Barriers to medications for opioid use disorder in the court system: provider availability, provider "trustworthiness," and cost

Police Use of Discretion in Encounters with People with Opioid Use Disorder: a Study of Illinois Police Officers

Police frequently encounter people with opioid use disorder (OUD), having a profound effect on their risk environment and health outcomes. Officers retain significant discretionary authority in their response to these encounters. To explore the factors that underlie these decisions, we surveyed a sample of Illinois police officers. We administered an online survey to Illinois police departments using a random sampling strategy, stratified by agency size and the rurality of their service areas. Our final sample was 248 police officers from 27 departments. We surveyed officers' beliefs about (1) influences and control over their decision making; (2) the approval of other actors in making referrals to treatment for addiction, and (3) the potential impacts of medication-assisted treatment (MAT). We analyzed the survey data using descriptive statistics and regression analyses. Most officers were highly influenced by the expectations of their supervisors when responding to subjects who appeared to have an OUD, and about half would take direction from addiction treatment providers. Police in urban departments perceived greater support for MAT and were more likely to believe MAT could reduce the need for future arrests. Our findings suggest ways police officers can be influenced to make discretionary decisions that improve the health outcomes of their encounters with people with OUD: (1) Supervisors should serve as champions to promote referrals to treatment for substance use disorders; (2) collaboration between law enforcement and community addiction treatment providers should be strengthened, and (3) MAT should be supported and expanded in rural areas.

Referral to and engagement in substance use disorder treatment within opioid intervention courts in New York: a qualitative study of implementation barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are frequently in contact with the court system and have markedly higher rates of fatal opioid overdose. Opioid intervention courts (OIC) were developed to address increasing rates of opioid overdose among court defendants by engaging court staff in identification of treatment need and referral for opioid-related services and building collaborations between the court and OUD treatment systems. The study goal was to understand implementation barriers and facilitators in referring and engaging OIC clients in OUD treatment.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with OIC stakeholders (n = 46) in 10 New York counties in the United States, including court coordinators, court case managers, and substance use disorder treatment clinic counselors, administrators, and peers. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted, guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework, employing both inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

Results were conceptualized using EPIS inner (i.e., courts) and outer (i.e., OUD treatment providers) implementation contexts and bridging factors that impacted referral and engagement to OUD treatment from the OIC. Inner factors that facilitated OIC implementation included OIC philosophy (e.g., non-punitive, access-oriented), court organizational structure (e.g., strong court staff connectedness), and OIC court staff and client characteristics (e.g., positive medications for OUD [MOUD] attitudes). The latter two also served as barriers (e.g., lack of formalized procedures; stigma toward MOUD). Two outer context entities impacted OIC implementation as both barriers and facilitators: substance use disorder treatment programs (e.g., attitudes toward the OIC and MOUD; operational characteristics) and community environments (e.g., attitudes toward the opioid epidemic). The COVID-19 pandemic and bail reform were macro-outer context factors that negatively impacted OIC implementation. Facilitating bridging factors included staffing practices that bridged court and treatment systems (e.g., peers); barriers included communication and cultural differences between systems (e.g., differing expectations about OIC client success).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified key barriers and facilitators that OICs may consider as this model expands in the United States. Referral to and engagement in OUD treatment within the OIC context requires ongoing efforts to bridge the treatment and court systems, and reduce stigma around MOUD.

Facilitators and barriers to collaboration between drug courts and community-based medication for opioid use disorder providers

INTRODUCTION

Access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is limited for individuals in drug courts - programs that leverage sanctions for mandatory substance use treatment. Drug courts rely on community agencies to provide MOUD. However, relationships with MOUD agencies, which impact access to treatment, are understudied. We examined barriers and facilitators from drug court staffs' perspectives to understand how to enhance collaborations with MOUD providers.

METHODS

Drug court staff (n = 21) from seven courts participated in semi-structured interviews about their experience in collaborating with MOUD providers. Interviews were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Inductive (theory-based) and deductive (ground-up) approaches were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Facilitator and barrier themes centered around the needs and resources of drug court participants, external policies such MOUD access in jails, networking with external agencies, and beliefs about MOUD providers. Drug court staff preferred working with agencies that offered MOUD alongside comprehensive services. Drug courts benefited when jails offered MOUD in-house and facilitated community referrals. Existing relationships with providers and responsive communication eased referrals and served to educate the courts about MOUD. Barriers included logistical limitations (limited hours, few methadone providers) and inadequate communication patterns between providers and drug court staff. A lack of confidence in providers' prescribing practices and concerns around perceived overmedication of participants impacted referrals, interagency collaboration, and further burdened the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaboration between drug courts and MOUD providers was driven by patient needs, external policies, communication patterns, and perceptions. Interventions to increase access MOUD for drug court participants will need to incorporate collaboration strategies while considering the unique features of drug courts.