Literature Collection

INTRODUCTION: To address healthcare spending growth and coordinated primary care, most states in the United States have adopted patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). To evaluate urban rural difference on accessing PCMH among US children, particularly for children with developmental disabilities (DDs) and mental health disorders (MHDs). METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the 2016-2018 National Survey for Children's Health (NSCH). Multivariable adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between accessing PCMHs and rurality and mental/developmental conditions/disorders. RESULTS: Children with both DDs and MHDs were statistically significantly higher in rural areas (10.9% rural vs. 8.3% urban, p ≤ .001). Children in rural areas reported higher odds of accessing PCMHs (14%) among all U.S. children, but no differences by subgroups for children with MHDs and/or DDs. Compared with children without DDs/MHDs, the reduction in access to PCMHs varies by children's health status (41% reduction for children both DDs and MHDs, 25% reduction for children with MHDs without DDs) effects. Children with MHDs/DDs were less likely to receive family-centered care, care coordination, and referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvements through PCMHs could focus on family-centered care, care coordination, and referrals. Patient-centered medical home performance measurement could be improved to better measure mental health integration and geographical differences.

IMPORTANCE: Amid rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth-based opioid treatment (TBOT), there is an urgent need for rigorous studies exploring the feasibility and characteristics of urine drug screening (UDS). OBJECTIVE: To investigate administration patterns and results of UDS to assess feasibility of UDS and patient outcomes in a TBOT setting. DESIGN: This observational cohort study was conducted between January 1, 2021, and December 6, 2022, and included patients with opioid use disorder treated in Ophelia, a TBOT treatment platform in 14 states. Data analysis was performed from January to March 2023. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Number and percentage of patients with UDS within 30, 90, and 180 days of intake, grouped by adherence to clinical protocols. Associations were assessed between baseline characteristics and UDS completion and opioid positivity in first 30 days using χ2 tests. Baseline and 180-day follow-up UDS results were compared using McNemar tests. RESULTS: Among 3395 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [9.3] years, mostly male [54.1%], non-Hispanic White [81.5%], urban-residing [80.3%], and cash-pay at intake [74.0%]), 2782 (83.3%) completed a UDS within 30 days (90.0% among protocol-adherent patients, 67.0% among protocol-nonadherent patients). A total of 2750 of 2817 (97.6%) patients retained more than 90 days completed 1 or more UDS, as did 2307 of 2314 (99.7%) patients retained more than 180 days. Younger patients, patients of a racial and ethnic minority group, those living in urban areas, and cash-pay patients were less likely to complete a UDS in the first 30 days. Buprenorphine positivity increased (from 96.9% to 98.4%, P = .004) and opioid positivity declined (from 7.9% to 3.3%, P < .001) over time. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of patients with opioid use disorder receiving buprenorphine in a remote care environment, UDS was highly feasible, though early UDS completion rates varied across demographic subgroups. The prevalence of unexpected UDS results was low and declined over time in treatment.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based process healthcare personnel use to screen, manage, and triage patients struggling with substance use. The process requires clinic staff to furnish patients with structured screening questions. Providers can then offer treatment and mental health referral when indicated. Our team recently deployed a digital tablet-based version of the SBIRT screening questions in primary care. However, we needed to assess patient-reported usability of our approach because negative perceptions could limit clinic adoption, patient completion of the process, and effective referral. We, therefore, conducted a usability evaluation of our digital SBIRT screening instrument using a cross-sectional patient survey. Most participants (64.2%) reported completing the screening questions in under five minutes, with no reports of completion times exceeding fifteen minutes. Our results suggest the tablet-based SBIRT screener is easy to understand and can be efficiently completed before a clinical encounter. Furthermore, patients believed the digital SBIRT screener increases clinician awareness of patient health issues and promotes positive action. These findings support the continued use, wider adoption, and integration of digital SBIRT tools in clinical settings.