Sarah E Philbin, Alexandra Harris, Salva Balbale, Lucy Bilaver, Molly Beestrum, Megan McHugh
{"title":"Implementation of medications for opioid use disorder in U.S. emergency departments: A systematic review.","authors":"Sarah E Philbin, Alexandra Harris, Salva Balbale, Lucy Bilaver, Molly Beestrum, Megan McHugh","doi":"10.1016/j.josat.2024.209600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) experiencing withdrawal or nonfatal overdose often present to emergency departments (EDs). While professional societies endorse the initiation of evidence-based medications for OUD (MOUD) in the ED, low uptake persists. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize what is known about implementation of MOUD in EDs and to identify potential strategies to improve the uptake of MOUD in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed articles that examined implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and cost) of MOUD in United States EDs. Peer-reviewed studies that used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches were eligible for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria for one or more implementation outcomes. Forty-four percent (n = 11) reported on acceptability, 78 % (n = 21) reported on adoption, 26 % (n = 7) reported on appropriateness, and 15 % (n = 4) reported on feasibility. Eleven percent (n = 3) reported on fidelity, 7 % (n = 2) reported on penetration, and 7 % (n = 2) reported on sustainability. No articles reported on implementation cost. While physicians found MOUD acceptable, their comfort levels with the intervention varied. Rates of MOUD adoption were often low, but uptake may be facilitated by implementation strategies. MOUD may constrain ED time resources and exacerbate overcrowding, hindering appropriateness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results suggest that ED physicians and administrators have encountered barriers to the initiation of MOUD. There may be opportunities to overcome these implementation barriers using multi-component strategies consisting of educational interventions that address safety and monitoring and process interventions, such as clinical decision support systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":73960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","volume":" ","pages":"209600"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance use and addiction treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josat.2024.209600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Implementation of medications for opioid use disorder in U.S. emergency departments: A systematic review.
Introduction: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) experiencing withdrawal or nonfatal overdose often present to emergency departments (EDs). While professional societies endorse the initiation of evidence-based medications for OUD (MOUD) in the ED, low uptake persists. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize what is known about implementation of MOUD in EDs and to identify potential strategies to improve the uptake of MOUD in the ED.
Methods: We reviewed articles that examined implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability, and cost) of MOUD in United States EDs. Peer-reviewed studies that used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches were eligible for inclusion.
Results: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria for one or more implementation outcomes. Forty-four percent (n = 11) reported on acceptability, 78 % (n = 21) reported on adoption, 26 % (n = 7) reported on appropriateness, and 15 % (n = 4) reported on feasibility. Eleven percent (n = 3) reported on fidelity, 7 % (n = 2) reported on penetration, and 7 % (n = 2) reported on sustainability. No articles reported on implementation cost. While physicians found MOUD acceptable, their comfort levels with the intervention varied. Rates of MOUD adoption were often low, but uptake may be facilitated by implementation strategies. MOUD may constrain ED time resources and exacerbate overcrowding, hindering appropriateness.
Conclusion: Results suggest that ED physicians and administrators have encountered barriers to the initiation of MOUD. There may be opportunities to overcome these implementation barriers using multi-component strategies consisting of educational interventions that address safety and monitoring and process interventions, such as clinical decision support systems.