Literature Collection

Background: Opioid overdose deaths constitute a public health crisis in the United States. Strategies for reducing opioid-related harm are underutilized due in part to clinicians' low knowledge about harm reduction theory and limited preparedness to prescribe naloxone. Educational interventions are needed to improve knowledge and attitudes about, and preparedness to address, opioid overdoses among medical students. Methods: Informed by the Department of Veterans Affairs' Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program and narrative medicine, we developed and led a mandatory workshop on harm reduction for clerkship medical students. Using validated scales, we assessed students' knowledge and attitudes about, and preparedness to address, opioid overdoses before the workshop and 6 weeks after. Results: Of 75 participating students from February through December 2017, 55 (73%) completed pre-workshop and 38 (51%) completed both pre- and post-workshop surveys. At baseline, 40 (73%) encountered patients with perceived at-risk opioid use in the previous 6 weeks, but only 11 (20%) recalled their teams prescribing naloxone for overdose prevention. Among those completing both surveys, knowledge about and preparedness to prevent overdose showed large improvement (Cohen's d = 0.85, P < .001; Cohen's d = 1.24, P < .001, respectively) and attitudes showed moderate improvement (Cohen's d = 0.32, P = .04). Discussion: Educational interventions grounded in harm reduction theory can increase students' knowledge and attitudes about, and preparedness to address, opioid overdoses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorders are at an increased risk for overdose death if they had a previous overdose, have co-occurring medical and psychiatric comorbidity, and are high-dose opioid users transitioning to relative abstinence or abstinence, i.e., those individuals discharging from drug treatment programs. Despite the success of opioid overdose prevention programs utilizing naloxone, residential substance abuse treatment centers often emphasize abstinence-based care for those suffering from addiction and do not adopt harm reduction approaches such as naloxone education and distribution. This performance improvement project reports the implementation of an opioid overdose prevention program provided to patients and their family members in a residential treatment setting. METHODS: Opioid-dependent inpatients (N = 47) along with their family members received overdose prevention training consistent with guidelines established by the Harm Reduction Coalition. Patient family members were queried regarding their awareness of past opioid overdose by the patient. A pre- and post-training questionnaire based on a 5-point Likert scale assessing ability to recognize overdose, fear of overdose, comfort in assisting with overdose, perception of life-threatening nature of addiction, and the value of overdose management was administered. Pre and post scores for each Likert scale were analyzed using paired 2-tailed t tests. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of patient family members were aware that the patient had a prior overdose. Statistically significant improvements in the ability of patients and families to recognize an opioid overdose as well as in their comfort to assist with an overdose were demonstrated. The pre- and post-education responses were both notably high for perceived value in learning about overdose and prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of opioid overdose prevention programs within residential treatment programs, sober living homes, and therapeutic communities would be well received and is strongly encouraged.

Equips health care providers, communities and local governments with material to develop practices and policies to help prevent opioid-related overdoses and deaths. Addresses issues for health care providers, first responders, treatment providers, and those recovering from opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose deaths have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. This problem stems from both licit and illicit opioid use. Prescribing opioids, recognizing risky use, and initiating prevention, including opioid overdose prevention training (OOPT), are key roles physicians play. The American Heart Association (AHA) modified their basic life support (BLS) algorithms to consider naloxone in high-risk populations and when a pulse is appreciated; however, the AHA did not provide OOPT. The authors' intervention filled this training deficiency by teaching medical students opioid overdose resuscitation with a Train-the-Trainer model as part of mandatory BLS training. METHODS: The authors introduced OOPT, following a Train-the-Trainer model, into the required basic life support (BLS) training for first-year medical students at a single medical school in a large urban area. The authors administered pre- and post-evaluations to assess the effects of the training on opioid overdose knowledge, self-reported preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses, and attitudes towards patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). RESULTS: In the fall 2014, 120 first-year medical students received OOPT. Seventy-three students completed both pre- and posttraining evaluations. Improvements in knowledge about and preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses were statistically significant (P < .01) and large (Cohen's D = 2.70 and Cohen's D = 2.10, respectively). There was no statistically significant change in attitudes toward patients with SUDs. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrated the effectiveness of OOPT as an adjunct to BLS in increasing knowledge about and preparedness to respond to opioid overdoses; improving attitudes toward patients with SUDs likely requires additional intervention. The authors will characterize knowledge and preparedness durability, program sustainability, and long-term changes in attitudes in future evaluations. These results support dissemination of OOPT as a part of BLS training for all medical students, and potentially all BLS providers.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines advise decreasing opioids for chronic pain, but there is no guidance on implementation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic in decreasing opioid dose and mitigating opioid risk. DESIGN: This study prospectively compared two matched cohorts receiving chronic pain care through IPT (N = 147) versus usual primary care (UPC, N = 147) over 6 months. Patients were matched on age, sex, psychiatric diagnoses, and baseline opioid dose. PATIENTS: Veterans receiving care at a VA medical center or VA community-based clinics. INTERVENTION: Interdisciplinary IPT, consisting of a collocated medical provider, psychologist, and pharmacist embedded in VA primary care providing short-term biopsychosocial management of veterans with chronic pain and problematic opioid use. MAIN MEASURES: Change in opioid dose expressed as morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) and opioid risk mitigation evaluated at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Compared with veterans receiving UPC, those followed by IPT had a greater mean MEDD decrease of 42 mg versus 8 mg after 3 months and 56 mg versus 17 mg after 6 months. In adjusted analysis, compared with UPC, veterans in IPT achieved a 34-mg greater mean reduction at 3 months (p = 0.002) and 38-mg greater mean reduction at 6 months (p = 0.003). Nearly twice as many patients receiving care through IPT versus UPC reduced their daily opioid dose by ≥50%, representing more than a two-fold improvement at 3 months, which was sustained at 6 months [odds ratio = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.04-3.95, p = 0.04]. Significant improvements were also demonstrated in opioid risk mitigation by 6 months, including increased urine drug screen monitoring, naloxone kit distribution, and decreased co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interdisciplinary biopsychosocial models of pain care can be embedded in primary care and lead to significant improvements in opioid dose and risk mitigation.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines advise decreasing opioids for chronic pain, but there is no guidance on implementation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic in decreasing opioid dose and mitigating opioid risk. DESIGN: This study prospectively compared two matched cohorts receiving chronic pain care through IPT (N = 147) versus usual primary care (UPC, N = 147) over 6 months. Patients were matched on age, sex, psychiatric diagnoses, and baseline opioid dose. PATIENTS: Veterans receiving care at a VA medical center or VA community-based clinics. INTERVENTION: Interdisciplinary IPT, consisting of a collocated medical provider, psychologist, and pharmacist embedded in VA primary care providing short-term biopsychosocial management of veterans with chronic pain and problematic opioid use. MAIN MEASURES: Change in opioid dose expressed as morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) and opioid risk mitigation evaluated at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Compared with veterans receiving UPC, those followed by IPT had a greater mean MEDD decrease of 42 mg versus 8 mg after 3 months and 56 mg versus 17 mg after 6 months. In adjusted analysis, compared with UPC, veterans in IPT achieved a 34-mg greater mean reduction at 3 months (p = 0.002) and 38-mg greater mean reduction at 6 months (p = 0.003). Nearly twice as many patients receiving care through IPT versus UPC reduced their daily opioid dose by >/=50%, representing more than a two-fold improvement at 3 months, which was sustained at 6 months [odds ratio = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.04-3.95, p = 0.04]. Significant improvements were also demonstrated in opioid risk mitigation by 6 months, including increased urine drug screen monitoring, naloxone kit distribution, and decreased co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interdisciplinary biopsychosocial models of pain care can be embedded in primary care and lead to significant improvements in opioid dose and risk mitigation.