Literature Collection

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians adopt universal alcohol screening and brief intervention as a routine preventive service for adults, and efforts are underway to support its widespread dissemination. The likelihood that healthcare systems will sustain this change, once implemented, is under-reported in the literature. This article identifies factors that were important to postimplementation sustainability of an evidence-based practice change to address alcohol misuse that was piloted within three diverse primary care organizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded three academic teams to pilot and evaluate implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention within multiclinic healthcare systems in their respective regions. Following the completion of the pilots, teams used the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to retrospectively describe and compare differences across eight sustainability domains, identify strengths and potential threats to sustainability, and make recommendations for improvement. Health systems varied across all domains, with greatest differences noted for Program Evaluation, Strategic Planning, and Funding Stability. Lack of funding to sustain practice change, or data monitoring to promote fit and fidelity, was an indication of diminished Organizational Capacity in systems that discontinued the service after the pilot. Early assessment of sustainability factors may identify potential threats that could be addressed prior to, or during implementation to enhance Organizational Capacity. Although this study provides a retrospective assessment conducted by external academic teams, it identifies factors that may be relevant for translating evidence-based behavioral interventions in a way that assures that they are sustained within healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic and subsequent mortality is a national concern in the U.S. The burden of this problem is disproportionately high among low-income and uninsured populations who are more likely to experience unmet need for substance use services. We assessed the impact of two Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) substance use disorder (SUD) service capacity grants on SUD staffing and service use in HRSA -funded health centers (HCs). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of the Uniform Data System (UDS) from 2010 to 2017 to assess HC (n = 1,341) trends in capacity measured by supply of SUD and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) providers, utilization of SUD and MAT services, and panel size and visit ratio measured by the number of patients seen and visits delivered by SUD and MAT providers. We merged mortality and national survey data to incorporate SUD mortality and SUD treatment services availability, respectively. From 2010 to 2015, 20% of HC organizations had any SUD staff, had an average of one full-time equivalent SUD employee, and did not report an increase in SUD patients or SUD services. SUD capacity grew significantly in 2016 (43%) and 2017 (22%). MAT capacity growth was measured only in 2016 and 2017 and grew by 29% between those years. Receipt of both supplementary grants increased the probability of any SUD capacity by 35% (95% CI: 26%, 44%) and service use, but decreased the probability of SUD visit ratio by 680 visits (95% CI: -1,013, -347), compared to not receiving grants. CONCLUSIONS: The significant growth in HC specialized SUD capacity is likely due to supplemental SUD-specific HRSA grants and may vary by structure of grants. Expanding SUD capacity in HCs is an important step in increasing SUD access for low income and uninsured populations broadly and for patients of these organizations.

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.