Effectiveness and implementability of state-level naloxone access policies: Expert consensus from an online modified-Delphi process

Hospital Quality Indicators for Opioid-Exposed Infants: Results From an Expert Consensus Panel

OBJECTIVE

To elicit expert consensus on quality indicators for the hospital-based care of opioid-exposed infants.

METHODS

We used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi panel. Expert panelists included health care providers, parents in recovery, quality experts, and public health experts. We identified 49 candidate quality indicators from a literature review and environmental scan. A total of 32 experts rated the importance and feasibility of the indicators using a 9-point Likert scale (Round 1), reviewed and discussed the initial ratings (round 2), and revised their original ratings (Round 3). Numeric scores corresponded with descriptive ratings of "low" (1-3), "uncertain" (4-6), or "high" (7-9). We measured consensus using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

Candidate quality indicators assessed structures, processes, and outcomes in multiple domains of clinical care. After the final round, 36 indicators were rated "high" on importance and feasibility. Experts had strong consensus on the importance of quality indicators to assess universal screening of pregnant people for substance use disorder, hospital staff training, standardized assessment for neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome, nonpharmacologic interventions, and transitions of care. For indicators focused on processes and outcomes, experts saw feasibility as dependent on the information routinely documented in electronic medical records or billing records. To present a more complete picture of hospital quality, experts suggested development of composite measures that summarize quality across multiple indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

A panel of experts reached consensus on a range of quality indicators for hospital-based care of opioid-exposed infants, with potential for use in national benchmarking, intervention studies, or hospital performance measurement.

ROMPER: The RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a "Policy Profile" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Using the Delphi Process to Prioritize an Agenda for Care Transition Research for Patients With Substance Use Disorders

Medical hospitalizations are increasingly recognized as important opportunities to engage individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) and offer treatment. While a growing number of hospitals have instituted interventions to support the provision of SUD care during medical admissions, post-hospitalization transitions of care remain a challenge for patients and clinicians and an understudied area of SUD care. Evidence is lacking on the most effective and feasible models of care to improve post-hospitalization care transitions for people with SUD. In the absence of strong empirical evidence to guide practice and policy, consensus-based research methods such as the Delphi process can play an important role in efficiently prioritizing existing models of care for future study and implementation. We conducted a Delphi study that convened a group of 25 national interdisciplinary experts with direct clinical experience facilitating post-hospitalization care transitions for people with SUD. Our panelists rated 10 existing care transition models according to anticipated effectiveness and facility of implementation based on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Qualitative data on each care model were also gathered through comments and an online moderated discussion board. Our results help establish a hierarchy of SUD care transition models to inform future study and program development.

The policy landscape for naloxone distribution in four states highly impacted by fatal opioid overdoses

Background

Expanding access to naloxone is one of the most impactful interventions in decreasing opioid-related mortality. However, state distribution rates of naloxone are insufficient to meet community need. The current study sought to better understand this gap by focusing on state policies that may facilitate or impede naloxone distribution in four states highly impacted by fatal opioid overdoses - Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio.

Methods

We provide a descriptive analysis of the policy landscape impacting naloxone distribution through pharmacy and community channels in the four states participating in the HEALing Communities Study (HCS). Publicly available data and the expertise of the research team were used to describe each state's naloxone access laws (NALs), Medicaid coverage of naloxone, and community overdose education and naloxone distribution infrastructure. Data presented in this study represent the most current policy landscape through September 2022.

Results

Variation exists between specific components of the NALs of each state, the structure of Medicaid coverage of naloxone, and the community distribution infrastructure networks. Massachusetts and New York have a statewide standing order, but other states use different strategies short of a statewide standing order to expand access to naloxone. Quantity limits specific to naloxone may limit access to Medicaid beneficiaries in some states.

Conclusion

States participating in the HCS have developed innovative but different mechanisms to ensure naloxone access. Policies were dynamic and moved towards greater access. Research should consider the policy landscape in the implementation and sustainability of interventions as well as the analysis of outcomes.

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Importance

In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.

Objective

To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.

Evidence Review

This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Findings

Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Priority setting for Canadian Take-Home Naloxone best practice guideline development: an adapted online Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Take-Home Naloxone (THN) is a core intervention aimed at addressing the toxic illicit opioid drug supply crisis. Although THN programs are available in all provinces and territories throughout Canada, there are currently no standardized guidelines for THN programs. The Delphi method is a tool for consensus building often used in policy development that allows for engagement of stakeholders.

METHODS

We used an adapted anonymous online Delphi method to elicit priorities for a Canadian guideline on THN as a means of facilitating meaningful stakeholder engagement. A guideline development group generated a series of key questions that were then brought to a 15-member voting panel. The voting panel was comprised of people with lived and living experience of substance use, academics specializing in harm reduction, and clinicians and public health professionals from across Canada. Two rounds of voting were undertaken to score questions on importance for inclusion in the guideline.

RESULTS

Nine questions that were identified as most important include what equipment should be in THN kits, whether there are important differences between intramuscular and intranasal naloxone administration, how stigma impacts access to distribution programs, how effective THN programs are at saving lives, what distribution models are most effective and equitable, storage considerations for naloxone in a community setting, the role of CPR and rescue breathing in overdose response, client preference of naloxone distribution program type, and what aftercare should be provided for people who respond to overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi method is an equitable consensus building process that generated priorities to guide guideline development.

Expert views on state-level naloxone access laws: a qualitative analysis of an online modified-Delphi process

Background

Expanding availability to naloxone is a core harm reduction strategy in efforts to address the opioid epidemic. In the US, state-level legislation is a prominent mechanism to expand naloxone availability through various venues, such as community pharmacies. This qualitative study aimed to identify and summarize the views of experts on state-level naloxone access laws.

Methods

We conducted a three-round modified-Delphi process using the online ExpertLens platform. Participants included 46 key stakeholders representing various groups (advocates, healthcare providers, human/social service practitioners, policymakers, and researchers) with expertise naloxone access laws. Participants commented on the effectiveness and implementability of 15 state-level naloxone access laws (NALs). We thematically analyzed participant comments to summarize views on NALs overall and specific types of NAL.

Results

Participants commented that the effectiveness of NALs in reducing opioid-related mortality depends on their ability to make sustained, significant impacts on population-level naloxone availability. Participants generally believed that increased naloxone availability does not have appreciable negative impacts on the prevalence of opioid misuse, opioid use disorder (OUD), and non-fatal opioid overdoses. Implementation barriers include stigma among the general public, affordability of naloxone, and reliance on an inequitable healthcare system.

Conclusions

Experts believe NALs that significantly increase naloxone access are associated with less overdose mortality without risking substantial unintended public health outcomes. To maximize impacts, high-value NALs should explicitly counter existing healthcare system inequities, address stigmatization of opioid use and naloxone, maintain reasonable prices for purchasing naloxone, and target settings beyond community pharmacies to distribute naloxone.