was lower (70%). A total of 84% of patients age 66 and older did not receive a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription of at least 2-week duration. Three quarters of patients age 66 and older were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 96% did not receive an ACE inhibitor and ARB concurrently. Among patients 66 to 80 years of age with chronic kidney disease, 65% were on a statin. One quarter of patients age 66 and older who initiated an ACE inhibitor or ARB had their serum creatinine and potassium monitored within 7 to 30 days.This study was limited to people in Ontario with linked laboratory information.There was generally strong performance across many of the quality of care indicators. Areas where more attention may be needed are laboratory testing to confirm initial abnormal kidney function test results and monitoring serum creatinine and potassium after initiating a new ACE inhibitor or ARB.

Project description:ObjectivesPrevious studies on geographical disparities in healthcare access have been limited by not accounting for the healthcare provider's capacity, a key determinant of supply and demand relationships.DesignThis study proposed a spatial coverage modelling approach to evaluate disparities in hospital care access using Canadian Institute for Health Information data in 2007.SettingThis study focusses on accessibility of inpatient and emergency cares at both levels of individual hospital and the administrative regions of Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) levels.MeasuresWe integrated a set of traffic and geographical data to precisely estimate travel time as a measure of the level of accessibility to the nearest hospital by three scenarios: walking, driving and a combination of the both. We estimated population coverage rates, using hospital capacities and population in the catchments, as a measure of the level of the healthcare availability. Hospital capacities were calculated based on numbers of medical staff and beds, occupation rates and annual working hours of healthcare providers.ResultsWe observed significant disparities in hospital capacity, travel time and population coverage rate across the LHINs. This study included 25 teaching and 148 community hospitals. The teaching hospitals had stronger capacities with 489 209 inpatient and 130 773 emergency patients served in the year, while the population served in community hospitals were 2.64 times higher. Compared with north Ontario, more locations in the south could reach to hospitals within 30 min irrespective of the travel mode. Additionally, Northern Ontario has higher population coverage rates, for example, with 42.6~46.9% for inpatient and 15.7~44% for emergency cares, compared with 2.4~34.7% and 0.35~14.6% in Southern Ontario, within a 30 min catchment by driving.ConclusionCreating a comprehensive, flexible and integrated healthcare system should be considered as an effective approach to improve equity in access to care.

Project description:BackgroundPatients who live in minority language situations are generally more likely to experience poor health outcomes, including harmful events. The delivery of healthcare services in a language-concordant environment has been shown to mitigate the risk of poor health outcomes related to chronic disease management in primary care. However, data assessing the impact of language-concordance on the risk of in-hospital harm are lacking. We conducted a population-based study to determine whether admission to a language-discordant hospital is a risk factor for in-hospital harm.MethodsWe used linked administrative health records to establish a retrospective cohort of home care recipients (from 2007 to 2015) who were admitted to a hospital in Eastern or North-Eastern Ontario, Canada. Patient language (obtained from home care assessments) was coded as English (Anglophone group), French (Francophone group), or other (Allophone group); hospital language (English or bilingual) was obtained using language designation status according to the French Language Services Act. We identified in-hospital harmful events using the Hospital Harm Indicator developed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information.ResultsThe proportion of hospitalizations with at least 1 harmful event was greater for Allophones (7.63%) than for Anglophones (6.29%, p < 0.001) and Francophones (6.15%, p < 0.001). Overall, Allophones admitted to hospitals required by law to provide services in both French and English (bilingual hospitals) had the highest rate of harm (9.16%), while Francophones admitted to these same hospitals had the lowest rate of harm (5.93%). In the unadjusted analysis, Francophones were less likely to experience harm in bilingual hospitals than in hospitals that were not required by law to provide services in French (English-speaking hospitals) (RR = 0.88, p = 0.048); the opposite was true for Anglophones and Allophones, who were more likely to experience harm in bilingual hospitals (RR = 1.17, p < 0.001 and RR = 1.41, p < 0.001, respectively). The risk of harm was not significant in the adjusted analysis.ConclusionsHome care recipients residing in Eastern and North-Eastern Ontario were more likely to experience harm in language-discordant hospitals, but the risk of harm did not persist after adjusting for confounding variables.