The US is confronted with a rise in opioid use disorder (OUD), opioid misuse, and opioid-associated harms. Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD)—including methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone—is the gold standard treatment for OUD. MOUD reduces illicit opioid use, mortality, criminal activity, healthcare costs, and high-risk behaviors. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has invested in several national initiatives to encourage access to MOUD treatment. Despite these efforts, by 2017, just over a third of all Veterans diagnosed with OUD received MOUD. VHA OUD specialty care is often concentrated in major hospitals throughout the nation and access to this care can be difficult due to geography or patient choice. Recognizing the urgent need to improve access to MOUD care, in the Spring of 2018, the VHA initiated the Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder, Train the Trainer (SCOUTT) Initiative to facilitate access to MOUD in VHA non-SUD care settings. The SCOUTT Initiative's primary goal is to increase MOUD prescribing in VHA primary care, mental health, and pain clinics by training providers working in those settings on how to provide MOUD and to facilitate implementation by providing an ongoing learning collaborative. Thirteen healthcare providers from each of the 18 VHA regional networks across the VHA were invited to implement the SCOUTT Initiative within one facility in each network. We describe the goals and initial activities of the SCOUTT Initiative leading up to a two-day national SCOUTT Initiative conference attended by 246 participants from all 18 regional networks in the VHA. We also discuss subsequent implementation facilitation and evaluation plans for the SCOUTT Initiative. The VHA SCOUTT Initiative could be a model strategy to implement MOUD within large, diverse health care systems.

Continuing care following initial substance use disorder treatment often is associated with improved treatment outcomes and evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed in this area. However, rates of patient participation in continuing care treatment and mutual help groups (MHGs) are low and a large gap exists between the existing EBIs and actual clinical care. This paper uses the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR; Damschroder et al., 2009) to review the literature on continuing care treatment and monitoring, and mutual help-group promotion. Although existing research provides implications for implementing EBIs in continuing care, few direct implementation trials have been conducted. This literature indicates that EBIs in continuing care have been successfully modified for different settings, that they can be delivered using different modalities (e.g., individual, group, and telephone-based care), and that low cost options are available. Additionally, much is known about the differential effectiveness of continuing care with different populations that may guide treatment programs and providers in selecting the most effective interventions for their clients. One significant barrier to successful implementation of EBIs for continuing care is the lack of information about incentives for providing continuing care across what in the CFIR terminology is a program's outer setting (i.e., external economic, political, and social setting), and its inner setting (i.e., internal political, structural, and cultural contexts). Implications for implementation of EBIs in substance use disorder continuing care are discussed.

Although continuing care is strongly related to positive treatment outcomes for substance use disorder (SUD), participation rates are low and few effective interventions are available. In a randomized clinical trial with 150 participants (97% men), 75 graduates of a residential Veterans Affairs Medical Center SUD program who received an aftercare contract, attendance prompts, and reinforcers (CPR) were compared to 75 graduates who received standard treatment (STX). Among CPR participants, 55% completed at least 3 months of aftercare, compared to 36% in STX. Similarly, CPR participants remained in treatment longer than those in STX (5.5 vs. 4.4 months). Additionally, CPR participants were more likely to be abstinent compared to STX (57% vs. 37%) after 1 year. The CPR intervention offers a practical means to improve adherence among individuals in SUD treatment.

No abstract

Background Improving access to medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a national priority, yet common modifiable barriers (e.g., limited provider knowledge, negative beliefs about MOUD) often challenge implementation of MOUD delivery. To address these barriers, the VA launched a multifaceted implementation intervention focused on planning and educational strategies to increase MOUD delivery in 18 medical facilities. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if a multifaceted intervention approach to increase MOUD delivery changed providers’ perceptions about MOUD over the first year of implementation. Methods Cross-disciplinary teams of clinic providers and leadership from primary care, pain, and mental health clinics at 18 VA medical facilities received invitations to complete an anonymous, electronic survey prior to intervention launch (baseline) and at 12- month follow-up. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, and changes over time were compared using regression models adjusted for gender and prescriber status, and clustered on facility. Responses to open-ended questions were thematically analyzed using a template analysis approach. Results Survey response rates at baseline and follow-up were 57.1% (56/98) and 50.4% (61/121), respectively. At both time points, most respondents agreed that MOUD delivery is important (94.7 vs. 86.9%), lifesaving (92.8 vs. 88.5%) and evidence-based (85.2 vs. 89.5%). Over one-third (37.5%) viewed MOUD delivery as time-consuming, and only 53.7% affirmed that clinic providers wanted to prescribe MOUD at baseline; similar responses were seen at follow-up (34.5 and 52.4%, respectively). Respondents rated their knowledge about OUD, comfort discussing opioid use with patients, job satisfaction, ability to help patients with OUD, and support from colleagues favorably at both time points. Respondents’ ratings of MOUD delivery filling a gap in care were high but declined significantly from baseline to follow-up (85.7 vs. 73.7%, p < 0.04). Open-ended responses identified implementation barriers including lack of support to diagnose and treat OUD and lack of time. Conclusions Although perceptions about MOUD generally were positive, targeted education and planning strategies did not improve providers’ and clinical leaders’ perceptions of MOUD over time. Strategies that improve leaders’ prioritization and support of MOUD and address time constraints related to delivering MOUD may increase access to MOUD in non-substance use treatment clinics.