Literature Collection

Telemedicine (TM) enabled by digital health technologies to provide medical services has been considered a key solution to increasing health care access in rural communities. With the immediate need for remote care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care systems have rapidly incorporated digital technologies to support the delivery of remote care options, including medication treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In responding to the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and scientific communities strongly support and advocate for greater use of TM-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to improve access to care and have suggested that broad use of TM during the pandemic should be sustained. Nevertheless, research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-based MOUD has been limited. To address this knowledge gap, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) funded (via the NIH HEAL Initiative) a study on Rural Expansion of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (Rural MOUD; CTN-0102) to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of adding TM-based MOUD to rural primary care for expanding access to MOUD. In preparation for this large-scale, randomized controlled trial incorporating TM in rural primary care, a feasibility study is being conducted to develop and pilot test implementation procedures. In this commentary, we share some of our experiences, which include several challenges, during the initial two-month period of the feasibility study phase. While these challenges could be due, at least in part, to adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic and new workflows to accommodate the study, they are notable and could have a substantial impact on the larger, planned pragmatic trial and on TM-based MOUD more broadly. Challenges include low rates of identification of risk for OUD from screening, low rates of referral to TM, digital device and internet access issues, workflow and capacity barriers, and insurance coverage. These challenges also highlight the lack of empirical guidance for best TM practice and quality remote care models. With TM expanding rapidly, understanding implementation and demonstrating what TM approaches are effective are critical for ensuring the best care for persons with OUD.

BACKGROUND: Historically, a first psychotic episode was thought to lead to lifelong disability. The advent of early intervention programs like Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) now offers the potential to change this trajectory. However, racial and ethnic minoritized populations in the United States may face barriers in accessing CSC treatment, may be treated differently when hospitalized, and may have poorer outcomes, possibly associated with differences in the use of follow-up outpatient programs. METHODS: A total of 275 individuals were identified aged 15-35 with a first hospitalization for psychosis between January 2019 and December 2020, who were treated in an urban public healthcare system with specialized inpatient and outpatient mental health services, including a CSC program. Inpatient care variables were examined using electronic medical records (EMR) for the index hospital stay. Follow-up data were obtained from the EMR, supplemented by insurance claims data over a 36-month post-discharge period. The primary predictor for care post initial hospitalization was race and ethnicity. Key outcomes included rehospitalization, emergency visits and number of follow-up outpatient behavioral health visits. Statistical analyses included negative binomial regression adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Descriptive analyses also compared the pre-pandemic (2019) and first-year pandemic (2020) cohorts (Tables 1b and 1c). RESULTS: While in the hospital, no significant disparities in care existed between racial and ethnic groups. Only 41 (14.9%) of the 275 patients were referred to the available coordinated specialty care (CSC) program, regardless of race or ethnicity. However, significant disparities in 36-month follow-up care across racial and ethnic groups were identified. Adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates, Black patients had significantly more rehospitalizations, emergency room visits, and behavioral health outpatient visits when compared to other race/ethnic groups (p<0.05). Additionally, those who used multiple substances, regardless of race and ethnicity, also had increased re-hospitalizations and outpatient behavioral health encounters (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The referral to state-of-the-art CSC care subsequent to a first hospitalization for psychosis is crucial for leading to good outcomes. In this cohort, race and ethnicity did not influence choice of referrals, but too few were made. More research is needed to determine if a lack of referral to a CSC programs could be a reason for repeated subsequent emergency room visits and hospitalizations. Education of referring clinicians at acute hospital settings may mitigate this problem. Independent factors that contributed to poorer long-term outcome included either identifying racially as Black, or being a person who abuses substances, regardless of racial identity.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the practice of using reported suicidal ideations (SI) as an important predictor of suicide and as a major indicator to decide the eligibility and priority of access to mental health services.FindingsExamples on the widespread use of SI in triage, screening, and management protocols of mental health presentations, both in emergency and community settings, are presented. Such widespread use comes in contrast to the evidence clearly indicating the limited utility of SI as a suicide predictor. SI limitations are expected when put in the larger context of the generalized failure of suicide prediction tools. The potential detrimental effects of an exaggerated SI status on several aspects of the clinical encounter are discussed. Finally, potential systemic downsides in humanitarian and resource-limited settings are hypothesized, such as hindering mental health integration into primary care, as well as over-reporting of SI by beneficiaries seeking aid and vulnerability status.ConclusionsSI still holds a "canonical" status as a risk indicator and triage guide. This exaggerated status, in addition to lacking evidence, can also lead to potential downsides, especially in overloaded health systems.