Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: To respond to the U.S. opioid crisis, new models of healthcare delivery for opioid use disorder treatment are essential. We used a qualitative approach to describe the implementation of a low-threshold buprenorphine treatment program in an independent, community-based medical practice in Ithaca, NY. METHODS: We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with program staff, leadership, and external stakeholders. Then we analyzed these data using content analysis. We used purposeful sampling aiming for variation in job title for program staff, and in organizational affiliation for external stakeholders. RESULTS: We found that opening an independent medical practice allowed for low-threshold buprenorphine treatment with less regulatory oversight, but state-certification was ultimately required to ensure financial sustainability. Relying on health insurance reimbursement alone led to funding shortfalls and additional funding sources were also required. The practice's ability to build relationships with licensed substance use treatment programs, community organizations, the legal system, and government agencies in the region differed depending on how much these entities supported a harm reduction philosophy compared to abstinence-based treatment. Finally, expanding the practice to a second location in a different region, co-located with a syringe service program, required adapting to a new cultural and political environment. CONCLUSION: The results from this study provide insight about the challenges that independent medical practices might face in delivering low-threshold buprenorphine treatment. They support policy efforts to address the financial burdens associated with providing low-threshold buprenorphine therapy and inform the external relationships that other providers would need to consider when delivering novel treatment models.

This study explored the perspectives of interprofessional collaborative practice health care providers in 2 clinics in the southeastern United States. The research team conducted key stakeholder interviews with 22 health care providers between 2022 and 2023. Study findings revealed 4 themes: Interprofessional Team Roles, Value of Behavioral Health Integration, Holistic Patient-Centered Focus, and Empathy-Driven Health Care. Health care providers highlighted the importance of the resources available within the team and the role of empathy in establishing trust, respect, and care satisfaction among health care providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Awareness among medical specialists about patient work concerns is important because work and health are linked. In Clinical Work-Integrating Care (CWIC), specialists adopt the notion that work can affect health, and medical actions can affect work participation, and they act according to that notion. This study aims to assess the extent to which specialists provide CWIC and to obtain perceptions of medical specialists about their professional role-responsibility in providing CWIC. METHODS: This cross-sectional mixed-methods study involved quantitative questionnaires and qualitative interviews with medical specialists. The self-developed 18-item questionnaire evaluated the extent and type of CWIC provision (rating scale 0-4; Never = 0 to Always = 4) and how role-responsibility was perceived, while the interviews offered more in-depth insights. Descriptive statistics for the questionnaire data and thematic analyses for the interview data were applied. RESULTS: We attained 160 questionnaires (female 64%, 93% non-surgical specialists) and 11 interviews (female 64%, 91% non-surgical specialists). Specialists often asked patients about work (mean score 3.1), sometimes about work history (mean score 2.2) and the conversation about work was usually started by the specialist (mean score 2.9). Conversations about work often concerned the influence of work on disease (2.4) and the influence of disease (2.5) or treatment (2.1) on work ability, but rarely about the legal aspects related to sick leave (1.5). The specialists' perceived role-responsibility was summarized in three themes: 1) understanding that work and health (problems) are linked including asking patients about work and investigating work factors, 2) supporting work participation within a specialist's expertise including focus on patients' health and prevention of sick leave, and 3) possibilities and limitations of the healthcare system including work participation as treatment goal and cooperation with occupational health care. CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists in our survey usually asked about patients' work, but they often did not take a work history. Limitations within the healthcare system hinder comprehensive work-integrating support by specialists, defining the boundaries of CWIC to within hospital care.