Literature Collection

To mitigate morbidity and mortality of the drug-related overdose crisis, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can increase access to treatments that save lives-medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Despite an increasing need, MOUD continues to be underutilized due to multifaceted barriers that exist within broader macro- and microenvironments. To promote MOUD utilization, policymakers and healthcare leaders should (1) identify and implement person-centered MOUD delivery systems (e.g., the Medication First Model, community-informed design); (2) recognize and address MOUD delivery gaps (e.g., the Best-Practice in Oral Opioid Agonist Collaborative); (3) broaden the definition of the MOUD delivery system (e.g., access to MOUD in non-clinical settings); and (4) expand MOUD options (e.g., injectable opioid agonist therapy). Increasing access to MOUD is not a singular fix to the overdose-related crisis. It is, however, a possible first step to mitigate harm, and save lives.

Introduction: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in partnership with the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) Program, implemented the National Academic Detailing Service to deliver naloxone education to providers with patients at-risk for opioid-related overdose. Methods: We administered a 26-item online survey to VA providers to explore their perceptions about prescribing naloxone for opioid overdose emergencies and their experience with academic detailing between August 2017 and April 2018. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics to (1) explore their current perceptions of naloxone prescribing and their experience with academic detailing, (2) identify differences across provider types [primary care providers (PCP), specialists, and others], and (3) assess perceived naloxone prescribing behavior change after an academic detailing visit. Results: Providers (N = 137) indicated that they were practicing at a level that was consistent with VA goals to promote take-home naloxone to reverse opioid-related overdose events. Average domain scores were similar across PCP, specialist, and other provider types. Specialists reported a higher average attitude domain score (+.56, P = .011) and perceived barriers domain score (+.82, P = .009) than PCPs. Most providers agreed that they prescribed naloxone more frequently due to academic detailing (53%) and indicated that they synthesized information from the academic detailer to change their naloxone prescribing practice (60%). Discussion: VA providers' perceptions of take-home naloxone were aligned with current evidence-based practice. Moreover, providers reported increasing their naloxone prescribing and synthesizing OEND-related information after an academic detailing interaction. Understanding providers' perceptions can be used to improve and enhance the academic detailing program's effectiveness.

Background: Opioid-related overdose deaths recently accelerated. In response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) has been implemented widely, though access remains sparse in rural Appalachia. Despite increasing OEND, risk factors for non-evidence-based overdose responses among the training-naïve remain unknown. Methods: We enrolled 169 adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and reside in rural West Virginia (August 2014-March 2015). Participants were interviewed about witnessing overdose (lifetime and prior-year), characteristics of the most recent overdose, responses to the overdose, and OEND acceptability. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with non-evidence-based responses to overdose. Results: Among the 73 participants who witnessed an opioid-related overdose, the majority (n = 53, 73%) reported any non-evidence-based responses. Participants were significantly more likely to report a non-evidence-based response when victims were unresponsive (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.07, 10.58). Common evidence-based responses included staying with the victim until help arrived (n = 66, 90%) and calling 911 (n = 63, 86%), while the most common non-evidence-based responses were hitting or slapping the victim (n = 37, 51%) and rubbing the victim with ice or placing them in a cold shower or bath (n = 14, 19%). While most (n = 60, 82%) had never heard of OEND, the majority (n = 69, 95%) were willing to train, particularly those reporting non-evidence-based responses (n = 52, 98%). Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to expand access to OEND in rural communities and indicate OEND is acceptable to training-naïve individuals who use opioids in rural Appalachia. Given the "harm reduction deserts" in the region, approaches to expand OEND should be pursued.

Objective: Opioid prescribing for chronic pain significantly contributes to opioid overdose deaths in the United States. Naloxone as a take-home antidote to opioid overdose is underutilized and has not been evaluated in the high-risk chronic pain population. The objective was to increase overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to high-risk patients on long-term opioid therapy for pain by utilizing group visits in primary care. Design: Quality improvement intervention among two primary care clinics. Setting: A large, academic facility within the Veterans Health Administration. Subjects: Patients prescribed >/=100 mg morphine-equivalent daily dose or coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines. Methods: One clinic provided usual care with respect to OEND; another clinic encouraged attendance at an OEND group visit to all of its high-risk patients. Results: We used attendance at group visits, prescriptions of naloxone issued, and patient satisfaction scores to evaluate this format of OEND. Key Results: Group OEND visits resulted in significantly more naloxone prescriptions than usual care. At these group visits, patients were engaged, valued the experience, and all requested a prescription for the naloxone kit. Conclusion: This quality improvement pilot study suggests that OEND group visits are a promising model of care.