Imara I. West

Brief Intervention for Problem Drug Use in Safety-Net Primary Care Settings: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance). OBJECTIVE To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points. INTERVENTIONS Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior. RESULTS Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Are medical marijuana users different from recreational users? The view from primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Marijuana is currently approved for medical use in 23 states. Both clinicians and the lay public have questioned whether users of marijuana for medical purposes are different from users of marijuana for recreational purposes. This study examined similarities and differences in important clinical characteristics between users of medical marijuana and users of recreational marijuana. METHODS The sample consisted of 868 adult primary care patients in Washington State, who reported use of medical marijuana (n = 131), recreational marijuana (n = 525), or drugs other than marijuana (n = 212). Retention was over 87% at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month assessments. RESULTS The majority of medical, psychiatric, substance use, and service utilization characteristic comparisons were not significant. However, medical marijuana users had significantly more medical problems, a significantly larger proportion reported >15 days medical problems in the past month, and significantly smaller proportions reported no pain and no mobility limitations (p < .001). Medical marijuana users also had significantly lower drug problem severity, lower alcohol problem severity, and significantly larger proportions reported using marijuana alone and concomitant opioid use only (p < .001). There was no significant difference between medical and recreational users in the percentage using marijuana with at least two additional substances (48% vs. 58%, respectively, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE Although our results suggest that there are few distinct differences between medical and recreational users of marijuana, the differences observed, while mostly very small in effect size (<.2), are consistent with at least some medical users employing marijuana to relieve symptoms and distress associated with medical illness.

Risk for physical restraint or seclusion in the psychiatric emergency service (PES)

OBJECTIVE We describe risk factors associated with patients experiencing physical restraint or seclusion in the psychiatric emergency service (PES). METHODS We retrospectively reviewed medical records, nursing logs and quality assurance data for all adult patient encounters in a PES over a 12-month period (June 1, 2011-May 31, 2012). Descriptors included demographic characteristics, diagnoses, laboratory values, and clinician ratings of symptom severity. χ(2) and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS Restraint/seclusion occurred in 14% of 5335 patient encounters. The following characteristics were associated with restraint/seclusion: arrival to the PES in restraints; referral not initiated by the patient; arrival between 1900 and 0059 hours; bipolar mania or mixed episode; and clinician rating of severe disruptiveness, psychosis or insight impairment. Severe suicidality and a depression diagnosis were associated with less risk of restraint or seclusion. CONCLUSION Acute symptomatology and characteristics of the encounter were more likely to be associated with restraint/seclusion than patient demographics or diagnoses. These findings support recent guidelines for the treatment of agitation and can help clinicians identify patients at risk of behavioral decompensation.

A randomized controlled trial of intensive care management for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries with high health care costs.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes of a registered nurse-led care management intervention for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries with high health care costs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Client Outcomes Database, 2008-2011. STUDY DESIGN In a randomized controlled trial with intent-to-treat analysis, outcomes were compared for the intervention (n = 557) and control groups (n = 563). A quasi-experimental subanalysis compared outcomes for program participants (n = 251) and propensity score-matched controls (n = 251). DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS Administrative data were linked to describe costs and use of health services, criminal activity, homelessness, and death. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS In the intent-to-treat analysis, the intervention group had higher odds of outpatient mental health service use and higher prescription drug costs than controls in the postperiod. In the subanalysis, participants had fewer unplanned hospital admissions and lower associated costs; higher prescription drug costs; higher odds of long-term care service use; higher drug/alcohol treatment costs; and lower odds of homelessness. CONCLUSIONS We found no health care cost savings for disabled Medicaid beneficiaries randomized to intensive care management. Among participants, care management may have the potential to increase access to needed care, slow growth in the number and therefore cost of unplanned hospitalizations, and prevent homelessness. These findings apply to start-up care management programs targeted at high-cost, high-risk Medicaid populations.

Utility of Point-of-care Urine Drug Tests in the Treatment of Primary Care Patients With Drug Use Disorders.

Objectives:To determine if urine drug tests (UDTs) can detect under-reporting of drug use (ie, negative self-report, but positive UDT) and identify patient characteristics associated with underreporting when treating substance use disorders in primary care. Methods:Self-reported use (last 30 d) and UDTs were gathered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from 829 primary care patients participating in a drug use intervention study. Rates of under-reporting were calculated for all drugs, cannabis, stimulants, opioids, and sedatives. Logistic regressions were used to identify characteristics associated with under-reporting. Results:Among the participants, 40% (n = 331) denied drug use in the prior 30 days despite a corresponding positive UDT during at least 1 assessment. Levels of under-reporting during 1 or more assessments were 3% (n = 22) for cannabis, 20% (n = 167) for stimulants, 27% (n = 226) for opioids, and 13% (n = 106) for sedatives. Older (odds ratio [OR] 1.04), female (OR 1.66), or disabled (OR 1.42) individuals were more likely to under-report any drug use. Under-reporting of stimulant use was also more likely in individuals with lower levels of educational attainment, previous arrests, and family and social problems. Under-reporting of opioid use was more likely in those with other drug problems, but less likely in those with better physical health, more severe alcohol and psychiatric comorbidities, and African-Americans. Conclusions:With the exception of cannabis, UDTs are important assessment tools when treating drug use disorders in primary care. UDTs might be particularly helpful when treating patients who are older, female, disabled, have legal and social problems, and have more severe drug problems.

Correlates of opioid use in adults with self-reported drug use recruited from public safety-net primary care clinics

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to compare demographic, clinical, and survival characteristics of drug-using safety-net primary care patients who used or did not use opioids, and to examine treatment implications of our findings. Methods:The sample consisted of 868 adults who reported illicit drug use in the 90 days before study enrollment, 396 (45.6%) of whom were opioid users. Results:Multiple measures indicated that, as a group, opioid users were less physically and psychiatrically healthy than drug users who did not endorse using opioids, and were heavy users of medical services (eg, emergency departments, inpatient hospitals, and outpatient medical) at considerable public expense. After adjusting for age, they were 2.61 (confidence interval, 1.48–4.61) times more likely to die in the 1 to 5 years after study enrollment and more likely to die from accidental poisoning than nonopioid users. Subgroup analyses suggested patients using any nonprescribed opioids had more serious drug problems including more intravenous drug use and greater HIV risk than patients using opioids only as prescribed. Conclusions:Use of opioids adds a dimension of severity over and above illicit drug use as it presents in the primary care setting. Opioid users may benefit from psychiatric and addiction care integrated into their primary care setting, naloxone overdose prevention kits, and prevention efforts such as clean needle exchanges. Addiction or primary care providers are in a key position to facilitate change among such patients, especially the third or more opioid users having a goal of abstinence from drugs.

Who's Boarding in the Psychiatric Emergency Service?

Introduction When a psychiatric patient in the emergency department requires inpatient admission, but no bed is available, they may become a “boarder.” The psychiatric emergency service (PES) has been suggested as one means to reduce psychiatric boarding, but the frequency and characteristics of adult PES boarders have not been described. Methods We electronically extracted electronic medical records for adult patients presenting to the PES in an urban county safety-net hospital over 12 months. Correlative analyses included Student’s t-tests and multivariate regression. Results 521 of 5363 patient encounters (9.7%) resulted in boarding. Compared to non-boarding encounters, boarding patient encounters were associated with diagnoses of a primary psychotic, anxiety, or personality disorder, or a bipolar manic/mixed episode. Boarders were also more likely to be referred by family, friends or providers than self-referred; arrive in restraints; experience restraint/seclusion in the PES; or be referred for involuntary hospitalization. Boarders were more likely to present to the PES on the weekend. Substance use was common, but only tobacco use was more likely associated with boarding status in multivariate analysis. Conclusion Boarding is common in the PES, and boarders have substantial psychiatric morbidity requiring treatment during extended PES stays. We question the appropriateness of PES boarding for seriously ill psychiatric patients.

Clinical Needs of Patients with Problem Drug Use

Introduction: Illicit drug use is a serious public health problem associated with significant co-occurring medical disorders, mental disorders, and social problems. Yet most individuals with drug use disorders have never been treated, though they often seek medical treatment in primary care. The purpose of this study was to examine the baseline characteristics of people presenting in primary care with a range of problem drug use severity to identify their clinical needs. Methods: We examined sociodemographic characteristics, medical and psychiatric comorbidities, drug use severity, social and legal problems, and service utilization for 868 patients with drug problems. These patients were recruited from primary care clinics in a medical safety net setting. Based on Drug Abuse Screening Test results, individuals were categorized as having low, intermediate, or substantial/severe drug use severity. Results: Patients with substantial/severe drug use severity had serious drug use (opiates, stimulants, sedatives, intravenous drugs); high levels of homelessness (50%), psychiatric comorbidity (69%), and arrests for serious crimes (24%); and frequent use of expensive emergency department and inpatient hospitals. Patients with low drug use severity were primarily users of marijuana, with little reported use of other drugs, less psychiatric comorbidity, and more stable lifestyles. Patients with intermediate drug use severity fell in between the substantial/severe and low drug use severity subgroups on most variables. Conclusions: Patients with the highest drug use severity are likely to require specialized psychiatric and substance abuse care, in addition to ongoing medical care that is equipped to address the consequences of severe/substantial drug use, including intravenous drug use. Because of their milder symptoms, patients with low drug use severity may benefit from a collaborative care model that integrates psychiatric and substance abuse care in the primary care setting. Patients with intermediate drug use severity may benefit from selective application of interventions suggested for patients with the highest and lowest drug use severity. Primary care safety net clinics are in a key position to serve patients with problem drug use by developing a range of responses that are locally effective and that may also inform national efforts to establish patient-centered medical homes and to implement the Affordable Care Act.

Chronic Disease and Chemical Dependency Treatment in Primary Care Patients With Problem Drug Use

This article examines whether chronic disease is associated with chemical dependency treatment in primary care patients with problem drug use. Chronic disease was common in 781 disadvantaged individuals who had problem drug use and were seen in primary care clinics affiliated with a public safety-net hospital. Individuals had, on average, 5.4 chronic medical conditions, and overall 57% had low severity chronic disease. In the year following enrollment, 14% had chemical dependency treatment. Severity of chronic disease was not associated with chemical dependency treatment (p = .26). In summary, chronic disease neither hindered chemical dependency treatment, nor did it facilitate such treatment.

Use of an electronic health record data sharing system for identifying current contraceptive use within the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the ability of electronic health record (EHR) data extracted into a data-sharing system to accurately identify contraceptive use. STUDY DESIGN We compared rates of contraceptive use from electronic extraction of EHR data via a data-sharing system and manual abstraction of the EHR among 142 female patients ages 15-49 years from a family medicine clinic within a primary care practice-based research network (PBRN). Cohens kappa coefficient measured agreement between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. RESULTS Manual abstraction identified 62% of women as contraceptive users, whereas electronic extraction identified only 27%. Long acting reversible (LARC) methods had 96% agreement (Cohens kappa 0.78; confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) between electronic extraction and manual abstraction. EHR data extracted via a data-sharing system was unable to identify barrier or over-the-counter contraceptives. CONCLUSIONS Electronic extraction found substantially lower overall rates of contraceptive method use, but produced more comparable LARC method use rates when compared to manual abstraction among women in this studys primary care clinic. IMPLICATIONS Quality metrics related to contraceptive use that rely on EHR data in this studys data-sharing system likely under-estimated true contraceptive use.