Dataset Information

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Initiation and Continuation: a Qualitative Study of Patients Who Received Addiction Consultation and Hospital-Based Providers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospitalizations 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.

Methods

In 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.

Findings

We 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.

Conclusion

Modifiable 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.

SUBMITTER: Calcaterra SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8722657 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHospitalizations due to medical and surgical complications of substance use disorder (SUD) are rising. Most hospitals lack systems to treat SUD, and most people with SUD do not engage in treatment after discharge.ObjectiveDetermine the effect of a hospital-based addiction medicine consult service, the Improving Addiction Care Team (IMPACT), on post-hospital SUD treatment engagement.DesignCohort study using multivariable analysis of Oregon Medicaid claims comparing IMPACT patients with propensity-matched controls.Participants18-64-year-old Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries with SUD, hospitalized at an Oregon hospital between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2016. IMPACT patients (n = 208) were matched to controls (n = 416) using a propensity score that accounted for SUD, gender, age, race, residence region, and diagnoses.InterventionsIMPACT included hospital-based consultation care from an interdisciplinary team of addiction medicine physicians, social workers, and peers with lived experience in recovery. IMPACT met patients during hospitalization; offered pharmacotherapy, behavioral treatments, and harm reduction services; and supported linkages to SUD treatment after discharge.OutcomesHealthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure of SUD treatment engagement, defined as two or more claims on two separate days for SUD care within 34 days of discharge.ResultsOnly 17.2% of all patients were engaged in SUD treatment before hospitalization. IMPACT patients engaged in SUD treatment following discharge more frequently than controls (38.9% vs. 23.3%, p < 0.01; aOR 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-3.58). IMPACT participation remained associated with SUD treatment engagement when limiting the sample to people who were not engaged in treatment prior to hospitalization (aOR 2.63; 95% CI 1.46-4.72).ConclusionsHospital-based addiction medicine consultation can improve SUD treatment engagement, which is associated with reduced substance use, mortality, and other important clinical outcomes. National expansion of such models represents an opportunity to address an enduring gap in the SUD treatment continuum.

Project description:Background: In response to the opioid epidemic, addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide dedicated hospital-based addiction treatment to patients with substance use disorder. We assessed hospitalist and medical staff perceptions of how the presence of 2 hospitals' ACS impacted care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We inquired about ongoing challenges in caring for this patient population.Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of hospital-based providers utilizing focus groups and key informant interviews for data collection. Transcripts were analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive approach. Emergent themes were identified through an iterative, multidisciplinary team-based process using a directed content analysis approach.Results: Hospitalists (n = 20), nurses (n = 13), social workers (n = 11), and pharmacists (n = 18) from a university hospital and a safety-net hospital in Colorado participated in focus groups or key informant interviews. In response to the availability of an ACS, hospitalists described increased confidence using methadone and buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal, which they perceived as contributing to improved patient outcomes and greater job satisfaction. Participants expressed concern about inconsistent care provided to patients with OUD that varied by the admitting team's specialty and the physician's background and training. Nurses and hospitalists reported frustrations with achieving adequate pain control among patients with OUD. Last, pharmacists reported practice variations when physicians dosed buprenorphine for acute pain among patients with OUD. A lack of standardized dosing led to concerns of inadequate analgesia or return to opioid use following hospital discharge.Conclusions: An ACS reportedly supports hospitalists and medical staff to best care for hospitalized patients with OUD. Notably, care provided to patients with OUD may not be uniform depending on various physician-level factors. Future work to address the concerns reported by study participants may include education for OUD treatment, early involvement of the ACS, and incorporation of buprenorphine prescribing algorithms to standardize care.

Project description:ObjectivesAmong opioid-exposed newborns, breastfeeding is associated with less severe withdrawal signs, yet breastfeeding rates remain low. We determined the extent to which hospital, maternal, and infant characteristics are associated with breastfeeding initiation and continuation among opioid-exposed dyads.Materials and methodsWe examined breastfeeding initiation and continuation until infants' discharge among opioid-exposed dyads from 2006 to 2016. Among dyads meeting hospital breastfeeding guidelines, we assessed hospital (changes in breastfeeding guidelines and improvement initiatives [using delivery year as a proxy]), maternal (demographics, comorbid conditions, methadone versus buprenorphine treatment, and delivery mode), and infant (gestational age and birth weight) characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine independent associations of characteristics with breastfeeding initiation and continuation.ResultsAmong 924 opioid-exposed dyads, 61% (564) met breastfeeding criteria. Overall, 50% (283/564) of dyads initiated and 33% (187/564) continued breastfeeding until discharge. Breastfeeding initiation and continuation rates increased from 38% and 8% in 2006, to 56% and 34% in 2016, respectively. In adjusted models, infants born after reducing restrictions in hospital breastfeeding guidelines and prenatal breastfeeding education (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 2.6 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.5-4.5]) had increased odds of receiving any maternal breast milk versus infants born with earlier hospital policies. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery (aOR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2-0.6]) and length of infant hospitalization (aOR 0.94 [95% CI 0.92-0.97]) were negatively associated with breastfeeding continuation.ConclusionsDespite increasing breastfeeding rates among opioid-exposed dyads, rates remain suboptimal. Hospital-level factors were the greatest predictor of breastfeeding initiation. The findings suggest that changes in hospital guidelines and initiatives can impact breastfeeding initiation among this vulnerable population.

Project description:BackgroundRecently developed buprenorphine depot injections have the potential to reduce risk for diversion and misuse, and to increase adherence with fewer visits for supervised intake. However, it is unclear how patients perceive this new form of medication. The purpose of this study was to explore patients' experiences of depot injections and their reasons for continuing, discontinuing, or declining depot injection treatment.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 people, 14 of whom had ongoing depot injection treatment, 11 who had discontinued depot-injections and switched to other medication and seven who had declined treatment with depot formulations. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed using NVivo, based on this overall stratification into three participant groups.ResultsThe main categories relate to the effects and side effects of the depot formulation, social and practical factors, psychological benefits and disadvantages, and interactions with treatment staff. Social and practical factors were of importance for choosing depot formulations, such as increased freedom and their making it easier to combine treatment with work and family life, as well as psychological advantages including "feeling normal". Initial withdrawal symptoms that resolved themselves after a number of injections were reported by most participants. Reliable information and patient-staff relationships characterized by trust helped patients to cope with these initial problems. Those who discontinued treatment often did so near the beginning of the treatment, reporting withdrawal symptoms and insufficient effects as the main reasons. Coercion and insufficient information contributed to a negative pharmaceutical atmosphere at one of the clinics, which may have adversely influenced perceptions of depot formulations and decreased willingness to accept and continue treatment.ConclusionsBuprenorphine depot injections may have social, practical, and psychological benefits compared to other formulations. However, depot injections are not perceived as an attractive option by all patients. Trust, consistent and adequate information, and awareness of the implications of the pharmaceutical atmosphere should be considered when introducing new medications.