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:ImportancePeople with opioid use disorder are less likely than others to have a primary care physician.ObjectiveTo determine if family physicians are less likely to accept people with opioid use disorder as new patients than people with diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial used an audit design to survey new patient intake at randomly selected family physicians in Ontario, Canada. Eligible physicians were independent practitioners allowed to prescribe opioids who were located in an office within 50 km of a population center greater than 20 000 people. A patient actor made unannounced telephone calls to family physicians asking for a new patient appointment. The data were analyzed in September 2021.InterventionIn the first randomly assigned scenario, the patient actor played a role of patient with diabetes in treatment with an endocrinologist. In the second scenario, the patient actor played a role of a patient with opioid use disorder undergoing methadone treatment with an addiction physician.Main outcomes and measuresTotal offers of a new patient appointment; a secondary analysis compared the proportions of patients offered an appointment stratified by gender, population, model of care, and years in practice.ResultsOf a total 383 family physicians included in analysis, a greater proportion offered a new patient appointment to a patient with diabetes (21 of 185 physicians [11.4%]) than with opioid use disorder (8 of 198 physicians [4.0%]) (absolute difference, 7.4%; 95% CI, 2.0 to 12.6; P = .007). Physicians with more than 20 years in practice were almost 13 times less likely to offer an appointment to a patient with opioid use disorder compared with diabetes (1 of 108 physicians [0.9%] vs 10 of 84 physicians [11.9%]; absolute difference, 11.0; 95% CI, 3.8 to 18.1; P = .001). Women were almost 5 times less likely (3 of 111 physicians [2.7%] vs 14 of 114 physicians [12.3%]; absolute difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 2.4 to 16.3; P = .007) to offer an appointment to a patient with opioid use disorder than with diabetes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, family physicians were less likely to offer a new patient appointment to a patient with opioid use disorder compared with a patient with diabetes. Potential health system solutions to this disparity include strengthening policies for accepting new patients, improved compensation, and clinician anti-oppression training.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05484609.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pain management practices in breast surgery are variable, with recent evidence that approaches for minimizing or sparing opioids can be successfully implemented. We describe opioid filling and predictors of higher doses in patients undergoing same-day breast surgery in Ontario, Canada.MethodsIn this retrospective population-based cohort study, we used linked administrative health data to identify patients aged 18 years or older who underwent same-day breast surgery from 2012 to 2020. We categorized procedure types by increasing invasiveness of surgery: partial, with or without axillary intervention (P ± axilla); total, with or without axillary intervention (T ± axilla); radical, with or without axillary intervention (R ± axilla); and bilateral. The primary outcome was filling an opioid prescription within 7 or fewer days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were total oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) filled (mg, median and interquartile range [IQR]) and filling more than 1 prescription within 7 or fewer days after surgery. We estimated associations (adjusted risk ratios [RRs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) between study variables and outcomes in multivariable models. We used a random intercept for each unique prescriber to account for provider-level clustering.ResultsOf the 84 369 patients who underwent same-day breast surgery, 72% (n = 60 620) filled an opioid prescription. Median OMEs filled increased with invasiveness (P ± axilla = 135 [IQR 90-180] mg; T ± axilla = 135 [IQR 100-200] mg; R ± axilla = 150 [IQR 113-225] mg, bilateral surgery = 150 [IQR 113-225] mg; p < 0.0001). Factors associated with filling more than 1 opioid prescription were age 30-59 years (v. age 18-29 yr), increased invasiveness (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.70-2.30 bilateral v. P ± axilla), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 versus 0-1 (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.34-1.69) and malignancy (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.53).InterpretationMost patients undergoing same-day breast surgery fill an opioid prescription within 7 days. Efforts are needed to identify patient groups where opioids may be successfully minimized or eliminated.

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:BackgroundCanada's approach to refugee resettlement includes government sponsorship, a pioneering private sponsorship model and a third blended approach. Refugees are selected and supported differently in each approach including healthcare navigation. Little is known about how well private sponsors facilitate primary care navigation and whether this changed during the large-scale 2015 Syrian resettlement initiative characterized by civic and healthcare systems engagement.Methods and findingsPopulation-based cohort study of resettled refugees arriving in Ontario between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2017, with one-year follow-up, using linked health and demographic administrative databases. We evaluated associations of resettlement model (GARs, Privately Sponsored Refugees [PSRs], and Blended-Visa Office Referred [BVORs]) by era of arrival (pre-Syrian and Syrian era) and by country cohort, on measures of primary care (PC) navigation using adjusted Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression. There were 34,591 (pre-Syrian) and 24,757 (Syrian era) resettled refugees, approximately half of whom were GARs. Compared with the reference group pre-Syrian era PSRs, Syrian PSRs had slightly earlier PC visits (mean = 116 days [SD = 90]) (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] = 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.23). Syrian GARs (mean = 72 days [SD = 65]) and BVORs (mean = 73 days [SD = 76]) had their first PC visit sooner than pre-Syrian era PSRs (mean = 149 days [SD = 86]), with respective aHRs 2.27, 95% CI 2.19-2.35 and 1.89, 95% CI 1.79-1.99. Compared to pre-Syrian PSRs, Syrian GARs and BVORs had much greater odds of a CHC visit (adjusted odds ratios 14.69, 95% CI 12.98-16.63 and 14.08, 95% 12.05-16.44 respectively) and Syrian PSRs had twice the odds of a CHC visit.ConclusionsLess timely primary care and lower odds of a CHC visit among PSRs in the first year may be attributed to selection factors and gaps in sponsors' knowledge of healthcare navigation. Improved primary care navigation outcomes in the Syrian era suggests successful health systems engagement.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic kidney disease may not be receiving recommended primary renal care.ObjectiveTo use recently established primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease to determine the proportion of patients receiving recommended renal care.DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative data with linked laboratory information.SettingThe study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2012.PatientsPatients over 40 years with chronic kidney disease or abnormal kidney function in primary care were included.MeasurementsIn 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsLess 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.LimitationsThis study was limited to people in Ontario with linked laboratory information.ConclusionsThere 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.