Dataset Information

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine protocols: A national evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder is an evidence-based practice, but limited data exist on BUP initiation practices in real-world settings. We sought to characterize protocols for BUP initiation among a geographically diverse sample of emergency departments (EDs).

Methods

In December 2020, we reviewed prestudy clinical BUP initiation protocols from all EDs participating in CTN0099 Emergency Department-INitiated bupreNOrphine VAlidaTION (ED-INNOVATION). We abstracted information on processes for identification of treatment-eligible patients, BUP administration, and discharge care.

Results

All participating ED-INNOVATION sites across 22 states submitted protocols; 31 protocols were analyzed. Identification of treatment-eligible patients: Most EDs 22 (71%) relied on clinician judgment to determine appropriateness of BUP treatment with only 7 (23%) requiring decision support tools or diagnosis checklists. Before BUP initiation, 27 (87%) protocols required a documented Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score; 4 (13%) required a clinical diagnosis of withdrawal with optional COWS score. Twenty-seven (87%) recommended a minimum COWS score of 8 for ED-initiated BUP. BUP administration: Initial BUP dose ranged from 2-16 mg (mode = 4). For continued withdrawal symptoms, 27 (87%) protocols recommended an interval of 30-60 minutes between first and second BUP dose. Total BUP dose in the ED ranged from 8 to 32 mg. Discharge care: Twenty-eight (90%) protocols recommended a BUP prescription (mode 16 mg daily) at discharge. Naloxone prescription and/or provision was suggested in 23 (74%) protocols.

Conclusions

In this geographically diverse sample of EDs, protocols for ED-initiated BUP differed between sites. Future work should evaluate the association between this variation and patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Guo CZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630357 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether provision of ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD increased after implementation facilitation (IF), an educational and implementation strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial compared grand rounds with IF, with pre-post 12-month baseline and IF evaluation periods, at 4 academic EDs. The study was conducted from April 1, 2017, to November 30, 2020. Participants were ED and community clinicians treating patients with OUD and observational cohorts of ED patients with untreated OUD. Data were analyzed from July 16, 2021, to July 14, 2022.ExposureA 60-minute in-person grand rounds was compared with IF, a multicomponent facilitation strategy that engaged local champions, developed protocols, and provided learning collaboratives and performance feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the rate of patients in the observational cohorts who received ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for OUD treatment (primary implementation outcome) and the rate of patients engaged in OUD treatment at 30 days after enrollment (effectiveness outcome). Additional implementation outcomes included the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver to prescribe buprenorphine and ED visits with buprenorphine administered or prescribed and naloxone dispensed or prescribed.ResultsA total of 394 patients were enrolled during the baseline evaluation period and 362 patients were enrolled during the IF evaluation period across all sites, for a total of 756 patients (540 [71.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years), with 223 Black patients (29.5%) and 394 White patients (52.1%). The cohort included 420 patients (55.6%) who were unemployed, and 431 patients (57.0%) reported unstable housing. Two patients (0.5%) received ED-initiated buprenorphine during the baseline period, compared with 53 patients (14.6%) during the IF evaluation period (P < .001). Forty patients (10.2%) were engaged with OUD treatment during the baseline period, compared with 59 patients (16.3%) during the IF evaluation period (P = .01). Patients in the IF evaluation period who received ED-initiated buprenorphine were more likely to be in treatment at 30 days (19 of 53 patients [35.8%]) than those who did not 40 of 309 patients (12.9%; P < .001). Additionally, there were increases in the numbers of ED clinicians with an X-waiver (from 11 to 196 clinicians) and ED visits with provision of buprenorphine (from 259 to 1256 visits) and naloxone (from 535 to 1091 visits).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter effectiveness-implementation nonrandomized trial, rates of ED-initiated buprenorphine and engagement in OUD treatment were higher in the IF period, especially among patients who received ED-initiated buprenorphine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023930.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians.ObjectiveTo characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data collected from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, this mixed-methods formative evaluation grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework included 4 geographically diverse academic EDs. Attending physicians (n = 113), residents (n = 107), and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (n = 48) completed surveys electronically distributed to all ED clinicians (n = 396). A subset of participants (n = 74) also participated in 1 of 11 focus group discussions. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2018, to February 22, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresClinician readiness to initiate buprenorphine and provide referral for ongoing treatment for patients with OUD treated in the ED was assessed using a visual analog scale. Responders (268 of 396 [67.7%]) were dichotomized as less ready (scores 0-6) or most ready (scores 7-10). An ED-adapted Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and 11 focus groups were used to assess ratings and perspectives on evidence and context-related factors to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for ongoing treatment, respectively.ResultsAmong the 268 survey respondents (153 of 260 were men [58.8%], with a mean [SD] of 7.1 [9.8] years since completing formal training), 56 (20.9%) indicated readiness to initiate buprenorphine for ED patients with OUD. Nine of 258 (3.5%) reported Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 training completion. Compared with those who were less ready, clinicians who were most ready to initiate buprenorphine had higher mean scores across all ORCA Evidence subscales (3.50 [95% CI, 3.35-3.65] to 4.33 [95% CI, 4.13-4.53] vs 3.11 [95% CI, 3.03-3.20] to 3.60 [95% CI, 3.49-3.70]; P < .001) and on the Slack Resources of the ORCA Context subscales (3.32 [95% CI, 3.08-3.55] vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.87-3.12]; P = .02). Barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine included lack of training and experience in treating OUD with buprenorphine, concerns about ability to link to ongoing care, and competing needs and priorities for ED time and resources. Facilitators to ED-initiated buprenorphine included receiving education and training, development of local departmental protocols, and receiving feedback on patient experiences and gaps in quality of care.Conclusions and relevanceOnly a few ED clinicians had a high level of readiness to initiate buprenorphine; however, many expressed a willingness to learn with sufficient supports. Efforts to promote adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine will require clinician and system-level changes.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE:To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS:After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P?<?.001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P?<?.001 for both time and intervention effects; P?=?.02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P?=?.17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P?=?.66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Emergency departments (EDs) frequently care for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Buprenorphine (BUP) is an effective treatment option for patients with OUD that can safely be initiated in the ED. At present, BUP is rarely initiated as a part of routine ED care. Clinical decision support (CDS) could accelerate adoption of ED-initiated BUP into routine emergency care. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to design and formatively evaluate a user-centered decision support tool for ED initiation of BUP for patients with OUD. METHODS:User-centered design with iterative prototype development was used. Initial observations and interviews identified workflows and information needs. The design team and key stakeholders reviewed prototype designs to ensure accuracy. A total of 5 prototypes were evaluated and iteratively refined based on input from 26 attending and resident physicians. RESULTS:Early feedback identified concerns with the initial CDS design: an alert with several screens. The timing of the alert led to quick dismissal without using the tool. User feedback on subsequent iterations informed the development of a flexible tool to support clinicians with varied levels of experience with the intervention by providing both one-click options for direct activation of care pathways and user-activated support for critical decision points. The final design resolved challenging navigation issues through targeted placement, color, and design of the decision support modules and care pathways. In final testing, users expressed that the tool could be easily learned without training and was reasonable for use during routine emergency care. CONCLUSIONS:A user-centered design process helped designers to better understand users' needs for a Web-based clinical decision tool to support ED initiation of BUP for OUD. The process identified varying needs across user experience and familiarity with the protocol, leading to a flexible design supporting both direct care pathways and user-initiated decision support.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective was to describe emergency medicine (EM) resident attitudes, preferences, and experiences around the knowledge and skills around the evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe created an online survey that was distributed by the Emergency Medicine Residents' Association research committee listserv to approximately 6600 resident physicians at all levels of EM residency training. Data were collected between June 2020 and October 2020. This 12-question voluntary, anonymous survey included questions exploring EM resident preferences and experiences around the education and exposure to the evidence-based management of patients with OUD in the ED setting. Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsA total of 288 of 6600 invited EM residents (response rate 4.4%) from 127 different EM residency programs across 38 states in the United States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the survey. Most respondents (165/288; 57.3%) reported that it was "very important" for emergency physicians to have training to initiate buprenorphine treatment for patients with OUD. Just under half (140/288; 48.6%) reported they have or will receive X-waiver training during residency and 46.9% (135/288) reported experience prescribing buprenorphine in the ED. The estimated proportions of EM faculty at responding residents' primary teaching hospital with an X-waiver was "most or all" (48/285; 16.8%), "about half" (23/285; 8.1%), "a handful" (79/285; 27.7%), "one or two" (33/285; 11.6%), "none" (19/285; 6.7%), or "not sure" (83/285; 29.1%).ConclusionSurvey results suggest that resident emergency physicians perceive the evidence-based management of OUD to be relevant to EM residency training and are interested in receiving training on initiating medications for OUD treatment in the ED. Opportunities to improve resident education and clinical use of buprenorphine during ED residency training were identified.

Project description:ObjectivesAdoption of emergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder (OUD) into routine emergency care has been slow, partly due to clinicians' unfamiliarity with this practice and perceptions that it is complicated and time-consuming. To address these barriers and guide emergency clinicians through the process of BUP initiation, we implemented a user-centered computerized clinical decision support system (CDS). This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of implementation and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the intervention to increase the rate of ED-initiated BUP.MethodsAn interrupted time series study was conducted in an urban, academic ED from April 2018 to February 2019 (preimplementation phase), March 2019 to August 2019 (implementation phase), and September 2019 to December 2019 (maintenance phase) to study the effect of the intervention on adult ED patients identified by a validated electronic health record (EHR)-based computable phenotype consisting of structured data consistent with potential cases of OUD who would benefit from BUP treatment. The intervention offers flexible CDS for identification of OUD, assessment of opioid withdrawal, and motivation of readiness to start treatment and automates EHR activities related to ED initiation of BUP (including documentation, orders, prescribing, and referral). The primary outcome was the rate of ED-initiated BUP. Secondary outcomes were launch of the intervention, prescription for naloxone at ED discharge, and referral for ongoing addiction treatment.ResultsOf the 141,041 unique patients presenting to the ED over the preimplementation and implementation phases (i.e., the phases used in primary analysis), 906 (574 preimplementation and 332 implementation) met OUD phenotype and inclusion criteria. The rate of BUP initiation increased from 3.5% (20/574) in the preimplementation phase to 6.6% (22/332) in the implementation phase (p = 0.03). After the temporal trend of the number of physician's with X-waiver training and other covariates were adjusted for, the relative risk of BUP initiation rate was 2.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 12.0, p = 0.18). Similarly, the number of unique attendings who initiated BUP increased modestly 7/53 (13.0%) to 13/57 (22.8%, p = 0.10) after offering just-in-time training during the implementation period. The rate of naloxone prescribed at discharge also increased (6.5% preimplementation and 11.5% implementation; p < 0.01). The intervention received a system usability scale score of 82.0 (95% CI = 76.7 to 87.2).ConclusionImplementation of user-centered CDS at a single ED was feasible, acceptable, and associated with increased rates of ED-initiated BUP and naloxone prescribing in patients with OUD and a doubling of the number of unique physicians adopting the practice. We have implemented this intervention across several health systems in an ongoing trial to assess its effectiveness, scalability, and generalizability.

Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine is safe and effective but underutilized in practice. Understanding the factors affecting adoption of this practice could inform more effective interventions.ObjectiveTo quantify the factors, including social contagion, associated with the adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a secondary analysis of the EMBED (Emergency Department-Initiated Buprenorphine For Opioid Use Disorder) trial, a multicentered, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention targeting ED initiation of buprenorphine. The trial occurred from November 2019 to May 2021. The study was conducted at ED clusters across health care systems from the northeast, southeast, and western regions of the US and included attending physicians, resident physicians, and advanced practice practitioners. Data analysis was performed from August 2022 to June 2023.ExposuresThis analysis included both the intervention and nonintervention groups of the EMBED trial. Graph methods were used to construct the network of clinicians who shared in the care of patients for whom buprenorphine was initiated during the trial before initiating the practice themselves, termed exposure.Main outcomes and measuresCox proportional hazard modeling with time-dependent covariates was performed to assess the association of the number of these exposures with self-adoption of the practice of ED initiation of buprenorphine while adjusting for clinician role, health care system, and intervention site status.ResultsA total of 1026 unique clinicians in 18 ED clusters across 5 health care systems were included. Analysis showed associations of the cumulative number of exposures to others initiating buprenorphine with the self-practice of buprenorphine initiation. This increased in a dose-dependent manner (1 exposure: hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.48; 5 exposures: HR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.66-4.89; 10 exposures: HR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.47-8.58). Intervention site status was associated with practice adoption (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18). Health care system and clinician role were also associated with practice adoption.Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of a multicenter, cluster randomized trial of a clinical decision support tool for buprenorphine initiation, the number of exposures to ED initiation of buprenorphine and the trial intervention were associated with uptake of ED initiation of buprenorphine. Although systems-level approaches are necessary to increase the rate of buprenorphine initiation, individual clinicians may change practice of those around them.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03658642.