Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Mental illness poses a large and growing disease burden worldwide. Its management is increasingly provided by primary care. The prescribing of psychotropic drugs in general practice has risen in recent decades, and variation in prescribing rates has been identified by a number of studies. It is unclear which factors lead to this variation. AIM: To describe the variables that cause variation in prescribing rates for psychotropic drugs between general practices. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted in January 2018 by searching electronic databases using the PRISMA statement. Studies investigating causal factors for variation in psychotropic prescribing between at least two general practice sites were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Prescribing rates varied considerably between practices. Positive associations were found for many variables, including social deprivation, ethnicity, patient age and gender, urban location, co-morbidities, chronic diseases and GP demographics. However studies show conflicting findings, and no single regression model explained more than 57% of the variation in prescribing rates. DISCUSSION: There is no consensus on the factors that most predict prescribing rates. Most research was conducted in countries with central electronic databases, such as the United Kingdom; it is unclear whether these findings apply in other healthcare systems. More research is needed to determine the variables that explain prescribing rates for psychotropic medications.

The mental status examination relies on the physician's clinical judgment for observation and interpretation. When concerns about a patient's cognitive functioning arise in a clinical encounter, further evaluation is indicated. This can include evaluation of a targeted cognitive domain or the use of a brief cognitive screening tool that evaluates multiple domains. To avoid affecting the examination results, it is best practice to ensure that the patient has a comfortable, nonjudgmental environment without any family member input or other distractions. An abnormal response in a domain may suggest a possible diagnosis, but neither the mental status examination nor any cognitive screening tool alone is diagnostic for any condition. Validated cognitive screening tools, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination or the St. Louis University Mental Status Examination, can be used; the tools vary in sensitivity and specificity for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia. There is emerging evidence for the validity of cognitive screening performed during telemedicine visits, but it should not replace in-person evaluation of patients who have comorbidities that would preclude reliable testing via telephone or video. The workup after abnormal results of a mental status examination or cognitive screening tool is based on clinical judgment and primarily focuses on ruling out reversible causes of impairment and considering the need for further neuropsychiatric evaluation.

Background: Currently, the capacity to provide buprenorphine treatment (BT) is not sufficient to treat the growing number of people in the United States with opioid use disorder (OUD). We sought to examine participant retention in care rates of primary care delivered BT programs and to describe factors associated with retention/attrition for participants receiving BT in this setting.Objectives: A PRISMA-guided search of various databases was performed to identify the articles focusing on efficacy of BT treatment and OUD.Method: A systematic literature search identified 15 studies examining retention in care in the primary care setting between 2002 and 2020. Random effects meta-regression were used to identify retention rates across studies.Results: Retention rates decreased across time with a mean 0.52 rate at one year. Several factors were found to be related to retention, including: race, use of other drugs, receipt of counseling, and previous treatment with buprenorphine.Conclusions: While we only investigate BT through primary care, our findings indicate retention rates are equivalent to the rates reported in the specialty care literature. More work is needed to examine factors that may impact primary care delivered BT specifically and differentiate participants that may benefit from care delivered in specialty over primary care as well as the converse.

IMPORTANCE: Methadone access may be uniquely vulnerable to disruption during COVID-19, and even short delays in access are associated with decreased medication initiation and increased illicit opioid use and overdose death. Relative to Canada, US methadone provision is more restricted and limited to specialized opioid treatment programs. OBJECTIVE: To compare timely access to methadone initiation in the US and Canada during COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from May to June 2020. Participating clinics provided methadone for opioid use disorder in 14 US states and territories and 3 Canadian provinces with the highest opioid overdose death rates. Statistical analysis was performed from July 2020 to January 2021. EXPOSURES: Nation and type of health insurance (US Medicaid and US self-pay vs Canadian provincial). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of clinics accepting new patients and days to first appointment. RESULTS: Among 268 of 298 US clinics contacted as a patient with Medicaid (90%), 271 of 301 US clinics contacted as a self-pay patient (90%), and 237 of 288 Canadian clinics contacted as a patient with provincial insurance (82%), new patients were accepted for methadone at 231 clinics (86%) during US Medicaid contacts, 230 clinics (85%) during US self-pay contacts, and at 210 clinics (89%) during Canadian contacts. Among clinics not accepting new patients, at least 44% of 27 clinics reported that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason. The mean wait for first appointment was greater among US Medicaid contacts (3.5 days [95% CI, 2.9-4.2 days]) and US self-pay contacts (4.1 days [95% CI, 3.4-4.8 days]) than Canadian contacts (1.9 days [95% CI, 1.7-2.1 days]) (P < .001). Open-access model (walk-in hours for new patients without an appointment) utilization was reported by 57 Medicaid (30%), 57 self-pay (30%), and 115 Canadian (59%) contacts offering an appointment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of 2 nations, more than 1 in 10 methadone clinics were not accepting new patients. Canadian clinics offered more timely methadone access than US opioid treatment programs. These results suggest that the methadone access shortage was exacerbated by COVID-19 and that changes to the US opioid treatment program model are needed to improve the timeliness of access. Increased open-access model adoption may increase timely access.