Efficacy of an emergency department-based multicomponent intervention for smokers with substance use disorders

Successful Optimization of Tobacco Dependence Treatment in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Tobacco dependence treatment initiated in the hospital emergency department (ED) is effective. However, trials typically use multicomponent interventions, making it difficult to distinguish specific components that are effective. In addition, interactions between components cannot be assessed. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy allows investigators to identify these effects.

METHODS

We conducted a full-factorial, 24 or 16-condition optimization trial in a busy hospital ED to examine the performance of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: a brief negotiation interview; 6 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy with the first dose delivered in the ED; active referral to a telephone quitline; and enrollment in SmokefreeTXT, a free short-messaging service program. Study data were analyzed with a novel mixed methods approach to assess clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint was tobacco abstinence at 3 months, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide using a Bedfont Micro+ Smokerlyzer.

RESULTS

Between February 2017 and May 2019, we enrolled 1,056 adult smokers visiting the ED. Odd ratios (95% confidence intervals) from the primary analysis of biochemically confirmed abstinence rates at 3 months for each intervention, versus control, were: brief negotiation interview, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8); nicotine replacement therapy, 2.1 (1.3, 3.2); quitline, 1.4 (0.9, 2.2); SmokefreeTXT, 1.1 (0.7, 1.7). There were no statistically significant interactions among components. Economic and qualitative analyses are in progress.

CONCLUSION

The brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy were efficacious. This study is the first to identify components of ED-initiated tobacco dependence treatment that are individually effective. Future work will address the scalability of the brief negotiation interview and nicotine replacement therapy by offering provider-delivered brief negotiation interviews and nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions.

Emergency department interventions for homelessness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The social determinants of health are economic and social conditions that contribute to health. Access to housing is a major social determinant of health and homeless patients often rely on emergency departments (EDs) for their healthcare. These patients are frequently discharged back to the street which further perpetuates the cycle of homelessness and negatively affects their health. Previous work has described the financial and systems implications of ED-housed interventions for homeless patients; this review summarizes ED-based interventions that seek to improve the social determinants of health of homeless patients.

METHODS

We conducted a search of multiple databases and gray literature for studies investigating interventions for homelessness that were initiated in the ED. Studies had to use a control group or use a pre/post-intervention design and measure outcomes that demonstrate an effect on health or the social determinants of health.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were housing first interventions and were effective in providing housing and improving health. Seven studies used variations of case management and were able to address many of the social needs of people who are homeless.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrated that ED interventions can be effective in improving the social determinants of health of homeless individuals and can be the place to initiate housing interventions. ED providers must advocate for the resources necessary to properly address the social needs of this marginalized population. Equipped with the proper resources, EDs can be one place where the cycle of homelessness is broken.

A Parental Smoking Cessation Intervention in the Pediatric Emergency Setting: A Randomized Trial

We examined the efficacy of a pediatric emergency visit-based screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) condition compared to a control condition (Healthy Habits Control, HHC) to help parental smokers quit smoking. We enrolled 750 parental smokers who presented to the pediatric emergency setting with their child into a two-group randomized controlled clinical trial. SBIRT participants received brief cessation coaching, quitting resources, and up to 12-weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). HHC participants received healthy lifestyle coaching and resources. The primary outcome was point-prevalence tobacco abstinence at six weeks (T1) and six months (T2). The mean (SD) age of parents was 31.8 (7.7) years, and 86.8% were female, 52.7% were Black, and 64.6% had an income of ≤$15,000. Overall abstinence rates were not statistically significant with 4.2% in both groups at T1 and 12.9% and 8.3% in the SBIRT and HHC groups, respectively, at T2. There were statistically significant differences in SBIRT versus HHC participants on the median (IQR) reduction of daily cigarettes smoked at T1 from baseline (-2 [-5, 0] versus 0 [-4, 0], p = 0.0008),at T2 from baseline (-4 [-9, -1] vs. -2 [-5, 0], p = 0.0006), and on the mean (SD) number of quit attempts at T2 from baseline (1.25 (6.5) vs. 0.02 (4.71), p = 0.02). Self-reported quitting rates were higher in SBIRT parents who received NRT (83.3% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.04). The novel use of the pediatric emergency visit to conduct cessation interventions helped parents quit smoking. The near equivalent abstinence rates in both the SBIRT and HHC groups may be due to underlying parental concern about their child's health. Cessation interventions in this setting may result in adult and pediatric public health benefits.

Physician-directed smoking cessation using patient "opt-out" approach in the emergency department: A pilot program

OBJECTIVE

Using a physician-directed, patient "opt-out" approach to prescriptive smoking cessation in the emergency department (ED) setting, we set out to describe patient actions as they related to smoking cessation behaviors.

METHODS

A convenience sample of smokers at 2 Pennsylvania hospital EDs who met inclusion/exclusion criteria were approached to participate in a brief intervention known as screening, treatment initiation, and referral (STIR) counseling that included phone follow-up. Demographic information, current smoking status, and specific physician prescription and follow-up recommendations were collected. Approximately 3 months later, patients were contacted to determine current smoking status and actions taken since their ED visit.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients were approached and 7 (6.6%) opted out of the intervention. Patients who did not opt out were evaluated for appropriate use of smoking cessation-related medications; 35 (35.4%) opted out of the prescription(s) and 6 (6.1%) were not indicated. Twenty-one (21.2%) patients opted out of ambulatory referral follow-ups with primary care and/or tobacco treatment program; one (1.0%) was not indicated for referral. Nineteen (32.8%) patients who received prescription(s) for smoking cessation-related medications initially also followed the prescription(s). Seventeen (22.1%) patients participated in referral follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this small ED pilot, using the STIR concepts in an opt-out method, few smokers opted out of the smoking cessation intervention. About one-third of the patients declined prescriptions for smoking cessation-related medications and less than one-quarter declined ambulatory referrals for follow-up. These findings support a willingness of patients to participate in STIR and the benefits of intervention in this setting.

Gender Differences in Smoking Among an Urban Emergency Department Sample

Background:

Urban emergency department (ED) patients have elevated smoking and substance use compared with the general population. We analyzed gender differences in smoking among an urban ED sample and assessed the contribution of substance use, demographic, and couple factors.

Methods:

We conducted a secondary analysis of data obtained from a cross-sectional, observational survey (N = 1037 participants) on drinking, drug use, and intimate partner violence (IPV). Gender-specific logistic regression models for current (past 30-day) smoking and multinomial regression models for smoking intensity (light: ⩽5 cigarettes per day [CPD]; moderate: 6 to 10 CPD; heavier: >10 CPD) were estimated.

Results:

Smoking prevalence was higher among men than women (35.5% vs 18.9%; P < .001). Substance use (frequency of intoxication, marijuana, amphetamine, and cocaine use), demographic (food insufficiency, unemployment), and couple-related factors (having a spouse/partner who smoked, IPV involvement, being in a same-gender couple) were differentially associated with current smoking and level of intensity among men and women.

Conclusions:

Emergency department staff should consider the impact of polysubstance use, food insufficiency, unemployment, and whether both partners in the couple smoke when screening patients for smoking and formulating cessation treatment plans. Women in same-gender relationships and those who have experienced IPV involvement may require additional referral.

Impact of a novel pharmacist-delivered behavioral intervention for patients with poorly-controlled diabetes: The ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic randomized trial

Background

Many factors contribute to suboptimal diabetes control including insufficiently-intensive treatment and non-adherence to medication and lifestyle. Determining which of these is most relevant for individual patients is challenging. Patient engagement techniques may help identify contributors to suboptimal adherence and address barriers (using motivational interviewing) and help facilitate choices among treatment augmentation options (using shared decision-making). These methods have not been used in combination to improve diabetes outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a telephone-based patient-centered intervention on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control for individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes.

Design

Two-arm pragmatic randomized control trial within an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design.

Subjects

1,400 participants 18–64 years old with poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes.

Intervention

The intervention was delivered over the telephone by a clinical pharmacist and consisted of a 2-step process that integrated brief negotiated interviewing and shared decision-making to identify patient goals and options for enhancing diabetes management.

Main measures

The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. Secondary outcomes were medication adherence measures. Outcomes were evaluated using intention-to-treat principles; multiple imputation was used for missing values in the 12-month follow-up. We used information from pharmacist notes to elicit factors to potentially explain the intervention’s effectiveness.

Key results

Participants had a mean age of 54.7 years (SD:8.3) and baseline HbA1c of 9.4 (SD:1.6). Change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.79 (SD:2.01) in the control arm and -0.75 (SD:1.76) in the intervention arm (difference:+0.04, 95%CI: -0.22, 0.30). There were no significant differences in adherence. In as-treated analyses, the intervention significantly improved diabetes control (-0.48, 95%CI: -0.91, -0.05). Qualitative findings provided several potential explanations for the findings, including insufficiently addressing patient barriers.

Conclusions

A novel telephone-based patient-centered intervention did not improve HbA1c among individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes, though as-treated analyses suggest that the intervention was effective for those who received it.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02910089

Study protocol testing toolkit versus usual care for implementation of screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment in hospitals: a phased cluster randomized approach

BACKGROUND

Alarming rates of unhealthy alcohol, non-prescription drug, and tobacco use highlight the preventable health risks of substance abuse and the urgent need to activate clinicians to recognize and treat risky use. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an efficacious and effective processes to identify, reduce and prevent risky use of substances. This paper describes a study protocol testing implementation of a toolkit to enhance use of SBIRT in acute care settings to recognize and address patient risky alcohol, drug, and tobacco use.

METHODS

This study uses a phased cluster randomized mixed method design to test nurse-led implementation of an SBIRT toolkit on one medical-surgical unit at 14 acute care hospitals (critical access, community and academic health centers). Medical surgical units will be randomly assigned to implement the SBIRT toolkit (engagement and communication, assessment, planning, training, and evaluation tools) or a wait-list usual care control group that begins implementation 6 months later. Primary endpoints are documentation of SBIRT delivery in randomly selected electronic medical records at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after group 1 implementation (61 records per unit per time period, N = 2562). Two surveys will be administered to unit nurses: smoking cessation activities will be assessed at baseline and SBIRT use will be assessed on randomly-selected days after implementation. In addition, site coordinators will complete a baseline capacity assessment, an implementation fidelity survey post-implementation, and a structured interview at the end of the study. Multilevel mixed-effects effects logistic and linear models will be used to analyze use of SBIRT and cost outcomes.

DISCUSSION

This study will guide subsequent SBIRT implementation, dissemination, and spread across rural, community and urban healthcare systems throughout the state and beyond. The long-term objective is to activate clinicians to recognize, intervene and refer people with risky substance use to improve health and decrease substance use disorders. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03560076.

Tobacco dependence treatment in the emergency department: A randomized trial using the Multiphase Optimization Strategy

BACKGROUND

Tobacco dependence remains the leading preventable cause of death in the developed world. Smokers are disproportionately from lower socioeconomic groups, and may use the hospital emergency department (ED) as an important source of care. A recent clinical trial demonstrated the efficacy of a multicomponent intervention to help smokers quit, but the independent contributions of those components is unknown.

METHODS

This is a full-factorial (16-arm) randomized trial in a busy hospital ED of 4 tobacco dependence interventions: brief motivational interviewing, nicotine replacement therapy, referral to a telephone quitline, and a texting program. The trial utilizes the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and a novel mixed methods analytic design to assess clinical efficacy, cost effectiveness, and qualitative participant feedback. The primary endpoint is tobacco abstinence at 3months, verified by participants' exhaled carbon monoxide.

RESULTS

Study enrollment began in February 2017. As of April 2017, 52 of 1056 planned participants (4.9%) were enrolled. Telephone-based semi-structured participant interviews and in-person biochemical verification of smoking abstinence are completed at the 3-month follow-up. Efficacy and cost effectiveness analyses will be conducted after follow-up is completed.

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study is to identify a clinically efficacious, cost-effective intervention package for the initial treatment of tobacco dependence in ED patients. The efficacy of this combination can then be tested in a subsequent confirmatory trial. Our approach incorporates qualitative feedback from study participants in evaluating which intervention components will be tested in the future trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial (NCT02896400) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on September 6, 2016.

Rationale and design of the ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus (ENGAGE-DM) pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Poor glycemic control among patients with diabetes may stem from poor medication and lifestyle adherence or a failure to appropriately intensify therapy. A patient-centered approach could discern the most likely possibility and would then, as appropriate, address patient barriers to non-adherence (using behavioral interviewing methods such as motivational interviewing) or help facilitate choices among treatment augmentation options (using methods such as shared decision-making).

OBJECTIVE

To test the impact of a novel telephone-based patient-centered intervention on glycemic control for patients with poorly-controlled diabetes.

METHODS/DESIGN

ENGAGE-DM (ENhancing outcomes through Goal Assessment and Generating Engagement in Diabetes Mellitus) is a pragmatic trial of patients with poorly-controlled diabetes receiving treatment with an oral hypoglycemic agent. We randomized 1400 patients in a large health insurer to intervention or usual care. The intervention is delivered over the telephone by a pharmacist and consists of a 2-step process that integrates brief negotiated interviewing and shared decision-making to identify patient-concordant goals and options for enhancing patients' diabetes management. The trial's primary outcome is disease control, assessed using glycosylated hemoglobin values. Secondary outcomes include medication adherence measures, assessed using pharmacy claims data.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will determine whether a novel highly-scalable patient engagement strategy improves disease control and adherence to medications among individuals with poorly-controlled diabetes.

Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Both behavioural support (including brief advice and counselling) and pharmacotherapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion) are effective in helping people to stop smoking. Combining both treatment approaches is recommended where possible, but the size of the treatment effect with different combinations and in different settings and populations is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of combining behavioural support and medication to aid smoking cessation, compared to a minimal intervention or usual care, and to identify whether there are different effects depending on characteristics of the treatment setting, intervention, population treated, or take-up of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register in July 2015 for records with any mention of pharmacotherapy, including any type of NRT, bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support for smoking cessation, compared to a control receiving usual care or brief advice or less intensive behavioural support. We excluded trials recruiting only pregnant women, trials recruiting only adolescents, and trials with less than six months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Search results were prescreened by one author and inclusion or exclusion of potentially relevant trials was agreed by two authors. Data was extracted by one author and checked by another.The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with a total of more than 25,000 participants met the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of studies recruited people in healthcare settings or with specific health needs. Most studies provided NRT. Behavioural support was typically provided by specialists in cessation counselling, who offered between four and eight contact sessions. The planned maximum duration of contact was typically more than 30 minutes but less than 300 minutes. Overall, studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, and findings were not sensitive to the exclusion of any of the six studies rated at high risk of bias in one domain. One large study (the Lung Health Study) contributed heterogeneity due to a substantially larger treatment effect than seen in other studies (RR 3.88, 95% CI 3.35 to 4.50). Since this study used a particularly intensive intervention which included extended availability of nicotine gum, multiple group sessions and long term maintenance and recycling contacts, the results may not be comparable with the interventions used in other studies, and hence it was not pooled in other analyses. Based on the remaining 52 studies (19,488 participants) there was high quality evidence (using GRADE) for a benefit of combined pharmacotherapy and behavioural treatment compared to usual care, brief advice or less intensive behavioural support (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 1.98) with moderate statistical heterogeneity (I² = 36%).The pooled estimate for 43 trials that recruited participants in healthcare settings (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.18) was higher than for eight trials with community-based recruitment (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.76). Compared to the first version of the review, previous weak evidence of differences in other subgroup analyses has disappeared. We did not detect differences between subgroups defined by motivation to quit, treatment provider, number or duration of support sessions, or take-up of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine pharmacotherapy and behavioural support increase smoking cessation success compared to a minimal intervention or usual care. Updating this review with an additional 12 studies (5,000 participants) did not materially change the effect estimate. Although trials differed in the details of their populations and interventions, we did not detect any factors that modified treatment effects apart from the recruitment setting. We did not find evidence from indirect comparisons that offering more intensive behavioural support was associated with larger treatment effects.

Health evaluation and referral assistant: a randomized controlled trial to improve smoking cessation among emergency department patients

BACKGROUND

Computer technologies hold promise for implementing tobacco screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). This study aims to evaluate a computerized tobacco SBIRT system called the Health Evaluation and Referral Assistant (HERA).

METHODS

Smokers (n = 421) presenting to an emergency department were randomly assigned to the HERA or a minimal-treatment Control and were followed for 3 months. Analyses compared smoking cessation treatment provider contact, treatment initiation, treatment completion, and smoking behavior across condition using univariable comparisons, generalized estimating equations (GEE), and post hoc Chi square analyses.

RESULTS

HERA participants were more likely to initiate contact with a treatment provider but did not differ on treatment initiation, quit attempts, or sustained abstinence. Subanalyses revealed HERA participants who accepted a faxed referral were more likely to initiate treatment but were not more likely to stop smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

The HERA promoted initial contact with a smoking cessation provider and the faxed referral further promoted treatment initiation, but it did not lead to improved abstinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01153373.

Successful Tobacco Dependence Treatment in Low-Income Emergency Department Patients: A Randomized Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Tobacco use is common among emergency department (ED) patients, many of whom have low income. Our objective is to study the efficacy of an intervention incorporating motivational interviewing, nicotine replacement, and quitline referral for adult smokers in an ED.

METHODS

This was a 2-arm randomized clinical trial conducted from October 2010 to December 2012 in a northeastern urban US ED with 90,000 visits per year. Eligible subjects were aged 18 years or older, smoked, and were self-pay or had Medicaid insurance. Intervention subjects received a motivational interview by a trained research assistant, 6 weeks' worth of nicotine patches and gum initiated in the ED, a faxed referral to the state smokers' quitline, a booster call, and a brochure. Control subjects received the brochure, which provided quitline information. The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed tobacco abstinence at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included quitline use.

RESULTS

Of 778 enrolled subjects, 774 (99.5%) were alive at 3 months. The prevalence of biochemically confirmed abstinence was 12.2% (47/386) in the intervention arm versus 4.9% (19/388) in the control arm, for a difference in quit rates of 7.3% (95% confidence interval 3.2% to 11.5%). In multivariable logistic modeling controlling for age, sex, and race or ethnicity, study subjects remained more likely to be abstinent than controls (odds ratio 2.72; 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 4.75).

CONCLUSION

An intensive intervention improved tobacco abstinence rates in low-income ED smokers. Because approximately 20 million smokers, many of whom have low income, visit US EDs annually, these results suggest that ED-initiated treatment may be an effective technique to treat this group of smokers.

Emergency department utilization and subsequent prescription drug overdose death

PURPOSE

Prescription drug overdose (PDO) deaths are a critical public health problem in the United States. This study aims to assess the association between emergency department (ED) utilization patterns in a cohort of ED patients and the risk of subsequent unintentional PDO mortality.

METHODS

Using data from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System for 2006-2010, a nested case-control design was used to examine the relationship between ED utilization patterns in New York State residents of age 18-64 years and subsequent PDO death.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 2732 case patients who died of PDO and 2732 control ED patients who were selected through incidence density sampling. With adjustment for demographic characteristics, and diagnoses of pain, substance abuse, and psychiatric disorders, the estimated odds ratios of PDO death relative to one ED visit or less in the previous year were 4.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.50-5.34) for those with two ED visits, 16.61 (95% CI: 14.72-18.75) for those with three ED visits, and 48.24 (95% CI: 43.23-53.83) for those with four ED visits or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequency of ED visits is strongly associated with the risk of subsequent PDO death. Intervention programs targeting frequent ED users are warranted to reduce PDO mortality.

Screening and concurrent brief intervention of conjoint hazardous or harmful alcohol and tobacco use in hospital out-patients in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this study was to conduct a cluster randomized control trial to assess the efficacy of screening and brief intervention (SBI) for conjoint alcohol and tobacco use among hospital out-patients.

Method

In all 620 hospital out-patients who screened positive for both tobacco and alcohol moderate risk in four hospitals were randomized into 2 control and 1 intervention condition using the hospital as a unit of randomization (2 intervention and 2 control hospitals) to 405 patients in the two control groups (tobacco only intervention, n = 199, and alcohol only intervention, n = 206) and 215 in the intervention group. The intervention or control consisted of three counselling sessions.

Results

Results of the interaction (Group × Time) effects using GEE indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the three study groups over the 6-month follow-up on the ASSIST tobacco score (Wald χ² = 8.43, P = 0.004), and past week tobacco use abstinence (Wald χ² = 7.34, P = 0.007). Although there were no significant interaction effects on the other outcomes (Alcohol ASSIST score, low alcohol risk score, past week tobacco abstinence or low alcohol risk score, and past week tobacco abstinence and low alcohol risk score), the scores in all of the six outcome measures showed consistent improvements. For past week tobacco abstinence the tobacco only intervention was more effective than the alcohol only intervention and the integrated alcohol and tobacco intervention. For the outcome of low alcohol risk, the alcohol only intervention and the integrated alcohol and tobacco intervention was more effective than the tobacco only or alcohol only intervention.

Conclusions

The study found that for past week tobacco abstinence the tobacco only intervention was more effective than the alcohol only intervention and the polydrug use (alcohol and tobacco) integrated intervention.

Emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone treatment for opioid dependence: a randomized clinical trial

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.

Chief complaint-based performance measures: a new focus for acute care quality measurement

Performance measures are increasingly important to guide meaningful quality improvement efforts and value-based reimbursement. Populations included in most current hospital performance measures are defined by recorded diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes in administrative claims data. Although the diagnosis-centric approach allows the assessment of disease-specific quality, it fails to measure one of the primary functions of emergency department (ED) care, which involves diagnosing, risk stratifying, and treating patients' potentially life-threatening conditions according to symptoms (ie, chief complaints). In this article, we propose chief complaint-based quality measures as a means to enhance the evaluation of quality and value in emergency care. We discuss the potential benefits of chief complaint-based measures, describe opportunities to mitigate challenges, propose an example measure set, and present several recommendations to advance this paradigm in ED-based performance measurement.