Stephen R. Holt

Prevalence of Unhealthy Substance Use on Teaching and Hospitalist Medical Services: Implications for Education

The prevalence of unhealthy substance use (USU) among medical inpatients can vary, and prior research has not characterized the prevalence of USU among patients cared for by a teaching service (TS) and a nonteaching hospitalist service (NTHS). The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of USU among patients cared for by a TS and an NTHS. We conducted a cross-sectional study from February to June 2009 at a community teaching hospital. Within 24 hours of admission, all eligible internal medicine admissions to the TS or NTHS were screened for USU, using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption and Drug Abuse Screening Test. Patients screening positive then underwent a diagnostic interview and blinded chart review to increase case finding and to assess whether each patients admission was related to USU. There were 414 eligible and consenting patients out of 656 patients identified. Patients on the TS were younger and more likely to be current smokers, male, unmarried, non-white, and unemployed (p<.01 for all comparisons). TS patients were more likely to have evidence of USU (29.2% vs. 12.3%; p<.01). Among all admissions to the TS, 22.2% were deemed to be probably or possibly due to USU, as compared with only 3.7% of admissions to the NTHS (p<.01). Medical TSs care for a greater share of patients with USU as compared with an NTHS. These data highlight the need for expanded medical resident training in the diagnosis and management of USU.

Instruments to assess patient-reported safety, efficacy, or misuse of current opioid therapy for chronic pain: A systematic review

&NA; Systematic review of the literature identified 14 studies of 9 instruments assessing patient‐reported safety, efficacy, or misuse of current opioid therapy for chronic pain, none of which had been tested in clinical practice. &NA; The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and critically appraise research developing or validating instruments to assess patient‐reported safety, efficacy, and/or misuse in ongoing opioid therapy for chronic pain. Our search included the following datasets: OvidSP MEDLINE (1946‐August 2012), OvidSP PsycINFO (1967‐August 2012), Elsevier Scopus (1947‐August 2012), OvidSP HaPI (1985‐August 2012), and EBSCO CINAHL (1981‐August 2012). Eligible studies were published in English and pertained to adult, nonsurgical/interventional populations. Two authors independently assessed inclusion criteria. Each study was evaluated by 2 authors to assess the sources and content of items, types of psychometric tests, their results, and quality of diagnostic accuracy testing, when applicable. Of 1874 citations found in the initial search, we identified 14 studies meeting our inclusion criteria, describing 9 different instruments. Individual items were derived from surveys of content experts, literature reviews, and adapted non‐patient‐reported items. Misuse‐related items were most prevalent (60/144; 42%), followed by safety (47/144; 33%), with efficacy having the fewest items (17/144; 12%). The studies employed a wide variety of psychometric tests, with most demonstrating statistical significance, but several potential sources of bias and generalizability limitations were identified. Lack of testing in clinical practice limited assessment of feasibility. The dearth of safety and efficacy items and lack of testing in clinical practice demonstrates areas for further research.

Caring for patients with opioid use disorder in the hospital

Opioid use disorder refers to a problematic pattern of opioid use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , fifth edition (DSM-5).[1][1] The term “opioid” refers to any substance that acts at opioid

The Addiction Recovery Clinic: A Novel, Primary-Care-Based Approach to Teaching Addiction Medicine.

PROBLEM Substance use is highly prevalent in the United States, but little time in the curriculum is devoted to training internal medicine residents in addiction medicine. APPROACH In 2014, the authors developed and launched the Addiction Recovery Clinic (ARC) to address this educational gap while also providing outpatient clinical services to patients with substance use disorders. The ARC is embedded within the residency primary care practice and is staffed by three to four internal medicine residents, two board-certified addiction medicine specialists, one chief resident, and one psychologist. Residents spend one half-day per week for four consecutive weeks at the ARC seeing new and returning patients. Services provided include pharmacological and behavioral treatments for opioid, alcohol, and other substance use disorders, with direct referral to local addiction treatment facilities as needed. Visit numbers, a patient satisfaction survey, and an end-of-rotation resident evaluation were used to assess the ARC. OUTCOMES From 2014 to 2015, 611 patient encounters occurred, representing 97 new patients. Sixty-one (63%) patients were seen for opioid use disorder. According to patient satisfaction surveys, 29 (of 31; 94%) patients reported that the ARC probably or definitely helped them to cope with their substance use. Twenty-eight residents completed the end-of-rotation evaluation; all rated the rotation highly. NEXT STEPS The ARC offers a unique primary-care-based approach to exposing internal medicine residents to the knowledge and skills necessary to diagnose, treat, and prevent unhealthy substance use. Future research will examine other clinical and educational outcomes.

Interpreting quantitative urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels in office-based clinical practice

BACKGROUND Quantitative urine buprenorphine testing is used to monitor patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), however the interpretation of urine buprenorphine testing is complex. Currently, interpretation of quantitative buprenorphine testing is guided by data from drug assay development studies and forensic labs rather than clinical treatment cohorts. METHODS In this retrospective study, we describe the patterns of urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels in patients prescribed sublingual buprenorphine for OUD in an office-based addiction treatment clinic. Urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels were analyzed in patients who reported having adulterated their urine, patients clinically suspected of adulterating their urine, and patients without concern for urine adulteration. Finally, we tested the accuracy of urine buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine: buprenorphine ratio (Norbup:Bup) to identify adulterated urine samples. RESULTS Patients without suspicion for urine adulteration rarely provided specimens with buprenorphine >=1000ng/ml (4.4%), while the proportion provided by those who endorsed or were suspected of urine adulteration was higher (42.9%, 40.6%, respectively). Compared to patients without reported urine adulteration, specimens from patients who reported or were suspected of urine adulteration had significantly higher buprenorphine (p=0.0001) and lower norbuprenorphine (<0.0001) levels, and significantly lower Norbup:Bup ratios (p=0.04). Buprenorphine >=700ng/ml offered the best accuracy for discriminating between adulterated and non-adulterated specimens. CONCLUSION This study describes the patterns of urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels from patients with OUD receiving buprenorphine treatment in an office-based addiction treatment clinic. Parameters for identifying urine adulterated by submerging buprenorphine medication in the urine specimen are discussed.

Physician detection of unhealthy substance use on inpatient teaching and hospitalist medical services.

Background: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment for substance use depends on reliable identification. The goal of this study was to determine the rate of detection of unhealthy substance use by physicians on teaching and nonteaching medical services at a community teaching hospital. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to June 2009. All new medicine admissions to the Teaching Service or the nonteaching Hospitalist Service were assessed for unhealthy substance use using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) and Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST). All patients identified with substance use completed the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Medical record review was also performed to assess physician documentation. Results: Of 442 eligible patients, 414 consented to participate. Patients on the Teaching Service were more likely to be male, younger, unmarried, non-white, uninsured or receiving publicly funded insurance, and current smokers (p < .01 for all comparisons). Overall, the detection rate for unhealthy substance use was 64.3% (63 of 98 confirmed cases), with service-specific rates of 73.4% for the Teaching Service, compared with 47.1% for the Hospitalist Service (p = .011). ICD-9 coding accounted for 53.1% of identified cases on the Teaching Service and 14.7% of identified cases on the Hospitalist Service (p < .001). Assignment to the Hospitalist Service, being married, and isolated unhealthy drug use were independently associated with decreased physician detection rates. Conclusions: Our study suggests that unhealthy substance use is more likely to be detected on a Teaching Service than on a Hospitalist Service.

Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder

Alcohol use disorder is a common, destructive, and undertreated disease. As understanding of alcohol use disorder has evolved, so has our ability to manage patients with pharmacotherapeutic agents in addition to nondrug therapy, including various counseling strategies. Providers now have a myriad of medications, both approved and not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, to choose from and can personalize care based on treatment goals, comorbidities, drug interactions, and drug availability. This review explores these treatment options and offers the prescriber practical advice regarding when each option may or may not be appropriate for a specific patient.

Addressing discordant quantitative urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels: Case examples in opioid use disorder

INTRODUCTION Urine adulteration is a concern among patients treated for opioid use disorder. Quantitative urine testing for buprenorphine (B) and norbuprenorphine (NB), and the appropriate interpretation of B and NB levels, can facilitate constructive conversations with patients that may lead to modifications in the treatment plan, and strengthening of the patient-provider relationship. CASE SUMMARY Three cases are presented in which discordant urine B and NB levels were recognized. Each patient was submerging buprenorphine/naloxone strips in their urine to mask ongoing illicit drug use. The authors used an approach to addressing intentional adulteration of urine samples that adheres to the principles of harm-reduction, the centrality of the patient-provider relationship, and the acknowledgment that ongoing illicit drug use and subsequent dishonesty about disclosure may be common among persons with substance use disorders. Each of the three patients ultimately endorsed diluting their urine, which allowed for strengthening of the patient-provider relationship and modifications to their treatment plans. Two of the three patients stabilized and achieved abstinence, while the third was eventually referred to a methadone treatment program. CONCLUSION Providers should routinely monitor B and NB levels, rather than qualitative screening alone, and discordant levels should elicit a timely conversation with the patient. The authors use of a nonjudgmental approach to address urine adulteration, including giving patients an opportunity to reflect on potential solutions, has been effective at helping patients and providers to reestablish a therapeutic alliance and maintain retention in treatment.

Objective Structured Clinical Examination–Based Teaching of the Musculoskeletal Examination

Objectives Musculoskeletal complaints are the most common presenting illnesses in primary care settings, yet physicians often are underprepared to manage such complaints. We sought to create and evaluate an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)–based musculoskeletal workshop designed to simultaneously educate medical students and internal medicine residents, enlisting volunteer medical students as standardized patients (SPs). Methods The setting for the study was the Yale Primary Care Residency Program. A comprehensive OSCE-based musculoskeletal workshop series was created, consisting of standalone workshops with evidence-based interactive lectures followed by OSCE stations. At each station, residents are evaluated on physical examination skills, differential diagnosis, and therapeutic plan. We assessed the impact of exposure to the neck/back pain workshop using written knowledge and clinical skills tests (maximum score 32) among both residents and medical students 6 months after exposure. Results A convenience sample of 13 residents exposed to the neck/back pain workshop was compared with 17 unexposed residents. Six months after exposure to the workshop, exposed residents, compared with unexposed residents, performed significantly better on a written knowledge test (score 8.6 vs 6.8, P = 0.005) and the clinical skills test (score 20.9 vs 17.1, P = 0.007). Similarly, medical student SPs performed significantly better on the clinical skills test (17.0 vs 12.0, P = 0.02), compared with the control students. Conclusions Our novel OSCE-based musculoskeletal workshop, which enlists medical students to serve as SPs, engendered sustainable improvements in knowledge and clinical skills among both residents and participating students, thereby offering an innovative approach to simultaneously meeting both undergraduate and graduate medical education needs.