Dataset Information

Expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care clinics: an evaluation of common implementation strategies and outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To combat the opioid epidemic in the USA, unprecedented federal funding has been directed to states and territories to expand access to prevention, overdose rescue, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Similar to other states, California rapidly allocated these funds to increase reach and adoption of MOUD in safety-net, primary care settings such as Federally Qualified Health Centers. Typical of current real-world implementation endeavors, a package of four implementation strategies was offered to all clinics. The present study examines (i) the pre-post effect of the package of strategies, (ii) whether/how this effect differed between new (start-up) versus more established (scale-up) MOUD practices, and (iii) the effect of clinic engagement with each of the four implementation strategies.

Methods

Forty-one primary care clinics were offered access to four implementation strategies: (1) Enhanced Monitoring and Feedback, (2) Learning Collaboratives, (3) External Facilitation, and (4) Didactic Webinars. Using linear mixed effects models, RE-AIM guided outcomes of reach, adoption, and implementation quality were assessed at baseline and at 9 months follow-up.

Results

Of the 41 clinics, 25 (61%) were at MOUD start-up and 16 (39%) were at scale-up phases. Pre-post difference was observed for the primary outcome of percent of patient prescribed MOUD (reach) (β_time = 3.99; 0.73 to 7.26; p = 0.02). The largest magnitude of change occurred in implementation quality (ES = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70). Baseline MOUD capability moderated the change in reach (start-ups 22.60%, 95% CI = 16.05 to 29.15; scale-ups -4.63%, 95% CI = -7.87 to -1.38). Improvement in adoption and implementation quality were moderately associated with early prescriber engagement in Learning Collaboratives (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.96; implementation quality: ES = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.69). Improvement in adoption was also associated with early prescriber engagement in Didactic Webinars (adoption: ES = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.20 to 1.05).

Conclusions

Rather than providing an all-clinics-get-all-components package of implementation strategies, these data suggest that it may be more efficient and effective to tailor the provision of implementation strategies based on the needs of clinic. Future implementation endeavors could benefit from (i) greater precision in the provision of implementation strategies based on contextual determinants, and (ii) the inclusion of strategies targeting engagement.

SUBMITTER: Cheng H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258188 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted.MethodsGuided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies.ResultsInterviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes-including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators' perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving.ConclusionsThis study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time.

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence-based therapies for opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, such as medications for OUD (MOUD) and complementary and integrative health (CIH; e.g., acupuncture and meditation) therapies, exist. However, their adoption has been slow, particularly in primary care, due to numerous implementation challenges. We sought to expand the use of MOUD and CIH within primary care by using an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) implementation strategy.MethodsWe used EBQI to engage two facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from June 2018 to September 2019. EBQI included multilevel stakeholder engagement, with external facilitators providing technical support, practice facilitation, and routine data feedback. We established a quality improvement (QI) team at each facility with diverse stakeholders (e.g., primary care, addiction, pain, nursing, pharmacy). We met monthly with regional stakeholders to address implementation barriers. We also convened an advisory board to ensure alignment with national priorities.ResultsPre-implementation interviews indicated facility-level and provider-level barriers to prescribing buprenorphine, including strong primary care provider resistance. Both facilities developed action plans. They both conducted educational meetings (e.g., Grand Rounds, MOUD waiver trainings). Facility A also offered clinical preceptorships for newly trained primary care prescribers. Facility B used mass media and mailings to educate patients about MOUD and CIH options and dashboards to identify potential candidates for MOUD. After 15 months, both facilities increased their OUD treatment rates to the ≥ 90th percentile of VHA medical centers nationally. Exit interviews indicated an attitudinal shift in MOUD delivery in primary care. Stakeholders valued the EBQI process, particularly cross-site collaboration.ImplicationsDespite initial implementation barriers, we effectively engaged stakeholders using EBQI strategies. Local QI teams used an assortment of QI interventions and developed tools to catapult their facilities to among the highest performers in VHA OUD treatment.ImpactsEBQI is an effective strategy to partner with stakeholders to implement MOUD and CIH therapies.

Project description:ImportanceGiven that COVID-19 and recent natural disasters exacerbated the shortage of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) services and were associated with increased opioid overdose mortality, it is important to examine how a community's ability to respond to natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks is associated with MOUD access.ObjectiveTo examine the association of community vulnerability to disasters and pandemics with geographic access to each of the 3 MOUDs and whether this association differs by urban, suburban, or rural classification.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) in the continental United States excluding Washington, DC, conducted a geospatial analysis of 2020 treatment location data.ExposuresSocial vulnerability index (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measure of vulnerability to disasters or pandemics).Main outcomes and measuresDrive time in minutes from the population-weighted center of the ZCTA to the ZCTA of the nearest treatment location for each treatment type (buprenorphine, methadone, and extended-release naltrexone).ResultsAmong 32 604 ZCTAs within the continental US, 170 within Washington, DC, and 20 without an urban-rural classification were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 32 434 ZCTAs. Greater social vulnerability was correlated with longer drive times for methadone (correlation, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.11), but it was not correlated with access to other MOUDs. Among rural ZCTAs, increasing social vulnerability was correlated with shorter drive times to buprenorphine (correlation, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.08) but vulnerability was not correlated with other measures of access. Among suburban ZCTAs, greater vulnerability was correlated with both longer drive times to methadone (correlation, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.24) and extended-release naltrexone (correlation, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.17).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, communities with greater vulnerability did not have greater geographic access to MOUD, and the mismatch between vulnerability and medication access was greatest in suburban communities. Rural communities had poor geographic access regardless of vulnerability status. Future disaster preparedness planning should match the location of services to communities with greater vulnerability to prevent inequities in overdose deaths.

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) save lives, treatment retention remains challenging. Identification of interventions to improve MOUD retention is of interest to policymakers and researchers. On behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we conducted a rapid evidence review on interventions to improve MOUD retention.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 2009 through August 2019 for systematic reviews and randomized trials of care settings, services, logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) formulations, and psychosocial interventions that assessed retention at least 3 months.ResultsTwo systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included; most did not focus on retention as the primary outcome. Initiating MOUD in soon-to-be-released incarcerated people improved retention following release. Contingency management may improve retention using antagonist but not agonist MOUD. Retention with interventions integrating medical, psychiatric, social services, or IT did not differ from in-person treatment-as-usual approaches. Retention was comparable with XR- compared to daily buprenorphine formulations and conflicting with XR-naltrexone monthly injection compared to daily buprenorphine. Most psychosocial interventions did not improve retention.DiscussionConsistent but sparse evidence supports criminal justice prerelease MOUD initiation, and contingency management interventions for antagonist MOUD. Integrating MOUD with medical, psychiatric, social services, delivering through IT, or administering via XR-MOUD formulations did not worsen retention. Fewer than half of the studies we identified focused on retention as a primary outcome. Studies used different measures of retention, making it difficult to compare effectiveness. Additional inquiry into the causes of low retention would inform future interventions.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019134739.

Project description:ImportanceThe ongoing overdose crisis continues to adversely affect adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and has led to numerous preventable deaths. Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, have the potential to reduce opioid use and associated harms; however, there are concerns that AYAs lack access to these potentially life-saving medications.ObjectiveTo systematically review peer-reviewed literature on MOUD access and associated factors to synthesize strategies that can improve MOUD access for AYAs who use opioids.Evidence reviewThe MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and Global Dissertations & Theses databases were searched from database inception until May 3, 2021. English, French, Russian, or Spanish peer-reviewed studies that evaluated the availability, prescription receipt, or initiation of MOUD were eligible for inclusion.FindingsThis systematic review identified 37 cohort (n = 17), cross-sectional (n = 15), and qualitative (n = 5) studies that accounted for 179 785 AYAs (mean [SD] age, 24.4 [3.9] years; 148 779 [85%] were female; 67 771 [84%] were White) and examined access to methadone (30 studies), buprenorphine (26 studies), and naltrexone (10 studies). Findings reinforce concerns that AYAs were less likely to access MOUD and suggest that adolescents were more likely to receive naltrexone or buprenorphine-naloxone, which have a lower potential for abuse, in comparison with young adults. This review also identified other factors that were associated with MOUD access, including criminal justice involvement, residing in the US South, living in a limited-income area, Black race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, suggesting ways in which treatment services may be improved to increase MOUD access and meet the treatment goals of AYAs.Conclusion and relevanceThis systematic review found gaps in MOUD access between AYAs and non-AYA populations in addition to differences in MOUD access between adolescents and young adults. Considering that existing clinical guidelines recommend the use of MOUD among AYAs, and in light of the increasing number of opioid toxicity deaths, there is a need to improve MOUD access among AYAs by reducing barriers to MOUD and providing AYAs with a continuum of health and social supports alongside MOUD. Future research into ways to encourage MOUD uptake among AYAs may improve the treatment and health outcomes for this population.

Project description:BackgroundExpanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine and extended release (XR) naltrexone, is critical to addressing the US opioid epidemic, but little is known about prescriber satisfaction with delivering these two types of MOUD. The current study describes the satisfaction of prescribers delivering buprenorphine and XR-naltrexone while examining whether satisfaction is associated with current patient census and organizational environment.MethodsAs part of a cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) focused on expanding access to medication for opioid use disorder, 41 MOUD prescribers in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin completed a web-based survey. The survey included measures of prescriber satisfaction with delivering buprenorphine treatment and XR-naltrexone. In addition, the survey measured several prescriber characteristics and their perceptions of the organizational environment.ResultsPrescribers were generally satisfied with their work in delivering these two types of MOUD. Prescribers reporting a greater number of patients (r = .46, p = .006), those who would recommend the center to others (r = .56, p < .001), and those reporting positive relationships with staff (r = .56, p < .001) reported significantly greater overall satisfaction with delivering buprenorphine treatment. Prescribers who more strongly endorsed feeling overburdened reported lower overall buprenorphine satisfaction (r = -.37, p = .02). None of the prescriber characteristics or perceptions of the organizational environment were significantly associated with overall satisfaction with delivering XR-naltrexone treatment.ConclusionsThe generally high levels of satisfaction with both types of MOUD is notable given that prescriber dissatisfaction can lead to turnover and impact intentions to leave the profession. Future research should continue to explore the prescriber characteristics and organizational factors associated with satisfaction in providing different types of MOUD.RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02926482. Date of registration: September 9, 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02926482 .

Project description:ObjectivesThe opioid overdose epidemic is escalating. Increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care is crucial. The impact of the US Department of Health and Human Services' policy change removing the buprenorphine waiver training requirement on primary care buprenorphine prescribing remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the impact of the policy change on primary care providers' likelihood of applying for a waiver and the current attitudes, practices, and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing in primary care.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional survey with embedded educational resources disseminated to primary care providers in a southern US academic health system. We used descriptive statistics to aggregate survey data, logistic regression models to evaluate whether buprenorphine interest and familiarity correlate with clinical characteristics, and a χ2 test to evaluate the effect of the educational intervention on screening.ResultsOf the 54 respondents, 70.4% reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, but only 11.1% had a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Few nonwaivered providers were interested in prescribing, but perceiving buprenorphine to be beneficial to the patient population was associated with interest (adjusted odds ratio 34.7, P < 0.001). Two-thirds of nonwaivered respondents reported the policy change having no impact on their decision to obtain a waiver; however, among interested providers, it increased their likelihood of obtaining a waiver. Barriers to buprenorphine prescribing included lack of clinical experience, clinical capacity, and referral resources. Screening for opioid use disorder did not increase significantly after the survey.ConclusionsAlthough most primary care providers reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, interest in prescribing buprenorphine was low and structural barriers remained the dominant obstacles. Providers with a preexisting interest in buprenorphine prescribing reported that removing the training requirement was helpful.

Project description:BackgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine population-based screening for drug use, yet screening for opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care occurs rarely, and little is known about barriers primary care teams face.ObjectiveAs part of a multisite randomized trial to provide OUD and behavioral health treatment using the Collaborative Care Model, we supported 10 primary care clinics in implementing routine OUD screening and conducted formative evaluation to characterize early implementation experiences.DesignQualitative formative evaluation.ApproachFormative evaluation included taking detailed observation notes at implementation meetings with individual clinics and debriefings with external facilitators. Observation notes were analyzed weekly using a Rapid Assessment Process guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with iterative feedback from the study team. After clinics launched OUD screening, we conducted structured fidelity assessments via group interviews with each site to evaluate clinic experiences with routine OUD screening. Data from observation and structured fidelity assessments were combined into a matrix to compare across clinics and identify cross-cutting barriers and promising implementation strategies.Key resultsWhile all clinics had the goal of implementing population-based OUD screening, barriers were experienced across intervention, individual, and clinic setting domains, with compounding effects for telehealth visits. Seven themes emerged characterizing barriers, including (1) challenges identifying who to screen, (2) complexity of the screening tool, (3) staff discomfort and/or hesitancies, (4) workflow barriers that decreased screening follow-up, (5) staffing shortages and turnover, (6) discouragement from low screening yield, and (7) stigma. Promising implementation strategies included utilizing a more universal screening approach, health information technology (HIT), audit and feedback, and repeated staff trainings.ConclusionsIntegrating population-based OUD screening in primary care is challenging but may be made feasible via implementation strategies and tailored practice facilitation that standardize workflows via HIT, decrease stigma, and increase staff confidence regarding OUD.