Time to ACT: launching an Addiction Care Team (ACT) in an urban safety-net health system

Hospital Addiction Medicine Consultation Service Orders and Outcomes by Patient Race and Ethnicity in an Urban, Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Hospital admissions involving substance use disorders are increasing and represent an opportunity to engage patients in substance use treatment. Addiction medicine consultation services improve access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and patient outcomes. However, as hospitals continue to adopt addiction medicine consultation services it is important to identify where disparities may emerge in the process of care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe addiction medicine consultation service use by race and ethnicity as well as substance to identify opportunities to reduce substance use treatment disparities.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2021 Electronic Health Record data from a large Midwest safety-net hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized adults aged 18 or older, with one or more substance use disorders.

MAIN MEASURES

Consultation orders placed, patient seen by consult provider, and receipt of MOUD by self-reported race.

KEY RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2021, we identified 16,895 hospitalized patients with a substance use disorder. Consultation orders were placed for 6344 patients and 2789 were seen by the consult provider. Black patients were less likely (aOR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.53-0.63) to have an addiction medicine consultation order placed and, among patients with a consultation order, were less likely (aOR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.65-0.85) to be seen by the consult provider than White patients. Overall, Black patients with OUD were also less likely to receive MOUD in the hospital (aOR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.50-0.79) compared to White patients. However, there were no differences in MOUD receipt among Black and White patients seen by the consult provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Electronic Health Record data, we identified racial and ethnic disparities at multiple points in the inpatient addiction medicine consultation process. Addressing these disparities may support more equitable access to MOUD and other substance use treatment in the hospital setting.

Substance Use Disorder Program Availability in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals in the US

Importance

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) are ideal sites to deliver addiction treatment to patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but the availability of these services within SNHs nationwide remains unknown.

Objective

To examine differences in the delivery of different SUD programs in SNHs vs non-SNHs across the US and to determine whether these differences are increased in certain types of SNHs depending on ownership.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis used data from the 2021 American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals to examine the associations of safety-net status and ownership with the availability of SUD services at acute care hospitals in the US. Data analysis was performed from January to March 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

This study used 2 survey questions from the American Hospital Association survey to determine the delivery of 5 hospital-based SUD services: screening, consultation, inpatient treatment services, outpatient treatment services, and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Results

A total of 2846 hospitals were included: 409 were SNHs and 2437 were non-SNHs. The lowest proportion of hospitals reported offering inpatient treatment services (791 hospitals [27%]), followed by MOUD (1055 hospitals [37%]), and outpatient treatment services (1087 hospitals [38%]). The majority of hospitals reported offering consultation (1704 hospitals [60%]) and screening (2240 hospitals [79%]). In multivariable models, SNHs were significantly less likely to offer SUD services across all 5 categories of services (screening odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.48-0.76]; consultation OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.83]; inpatient services OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; outpatient services OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59-0.99]; MOUD OR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78]). With the exception of MOUD, public or for-profit SNHs did not differ significantly from their non-SNH counterparts. However, nonprofit SNHs were significantly less likely to offer all 5 SUD services compared with their non-SNH counterparts (screening OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41-0.66]; consultation OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44-0.73]; inpatient services OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.33-0.61]; outpatient services OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76]; MOUD OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.79]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of SNHs and non-SNHs, SNHs had significantly lower odds of offering the full range of SUD services. These findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that SNHs may face additional barriers to offering SUD programs. Further research is needed to understand these barriers and to identify strategies that support the adoption of evidence-based SUD programs in SNH settings.

Extended-release naltrexone for people with alcohol use disorder on therapeutic anticoagulation: A case series

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Individuals with medication adherence challenges or a preference for long-acting medications may benefit from extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) for treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD). Individuals on therapeutic anticoagulation were excluded from XR-NTX studies and its safety in this population has not been reported.

CASE SUMMARY

We conducted structured retrospective chart review of six individuals who received XR-NTX for AUD while on therapeutic anticoagulation between November 2019 and Deccember 2020. We found no documented complications among six individuals who received up to 11 doses of XR-NTX while on therapeutic anticoagulation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

XR-NTX may be safely tolerated by patients on therapeutic anticoagulation. We need larger studies evaluating XR-NTX administration in patients on therapeutic anticoagulation and those with coagulopathies, including individuals with alcohol-related liver disease, to better quantify risks and benefits for shared decision-making.

Cluster Analysis of the Highest Users of Medical, Behavioral Health, and Social Services in San Francisco

BACKGROUND

In the City and County of San Francisco, frequent users of emergent and urgent services across different settings (i.e., medical, mental health (MH), substance use disorder (SUD) services) are referred to as high users of multiple systems (HUMS). While often grouped together, frequent users of the health care system are likely a heterogenous population composed of subgroups with differential management needs.

OBJECTIVE

To identify subgroups within this HUMS population using a cluster analysis.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of HUMS patients for the 2019-2020 fiscal year using the Coordinated Care Management System (CCMS), San Francisco Department of Public Health's integrated data system.

PARTICIPANTS

We calculated use scores based on nine types of urgent and emergent medical, MH, and SUD services and identified the top 5% of HUMS patients. Through k-medoids cluster analysis, we identified subgroups of HUMS patients.

MAIN MEASURES

Subgroup-specific demographic, comorbidity, and service use profiles.

KEY RESULTS

The top 5% of HUMS patients in the study period included 2657 individuals; 69.7% identified as men and 66.5% identified as non-White. We detected 5 subgroups: subgroup 1 (N = 298, 11.2%) who were relatively younger with prevalent MH and SUD comorbidities, and MH services use; subgroup 2 (N = 478, 18.0%), who were experiencing homelessness, with multiple comorbidities, and frequent use of medical services; subgroup 3 (N = 449, 16.9%), who disproportionately self-identified as Black, with prolonged homelessness, multiple comorbidities, and persistent HUMS status; subgroup 4 (N = 690, 26.0%), who were relatively older, disproportionately self-identified as Black, with prior homelessness, multiple comorbidities, and frequent use of medical services; and subgroup 5 (N=742, 27.9%), who disproportionately self-identified as Latinx, were housed, with medical comorbidities and frequent medical service use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the heterogeneity of HUMS patients. Interventions must be tailored to meet the needs of these diverse patient subgroups.

Management of opioid use disorder and associated conditions among hospitalized adults: A Consensus Statement from the Society of Hospital Medicine

Hospital-based clinicians frequently care for patients with opioid withdrawal or opioid use disorder (OUD) and are well-positioned to identify and initiate treatment for these patients. With rising numbers of hospitalizations related to opioid use and opioid-related overdose, the Society of Hospital Medicine convened a working group to develop a Consensus Statement on the management of OUD and associated conditions among hospitalized adults. The guidance statement is intended for clinicians practicing medicine in the inpatient setting (e.g., hospitalists, primary care physicians, family physicians, advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants) and is intended to apply to hospitalized adults at risk for, or diagnosed with, OUD. To develop the Consensus Statement, the working group conducted a systematic review of relevant guidelines and composed a draft statement based on extracted recommendations. Next, the working group obtained feedback on the draft statement from external experts in addiction medicine, SHM members, professional societies, harm reduction organizations and advocacy groups, and peer reviewers. The iterative development process resulted in a final Consensus Statement consisting of 18 recommendations covering the following topics: (1) identification and treatment of OUD and opioid withdrawal, (2) perioperative and acute pain management in patients with OUD, and (3) methods to optimize care transitions at hospital discharge for patients with OUD. Most recommendations in the Consensus Statement were derived from guidelines based on observational studies and expert consensus. Due to the lack of rigorous evidence supporting key aspects of OUD-related care, the working group identified important issues necessitating future research and exploration.

A Taxonomy of Hospital-Based Addiction Care Models: a Scoping Review and Key Informant Interviews

BACKGROUND

There is pressing need to improve hospital-based addiction care. Various models for integrating substance use disorder care into hospital settings exist, but there is no framework for describing, selecting, or comparing models. We sought to fill that gap by constructing a taxonomy of hospital-based addiction care models based on scoping literature review and key informant interviews.

METHODS

Methods included a scoping review of the literature on US hospital-based addiction care models and interventions for adults, published between January 2000 and July 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants experienced in leading, implementing, evaluating, andpracticing hospital-based addiction care to explore model characteristics, including their perceived strengths, limitations, and implementation considerations. We synthesized findings from the literature review and interviews to construct a taxonomy of model types.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2,849 unique abstracts. Of these, we reviewed 280 full text articles, of which 76 were included in the final review. We added 8 references from reference lists and informant interviews, and 4 gray literature sources. We identified six distinct hospital-based addiction care models. Those classified as addiction consult models include (1) interprofessional addiction consult services, (2) psychiatry consult liaison services, and (3) individual consultant models. Those classified as practice-based models, wherein general hospital staff integrate addiction care into usual practice, include (4) hospital-based opioid treatment and (5) hospital-based alcohol treatment. The final type was (6) community-based in-reach, wherein community providers deliver care. Models vary in their target patient population, staffing, and core clinical and systems change activities. Limitations include that some models have overlapping characteristics and variable ways of delivering core components.

DISCUSSION

A taxonomy provides hospital clinicians and administrators, researchers, and policy-makers with a framework to describe, compare, and select models for implementing hospital-based addiction care and measure outcomes.

Meeting people where they are: implementing hospital-based substance use harm reduction

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based addiction care focuses on assessing and diagnosing substance use disorders, managing withdrawal, and initiating medications for addiction treatment. Hospital harm reduction is generally limited to prescribing naloxone. Hospitals can better serve individuals with substance use disorders by incorporating harm reduction education and equipment provision as essential addiction care. We describe the implementation of a hospital intervention that provides harm reduction education and equipment (e.g., syringes, pipes, and fentanyl test strips) to patients via an addiction consult team in an urban, safety-net hospital.

METHODS

We performed a needs assessment to determine patient harm reduction needs. We partnered with a community-based organization who provided us harm reduction equipment and training. We engaged executive, regulatory, and nursing leadership to obtain support. After ensuring regulatory compliance, training our team, and developing a workflow, we implemented this harm reduction program that provides education and equipment to individuals whose substance use goals do not include abstinence.

RESULTS

During a 12-month period we provided 195 individuals harm reduction kits.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention allowed us to advance hospital-based addiction care, better educate and engage patients, staff, and clinicians, and reduce stigma. By establishing a community harm reduction partner, obtaining support from hospital leadership, and incorporating feedback from staff, clinicians, and patients, we successfully implemented harm reduction education and equipment provision in a hospital setting as part of evidence-based addiction care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Commentary, none.

The Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START) study: protocol for a multi-site randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to improve initiation of medication and linkage to post-discharge care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

People with opioid use disorder experience high burden of disease from medical comorbidities and are increasingly hospitalized with medical complications. Medications for opioid use disorder are an effective, life-saving treatment, but patients with an opioid use disorder admitted to the hospital seldom initiate medication for their disorder while in the hospital, nor are they linked with outpatient treatment after discharge. The inpatient stay, when patients may be more receptive to improving their health and reducing substance use, offers an opportunity to discuss opioid use disorder and facilitate medication initiation and linkage to treatment after discharge. An addiction-focus consultative team that uses evidence-based tools and resources could address barriers, such as the need for the primary medical team to focus on the primary health problem and lack of time and expertise, that prevent primary medical teams from addressing substance use.

METHODS

This study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will evaluate whether a consultative team, called the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START), increases initiation of any US Food and Drug Administration approved medication for opioid use disorder (buprenorphine, methadone, naltrexone) during the hospital stay and increases linkage to treatment after discharge compared to patients receiving usual care. The study is being conducted at three geographically distinct academic hospitals. Patients are randomly assigned within each hospital to receive the START intervention or usual care. Primary study outcomes are initiation of medication for opioid use disorder in the hospital and linkage to medication or other opioid use disorder treatment after discharge. Outcomes are assessed through participant interviews at baseline and 1 month after discharge and data from hospital and outpatient medical records.

DISCUSSION

The START intervention offers a compelling model to improve care for hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder. The study could also advance translational science by identifying an effective and generalizable approach to treating not only opioid use disorder, but also other substance use disorders and behavioral health conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05086796, Registered on 10/21/2021. https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/results?recrs=ab&cond=&term=NCT05086796&cntry=&state=&city=&dist  = .

The development and implementation of a "B-Team" (buprenorphine team) to treat hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder

IMPLEMENTATION INSIGHTS.