Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment? METHODS: To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components. RESULTS: We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions. CONCLUSION: While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.

The fragmented U.S. healthcare system impedes youth and young adults with substance use disorders (SUD) from accessing treatment and wrap-around services to support long-term recovery. This qualitative study aimed to inform the design of an integrated system of care for youth and young adults with a SUD and identify pain points and cost drivers across stakeholders. Researchers conducted listening sessions with community members (n=139) and individual interviews with SUD clinicians (n=17). Findings revealed pain points related to treatment initiation, issues during treatment, and concerns during the recovery process. System-level cost drivers included human capital, multiple treatment episodes, and inefficient workflow processes. Study findings highlight the need for a systems-level intervention focused on improving coordinated care across service providers, decreasing duplication of assessment protocols, and developing a client-centered care system. Data informed the development of a youth-oriented SUD system of care model.

OBJECTIVES: In response to rural communities and practice concerns related to opioid use disorder (OUD), the Implementing Technology and Medication Assisted Treatment Team Training in Rural Colorado study (IT MATTTRs) developed a training intervention for full primary care practice (PCP) teams in MAT for OUD. This evaluation reports on training implementation, participant satisfaction, and impact on perceived ability to deliver MAT. METHODS: PCPs in the High Plains Research Network and Colorado Research Network were randomized to receive team training either in-person or through virtual tele-mentoring. Training attendance logs recorded the number of participants and their roles. Participants completed a survey within one month of the last training session to evaluate satisfaction and ability to deliver components of MATs. RESULTS: 441 team members at 42 PCPs were trained, including 22% clinicians, 47% clinical support staff, 24% administrative support staff. Survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction, including 82% reporting improved understanding of the topic, and 68% identifying actions to apply information. Self-rated ability was significantly higher after training for all items (P < .0001), including ability to identify patients for MAT and to manage patients receiving MAT. Mean change scores, adjusted for role, were significantly greater for all measures (P < .001) in SOuND practices compared to ECHO practices. CONCLUSIONS: The IT MATTTRs Practice Team Training successfully engaged PCP team members in diverse roles in MAT for OUD training and increased self-efficacy to deliver MAT. Results support the training as a resource for a team-based approach to build rural practices' capacity to deliver MAT.