Search

Introduction: Patient‐reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple‐item measure of patient‐reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Results: Thirty measures—23 satisfaction and 7 experience—were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction‐specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs. Conclusion: Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient‐centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development. Patient or Public Contribution: This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co‐author of this scoping review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There is increasing interest in individualized patient‐reported outcome measures (I‐PROMS), where patients themselves indicate the specific problems they want to address in therapy and these problems are used as items within the outcome measurement tool. Objective: This paper examined the extent to which 279 items reported in an I‐PROM (PSYCHLOPS) added qualitative information which was not captured by two well‐established outcome measures (CORE‐OM and PHQ‐9). Design: Comparison of items was only conducted for patients scoring above the “caseness” threshold on the standardized measures. Setting and patients: 107 patients were participating in therapy within addiction and general psychiatric clinical settings. Main results: Almost every patient (95%) reported at least one item whose content was not covered by PHQ‐9, and 71% reported at least one item not covered by CORE‐OM. Discussion: Results demonstrate the relevance of individualized outcome assessment for capturing data describing the issues of greatest concern to patients, as nomothetic measures do not always seem to capture the whole story. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People who use drugs (PWUD) frequently delay or avoid obtaining medical care in traditional healthcare settings. Through a randomized controlled trial, we investigated facilitated telemedicine for hepatitis C virus (HCV) integrated into opioid treatment programmes. We sought to understand the experiences and meanings of facilitated telemedicine and an HCV cure among PWUD. Methods: We utilized purposive sampling to interview 25 participants, 6–40 months after achieving an HCV cure. We interpreted and explicated common meanings of participants' experiences of an HCV cure obtained through facilitated telemedicine. Results: Participants embraced facilitated telemedicine integrated into opioid treatment programmes as patient‐centred care delivered in 'safe spaces' (Theme 1). Participants elucidated their experiences of substance use and HCV while committing to treatment for both entities. Facilitated telemedicine integrated into opioid treatment programmes enabled participants to avoid stigma encountered in conventional healthcare settings (Theme 2). Participants conveyed facing negative perceptions of HCV and substance use disorder. Improved self‐awareness, acquired through HCV and substance use treatment, enabled participants to develop strategies to address shame and stigma (Theme 3). An HCV cure, considered by PWUD as a victory over a lethal infectious disease, promotes self‐confidence, enabling participants to improve their health and lives (Theme 4). Conclusions: Integrating facilitated telemedicine into opioid treatment programmes addresses several healthcare barriers for PWUD. Similarly, obtaining an HCV cure increases their self‐confidence, permissive to positive lifestyle changes and mitigating the negative consequences of substance use. Patient and Public Contribution: In this study of patient involvement, we interviewed patient‐participants to understand the meaning of an HCV cure through facilitated telemedicine. Participants from a facilitated telemedicine pilot study provided essential input on the design and outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Pilot study participants endorsed facilitated telemedicine in a testimonial video. They attended site initiation meetings to guide trial implementation. A Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) ensured that patient participants were active members of the research team. The PAC represented patients' voices through feedback on study procedures. A Sustainability Committee supported public involvement in the research process, including educational opportunities, feedback on implementation, and future sustainability considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsOver the past century, the tax‐financed share of health care spending has risen from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020; a large part of this tax financing is now the subsidization of private health insurance.For‐profit ownership of health care facilities has also increased in recent decades and now predominates for many health subsectors. A rising share of physicians are now employees.US health care is, increasingly, publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend that has been accompanied by rising medical costs and, in recent years, stagnating or even worsening population health. A reconsideration of US health care financing and ownership appears warranted. Context: Who pays for health care—and who owns it—determine what care is delivered, who receives it, and who profits from it. We examined trends in health care ownership and financing over a century. Methods: We used multiple historical and current data sources (including data from the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, government publications and surveys, and analyses of Medicare Provider of Services files) to classify health care provider ownership as: public, private (for‐profit), and private (not‐for‐profit). We used US Census data to classify physicians' employers as public, not‐for‐profit, or for‐profit entities or "self‐employed." We combined estimates from the official National Health Expenditures Accounts with other data sources to determine the public vs. private share of health care spending since 1923; we calculated a "comprehensive" public share metric that accounted for public subsidization of private health expenditures, mostly via the tax exemption for employer‐sponsored insurance plans or government purchase of such plans for public employees. Findings: For‐profit ownership of most health care subsectors has risen in recent decades and now predominates in several (including nursing facilities, ambulatory surgical facilities, dialysis facilities, hospices, and home health agencies). However, most community hospitals remain not‐for‐profit. Additionally, over the past century, a growing share of physicians identify as employees. Meanwhile, the comprehensive taxpayer‐financed share of health care spending has increased dramatically from 9% in 1923 to 69% in 2020, with taxpayer‐financed subsidies to private expenditures accounting for much of the recent growth. Conclusions: American health care is increasingly publicly financed yet investor owned, a trend accompanied by rising costs and, recently, worsening population health. A reassessment of the US mode of health care financing and ownership appears warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsPeople are dying at record numbers from overdose in the United States.Concerted action has led to a number of successes, including reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing and increased availability of opioid use disorder treatment and harm‐reduction efforts, yet ongoing challenges include criminalization of drug use and regulatory and stigma barriers to expansion of treatment and harm‐reduction services.Priorities for action include investing in evidence‐based and compassionate policies and programs that address sources of opioid demand, decriminalizing drug use and drug paraphernalia, enacting policies to make medication for opioid use disorder more accessible, and promoting drug checking and safe drug supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsAs a consequence of mass incarceration and related social inequities in the United States, jails annually incarcerate millions of people who have profound and expensive health care needs.Resources allocated for jail health care are scarce, likely resulting in treatment delays, limited access to care, lower‐quality care, unnecessary use of emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency departments (EDs), and limited services to support continuity of care upon release.Potential policy solutions include alternative models for jail health care oversight and financing, and providing alternatives to incarceration, particularly for those with mental illness and substance use disorders. Context: Millions of people are incarcerated in US jails annually. These individuals commonly have ongoing medical needs, and most are released back to their communities within days or weeks. Jails are required to provide health care but have substantial discretion in how they provide care, and a thorough overview of jail health care is lacking. In response, we sought to generate a comprehensive description of jails' health care structures, resources, and delivery across the entire incarceration experience from jail entry to release. Methods: We conducted in‐depth interviews with jail personnel in five southeastern states from August 2018 to February 2019. We purposefully targeted recruitment from 34 jails reflecting a diversity of sizes, rurality, and locations, and we interviewed personnel most knowledgeable about health care delivery within each facility. We coded transcripts for salient themes and summarized content by and across participants. Domains included staffing, prebooking clearance, intake screening and care initiation, withdrawal management, history and physicals, sick calls, urgent care, external health care resources, and transitional care at release. Findings: Ninety percent of jails contracted with private companies to provide health care. We identified two broad staffing models and four variations of the medical intake process. Detention officers often had medical duties, and jails routinely used community resources (e.g., emergency departments) to fill gaps in on‐site care. Reentry transitional services were uncommon. Conclusions: Jails' strategies for delivering health care were often influenced by a scarcity of on‐site resources, particularly in the smaller facilities. Some strategies (e.g., officers performing medical duties) have not been well documented previously and raise immediate questions about safety and effectiveness, and broader questions about the adequacy of jail funding and impact of contracting with private health care companies. Beyond these findings, our description of jail health care newly provides researchers and policymakers a common foundation from which to understand and study the delivery of jail health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethical frameworks can support professionals' decision‐making. Here, we identify two ethical frameworks to analyse the best support for families that struggle with parental substance or alcohol abuse. The first framework, which we call 'the framework of conflicting interests', is most prominent in the literature. Here, the interests of parents and children are weighed against each other using the medical ethical principles of respect for autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non‐maleficence. The second framework is most prominent in a series of interviews we conducted with alcohol‐dependent parents and professionals working in addiction care and youth care. This framework aligns more with an ethics of care, and starts with the assumption that the interests of people who are close to each other are often intertwined. This framework does not so much look at conflicting interests, but at relationships and vulnerability. We label this the ethics of care framework. In this article, we show the value of both frameworks and how they can support ethical decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Emergency medicine clinicians are uniquely positioned to deliver interventions to enhance linkage to evidence‐based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the acute overdose period, yet little is known about patient perspectives to effectively engage patients immediately following opioid overdose. Our objective was to explore patients' perspectives on substance use treatment, perceived needs, and contextual factors that shape the choice of patients seen in the emergency department (ED) to engage with treatment and other patient support services in the acute post–opioid overdose period. Methods: We administered a brief quantitative survey and conducted semistructured interviews with 24 adult ED patients receiving care after an acute opioid overdose between June 2016 and August 2017 in an urban, academic ED. We used constant comparison method and thematic analysis to identify themes across four levels of a modified social ecologic model (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and structural). Results: The mean (±SD) age of the sample was 33.5 (±9.33) years; 83% were White and 12% were Black; 67% were male; and 83% were diagnosed with OUD, with a mean (±SD) of 3.25 (±2.64) self‐reported lifetime opioid overdoses. Eight themes were identified as influencing participants' consideration of OUD treatment and other services: (1) perceptions about control of drug use, (2) personal experience with substance use treatment, (3) role of interpersonal relationships, (4) provider communication skills, (5) stigma, (6) availability of ED resources, (7) impact of treatment policies, and (8) support for unmet basic needs. Conclusions: Patients receiving ED care following overdose in our ED are willing to discuss their opioid use and its treatment in the ED and report a variety of unmet needs. This work supports a role for ED‐based research evaluating a patient‐oriented approach to engage patients after opioid overdose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the availability and facility‐level predictors of LGBT‐specific mental health and substance abuse treatment in the United States. Data Sources/Study Setting: 2016 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, 2016 National Mental Health Service Survey, and 2015‐2016 Gallup Daily tracking survey. Study Design: Logistic regression models and average marginal effects were used to identify characteristics of facilities that offer LGBT‐specific programs. Linear regression models were used to estimate the association between the state‐level proportion of LGBT people and the proportion of facilities that offer LGBT‐specific programs. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Secondary data analysis. Cases with missing values for any predictor were excluded. Principle Findings: 12.6 percent of mental health and 17.6 percent of substance abuse facilities reported LGBT‐specific programs. Several facility characteristics were statistically associated with the likelihood of mental health and substance abuse facilities providing LGBT‐specific programs, including offering outpatient or residential treatment, private ownership, religious affiliation, and payment type. The proportion of LGBT adults living within each state was statistically associated with state‐level density of LGBT‐specific mental health programs, but not substance abuse programs. Conclusions: Findings suggest limited availability of culturally competent mental health and substance abuse treatment, despite well‐documented need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The opioid crisis has risen dramatically in North America in the new millennium, due to both illegal and prescription opioid use. While emergency departments (EDs) represent a potentially strategic setting for interventions to reduce harm from opioid use disorder (OUD), the absence of a recent synthesis of literature limits implementation and scalability. To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on interventions targeting OUDs initiated in EDs. Methods: Using an explicit search strategy (PROSPERO), the MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, and EBM reviews databases were searched from 1980 to October 4, 2019. The gray literature was explored using Google Scholar. Study characteristics were abstracted independently. The methodologic quality and risk of bias were assessed. Results: Twelve of 2,270 studies met the inclusion criteria (two of high quality). In addition to the heterogeneity of the outcome measures used (retention in treatment, opioid consumption, and overdose), brief intervention and buprenorphine initiation (six of 12 studies) were the most documented with mixed effects for the former and positive short‐term and confined to single ED sites effects for the latter. Conclusion: Emergency departments can be an appropriate setting for initiating opioid agonist treatment, but to be sustained, it likely needs to be coupled with community‐based follow‐up and support to ensure longer‐term retention. The scarcity of high‐quality evidence on OUD interventions initiated in emergency settings highlights the need for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess frequency, type, and extent of behavioral health (BH) nonquantitative treatment limits (NQTLs) before and after implementation of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA).Data Sources: Secondary administrative data for Optum carve-out and carve-in plans.Study Design: Cross-tabulations and "two-part" regression models were estimated to assess associations of parity period with NQTLs.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Optum provided four proprietary BH databases, including 2008-2013 data for 40 carve-out and 385 carve-in employers from Optum's claims processing databases and 2010 data from interviews conducted by Optum's parity compliance team with 49 carve-out employers.Principal Findings: Preparity, carve-out plans required preauthorization for in-network inpatient/intermediate care; otherwise coverage was denied. Postparity, 73 percent would review later by request and half charged no penalty for late authorization. Outpatient visit authorization requirements virtually disappeared. For carve-out out-of-network inpatient/intermediate care, and for carve-ins, plans changed penalties to match medical service policies, but this did not necessarily lead to fewer requirements or lower penalties.Conclusion: After 2011, MHPAEA was associated with the transformation of BH care management, including much less restrictive preauthorization requirements, especially for in-network care provided by carve-out plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the influence of Oregon's coordinated care organizations (CCOs) and pay-for-performance incentive model on completion of screening and brief intervention (SBI) and utilization of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services.Data Sources/study Setting: Secondary analysis of Medicaid encounter data from 2012 to 2015 and semiannual qualitative interviews with stakeholders in CCOs.Study Design: Longitudinal mixed-methods design with simultaneous data collection with equal importance.Data Collection/extraction Methods: Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in ATLAS.ti. Quantitative data included Medicaid encounters 30 months prior to CCO implementation, a 6-month transition period, and 30 months following CCO implementation. Data were aggregated by half-year with analyses restricted to Medicaid recipients 18-64 years of age enrolled in a CCO, not eligible for Medicare coverage or Medicaid expansion.Principal Findings: Quantitative analysis documented a significant increase in SBI rates coinciding with CCO implementation (0.1 to 4.6 percent). Completed SBI was not associated with increased initiation in treatment for SUD diagnoses. Qualitative analysis highlighted importance of aligning incentives, workflow redesign, and leadership to facilitate statewide SBI.Conclusions: Results provide modest support for use of a performance metric to expand SBI in primary care. Future research should examine health reform efforts that increase initiation and engagement in SUD treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]