Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Aim: The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN), an entity aimed at bridging researchers and community-based substance abuse treatment providers to develop new treatment approaches, has taken an interest in the dissemination of findings from a randomized clinical trial by D’Onoffio demonstrating that initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED) enhances linkage to treatment [ JAMA 2015; 313 (16): 1636–1644]. In the Southern Consortium Node of the CTN, the authors have taken an implementation science approach to expand on the D’Onofrio study by implementing an ED-based buprenorphine initiation program in three diverse South Carolina EDs utilizing a predominantly peer recovery coach model. The aim of this pilot program was to foundationally integrate universal screening, brief interventions and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in hospital EDs to identify patients with at-risk substance use. Through brief interventions, patient navigators assessed readiness to change and motivation for treatment of patients. Patients willing to engage in treatment were referred to appropriate community resources. Patients identified to have opioid use disorder (OUD) and willing to engage in treatment were eligible for ED-initiated buprenorphine and peer recovery coaches assisted in arranging next day follow up with a community treatment program or other local provider for ongoing treatment. Method: Hospital partner sites included a large academic medical center, a large private hospital, and a small community hospital. Prior to implementing this quality improvement initiative, the authors completed an ED workflow analysis at each site, developed internal planning committees including identification of a “hospital champion,” facilitated electronic health record modifications, educated more than 200 ED nurses and providers, and identified a network of local community “fast-track” providers able to accept patients for next-day appointments. Results: Within 14 months, all three sites were fully operationalized and project staff in 3 ED sites screened 6523 patients for substance misuse with 33.0% screened positive for at-risk substance use. Positive screening results were as follows by substance: 907 alcohol, 100 cocaine, 40 methamphetamine, 7 amphetamines, 96 marijuana, 12 benzodiazepines, 3 Ecstasy/MDMA/Molly, 10 other/unknown substance, 274 heroin, 90 prescription opioids, 32 other/unknown opioid, 254 undetermined polysubstance use without opioids, and 331 polysubstance use with opioids. Of the 727 positive screened patients for non-medical opioid use, 70.0% were determined potentially eligible to receive buprenorphine initiation. Two-hundred thirty-one patients were initiated with one dose of 8 mg sublingual buprenorphine or 8-2 mg sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone; 76.6% of those initiated arrived to next-day appointments for continued medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD); and 59.9% o...

No abstract

Performance measures have the potential to drive high quality health care. However, technical and policy challenges exist in developing and implementing measures to assess substance use disorder (SUD) pharmacotherapy. Of critical importance in advancing performance measures for use of SUD pharmacotherapy is recognition that different measurement approaches may be needed in the public and private sectors, and will be determined by the availability of different data collection and monitoring systems. In 2009, the Washington Circle convened a panel of nationally recognized insurers, purchasers, providers, policy makers, and researchers to address this topic. The charge of the panel was to identify opportunities and challenges in advancing use of SUD pharmacotherapy performance measures across a range of systems. This paper summarizes those findings by identifying a number of critical themes related to advancing SUD pharmacotherapy performance measures, highlighting examples from the field, and recommending actions for policy makers.

Background Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Clinical trials and meta-analyses evidence supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. Methods This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N = 7) guided by Proctor’s conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. Discussion The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offers guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.