Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Few primary care (PC) practices treat patients with medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) despite availability of effective treatments. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether implementation of the Massachusetts model of nurse care management for OUD in PC increases OUD treatment with buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone and secondarily decreases acute care utilization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Primary Care Opioid Use Disorders Treatment (PROUD) trial was a mixed-methods, implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 6 diverse health systems across 5 US states (New York, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington). Two PC clinics in each system were randomized to intervention or usual care (UC) stratified by system (5 systems were notified on February 28, 2018, and 1 system with delayed data use agreement on August 31, 2018). Data were obtained from electronic health records and insurance claims. An implementation monitoring team collected qualitative data. Primary care patients were included if they were 16 to 90 years old and visited a participating clinic from up to 3 years before a system's randomization date through 2 years after. INTERVENTION: The PROUD intervention included 3 components: (1) salary for a full-time OUD nurse care manager; (2) training and technical assistance for nurse care managers; and (3) 3 or more PC clinicians agreeing to prescribe buprenorphine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a clinic-level measure of patient-years of OUD treatment (buprenorphine or extended-release injectable naltrexone) per 10 000 PC patients during the 2 years postrandomization (follow-up). The secondary outcome, among patients with OUD prerandomization, was a patient-level measure of the number of days of acute care utilization during follow-up. RESULTS: During the baseline period, a total of 130 623 patients were seen in intervention clinics (mean [SD] age, 48.6 [17.7] years; 59.7% female), and 159 459 patients were seen in UC clinics (mean [SD] age, 47.2 [17.5] years; 63.0% female). Intervention clinics provided 8.2 (95% CI, 5.4-∞) more patient-years of OUD treatment per 10 000 PC patients compared with UC clinics (P = .002). Most of the benefit accrued in 2 health systems and in patients new to clinics (5.8 [95% CI, 1.3-∞] more patient-years) or newly treated for OUD postrandomization (8.3 [95% CI, 4.3-∞] more patient-years). Qualitative data indicated that keys to successful implementation included broad commitment to treat OUD in PC from system leaders and PC teams, full financial coverage for OUD treatment, and straightforward pathways for patients to access nurse care managers. Acute care utilization did not differ between intervention and UC clinics (relative rate, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.47-2.92; P = .70). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PROUD cluster randomized clinical trial intervention meaningfully increased PC OUD treatment, albeit unevenly across health systems; however, it did not decrease acute care utilization among patients with OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03407638.

The aim of this Policy Watch column is to provide an update on a much anticipated legislation, enacted in 2016, which enabled office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) with buprenorphine prescribing for the treatment of opioid addiction by nurse practitioners (as well as physician assistants). First, an overview of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000, which only permitted OBOT prescribing by physicians, will be described. It will be followed by a summary of the Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act of 2015-2016. Finally, a review of the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act of 2016 will be provided, which includes information about important changes to OBOT regulations that enable NP prescribing of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid addiction.

BACKGROUND: As the fastest growing segment of the healthcare workforce, understanding NP enrollment is vital. PURPOSE: This work aimed to guide healthcare workforce forethought, academic planning, and policy initiatives. METHOD: This secondary data analysis investigated nurse practitioner (NP) program enrollment trends from 2013 to 2022, including sub-analyses of master's versus doctoral enrollment, clinical tracks (acute care, primary care, psychiatric mental health), and enrollment status (part-time vs. full-time). An autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) projection modeling is used to forecast enrollment for four years, 2023-2026. RESULTS: CONCLUSION: Increased enrollments in doctoral NP programs, visible in DNP NP program and enrollment growth, may offer advantages for the healthcare workforce. Part-time enrollment prevalence requires attention in workforce planning due to the potential for extended graduation timelines. These findings hopefully will lead to an effective healthcare response to meet the demand for high-quality care in a changing landscape.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide and the majority of AF patients are treated in primary care. In order to minimize hospitalizations and visits to emergency departments, nurse-led care was introduced in secondary care and primary health care (PHC). However, even though nurse-led care was initiated in PHC almost a decade ago, and ESC guidelines recommended patient-centered integrated care including PHC for patients, there seems to be a lack of scientific evidence regarding the effects. AIM: To review the scientific literature regarding the effects of nurse-led AF clinics in PHC. METHODS: A systematic review of scientific literature in Medline/Cinahl. Two reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles. RESULTS: Only one study was found that investigated the effectiveness of nurse-led structured AF management in PHC. The results from the study indicated positive effects; 45% reduction in all-cause mortality compared to usual care and significantly lower number of all-cause hospitalizations with nurse-led care. Several studies were found analyzing the effects of nurse-led AF-care in secondary care facilities, but only one in PHC setting. The results mainly showed that nurse-led care in AF-clinics in secondary care reduces mortality, hospitalizations and visits in emergency departments. CONCLUSIONS: Even though only one study focused on PHC, the review indicated positive effects of nurse-led care for AF patients. However, the results are only based on studies performed in inpatient care. Hence, no firm conclusion can be drawn about nurse-led AF-clinics in PHC, and more research is clearly needed in this area.