Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorder (OUD) disproportionately impacts rural and American Indian communities and has quadrupled among pregnant individuals nationwide in the past two decades. Yet, limited data are available about access and quality of care available to pregnant individuals in rural areas, particularly among American Indians (AIs). Unannounced standardized patients (USPs), or "secret shoppers" with standardized characteristics, have been used to assess healthcare access and quality when outcomes cannot be measured by conventional methods or when differences may exist between actual versus reported care. While the USP approach has shown benefit in evaluating primary care and select specialties, its use to date for OUD and pregnancy is very limited. METHODS: We used literature review, current practice guidelines for perinatal OUD management, and stakeholder engagement to design a novel USP protocol to assess healthcare access and quality for OUD in pregnancy. We developed two USP profiles-one white and one AI-to reflect our target study area consisting of three rural, predominantly white and AI US counties. We partnered with a local community health center network providing care to a large AI population to define six priority outcomes for evaluation: (1) OUD treatment knowledge among clinical staff answering telephones; (2) primary care clinic facilitation and provision of prenatal care and buprenorphine treatment; (3) appropriate completion of evidence-based screening, symptom assessment, and initial steps in management; (4) appropriate completion of risk factor screening/probing about individual circumstances that may affect care; (5) patient-directed tone, stigma, and professionalism by clinic staff; and (6) disparities in care between whites and American Indians. DISCUSSION: The development of this USP protocol tailored to a specific environment and high-risk patient population establishes an innovative approach to evaluate healthcare access and quality for pregnant individuals with OUD. It is intended to serve as a roadmap for our own study and for future related work within the context of substance use disorders and pregnancy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often presents with comorbid substance use disorders (SUD). Due to similarities in key symptoms of both disorders and suboptimal efficacy of the available treatments, clinicians are faced with difficulties in the diagnosis and treatment of these patients with both disorders. This review addresses recent publications between 2017 and 2019 on the etiology, prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of co-occurring ADHD and SUD. RECENT FINDINGS: ADHD is diagnosed in 15-20% of SUD patients, mostly as ADHD with combined (hyperactive/inattentive) presentation. Even during active substance use, screening with the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) is useful to address whether further diagnostic evaluation is needed. After SUD treatment, the diagnosis of ADHD generally remains stable, but ADHD subtype presentations are not. Some evidence supports pharmacological treatment with long-acting stimulants in higher than usual dosages. Studies on psychological treatment remain scarce, but there are some promising findings on integrated cognitive behaviour therapy. SUMMARY: Diagnosis and treatment of patients with comorbid ADHD and SUD remain challenging. As ADHD presentations can change during active treatment, an active follow-up is warranted to provide treatment to the individuals' personal strengths and weaknesses.

INTRODUCTION: The general practitioners' (GP) approach to diagnosing depression has not yet been included in depression questionnaires. Therefore, the 'Questionnaire for the assessment of DEpression SYmptoms in Primary Care' (DESY-PC) has been developed. The DESY-PC consists of two parts, comprising the patient's perspective and psychiatric diagnostic criteria (DESY-PAT), and additionally the GP's heuristics and knowledge of patients (DESY-GP). The aim was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and factor structure of the DESY-PC. METHODS: A multicentre diagnostic accuracy study was conducted in ten practices. Patients completed the DESY-PAT and PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), while their GPs completed the DESY-GP. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-V disorders (SCID-V-CV) was used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the DESY-PC and PHQ-9. Factorial validity was assessed. RESULTS: 435 patients (mean age 47.6 years, 60.1% female, prevalence of depression 15.9%) were analysed. The diagnostic accuracy of the DESY-PAT (AUC=0.862, 95% Confidence Interval 0.815-0.908) was significantly higher (p<0.001) than that of PHQ-9 (AUC=0.821, 0.764-0.878). The diagnostic accuracy increased further when DESY-PAT was combined with DESY-GP for the overall questionnaire DESY-PC (AUC=0.874, 0.834-0.914). Goodness of fit indices indicated a plausible fit for the DESY-PC. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating the GP's heuristics, judgement and knowledge of the patient contributes to a more accurate diagnosis. The DESY-PC integrates the GP's perspective, patient-specific factors, and psychiatric criteria into the diagnostic assessment, which might contribute to improved diagnostic decision-making in primary care.

Background: Addressing the opioid crisis requires an understanding of how to train both health professional students and practicing clinicians on medications for opioid use disorder (mOUD). We designed a robust evaluation instrument to assess the impact of training on perceived clinical knowledge in these different categories of learners. Methods: We enrolled 3rd and 4th year medical, physician assistant (PA), and nurse practitioner (NP) students, as well as practicing PAs, NPs, and physicians to undertake the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) Waiver Training for mOUD. We designed and implemented a cross-sectional survey to assess perceived change in clinical knowledge as a result of training in opioid use disorder and satisfaction with training. Results: Twenty-one MD/DO and 45 NP/PA students, and 24 practicing MD/DO and 27 NP/PAs completed the survey. Among health professional students (n = 66) and practicing clinicians (n =51), perceived clinical knowledge scores increased significantly (p < 0.001) for all 13 variables. Program evaluation scores for the buprenorphine waiver training were high with no statistical differences between students and practicing clinicians. Overall, the majority of participants indicated they would recommend the training to a colleague (Students' score = 4.84; practicing clinician scores = 4.53; scale = strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5). Conclusions: Our novel instrument allowed us to determine that the implementation of buprenorphine waiver trainings for health professional students and practicing clinicians leads to significant increases in perceived knowledge, interest and confidence in diagnosing and treating OUD. Although the buprenorphine waiver can now be obtained without training, many waivered providers still do not prescribe buprenorphine; integrating training into medical, NP, and PA curriculum for students and offering the training to practicing clinicians may increase confidence and uptake of mOUD.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care clinicians (PCPs) is associated with negative health and productivity consequences. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) embedded mental health specialists and care managers in primary care to manage common psychiatric diseases. While challenging to implement, mental health integration is a team-based care model thought to improve clinician well-being. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between PCP-reported burnout (and secondarily, job satisfaction) and mental health integration at provider and clinic levels DESIGN: Analysis of 286 cross-sectional surveys in 2012 (n = 171) and 2013 (n = 115) PARTICIPANTS: 210 PCPs in one VA region MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were PCP-reported burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale), and secondarily, job satisfaction. Two independent variables represented mental health integration: (1) PCP-specialty communication rating and (2) proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. Using multilevel regression models, we examined PCP-reported burnout (and job satisfaction) and mental health integration, adjusting for PCP characteristics (e.g., gender), PCP ratings of team functioning (communication, knowledge/skills, satisfaction), and organizational factors. KEY RESULTS: On average, PCPs reported high burnout (29, range = 9-54) across all VA healthcare systems. In total, 46% of PCPs reported "very easy" communication with mental health; 9% of primary clinic patients had seen integrated specialists. Burnout was not significantly associated with mental health communication ratings (β coefficient = - 0.96, standard error [SE] = 1.29, p = 0.46), nor with proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists (β = 0.02, SE = 0.11, p = 0.88). No associations were observed with job satisfaction either. Among study participants, PCPs with poor team functioning, as exhibited by low team communication ratings, reported high burnout (β = - 1.28, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001) and low job satisfaction (β = 0.12, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As currently implemented, primary care and mental health integration did not appear to impact PCP-reported burnout, nor job satisfaction. More research is needed to explore care model variation among clinics in order to optimize implementation to enhance PCP well-being.