Literature Collection

The COVID-19 pandemic created significant mental stressors among patients, which had the potential to impede access to primary care behavioral health (PCBH) services through rapid unplanned shifts to telehealth. The authors utilized retrospective administrative data and patient surveys to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes of Jefferson Health PCBH pre- and post-COVID pandemic onset (Cohort 1 in person-only visits and Cohort 2 telemedicine-only visits). Using a retrospective cohort comparison study, outcomes included number of patients receiving PCBH in both cohorts, frequency of visits, no-show and cancellation rates, change in mean PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores for patients, changes in the levels of depression and anxiety severity using established severity levels, and patient satisfaction with telehealth (Cohort 2 only). Patients in Cohort 2 were significantly more likely to have an anxiety diagnosis, had a smaller average number of visits, and were more likely to have a cancelled appointment. Both cohorts had statistically significant improvements in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores. In regression analyses, treatment cohort was not a significant predictor of final PHQ-9 or GAD-7 score. More members of Cohort 2 reported severe anxiety at both initial and final measurements. Nearly all Cohort 2 patients agreed or strongly agreed that telehealth made it easier for them to obtain care, that the platform was easy to use, and the visit was effective. Overall, PCBH telehealth services post-COVID-19 onset were feasible, acceptable to patients, and yielded similar clinical improvements to in-person behavioral health visits conducted before the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) rates are high among veterans. PTSD is also prevalent among veterans; those with comorbidity have worse outcomes than those without comorbidity. This study assessed buprenorphine retention rates in veterans initiating OUD treatment, comparing veterans without PTSD to veterans with PTSD who were receiving versus not receiving concurrent trauma treatment. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined consecutive referrals to buprenorphine maintenance (N=140). PTSD diagnosis was identified by chart review and retention was defined as continuous buprenorphine maintenance 6-months post-admission. Logistic regression analyses compared buprenorphine retention for veterans without PTSD and PTSD-diagnosed veterans who received concurrent trauma treatment to a reference group of PTSD-diagnosed veterans who did not receive trauma treatment. Models adjusted for opioid type, age, and service-connected status. RESULTS: Sixty-seven (47.9%) buprenorphine-seeking veterans carried a PTSD diagnosis; only 31.3% (n=21) received trauma treatment while in buprenorphine maintenance, with 11.9% (n=8) receiving evidence-based psychotherapy for PTSD. Among PTSD-diagnosed veterans who received trauma treatment, 90.5% (n=19/21) were in buprenorphine maintenance at 6-months, compared to 23.9% (n=11/46) of PTSD-diagnosed veterans without trauma treatment, and 46.6% (n=34/73) of veterans without PTSD. In the full model, veterans with trauma treatment had 43.36 times greater odds of remaining in buprenorphine treatment than the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: Most PTSD-diagnosed veterans in buprenorphine treatment were not receiving trauma treatment. Those receiving concurrent trauma treatment had better retention, suggesting OUD and trauma can be simultaneously addressed. Future clinical trials should investigate trauma-focused treatment for veterans with comorbid PTSD who are seeking buprenorphine for OUD.