Arthur Robin Williams1, Edward V Nunes2, Adam Bisaga2, Harold A Pincus3, Kimberly A Johnson4, Aimee N Campbell2, Remien H Remien5, Stephen Crystal6, Peter D Friedmann7, Frances R Levin2, Mark Olfson2. 1. Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, United States; New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States. Electronic address: aw2879@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, United States; New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States. 3. Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, United States; New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States; New York-Presbyterian Hospital, United States. 4. University of South Florida Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, United States. 5. HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, Columbia University, United States. 6. Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers, United States. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts-Baystate and Baystate Health, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing opioid overdose mortality, problems persist in the availability and quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) have high quality evidence supporting their use, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them and many experience relapse following care episodes. Developing and organizing quality measures under a unified framework such as a Cascade of Care could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In this context, a review was performed of existing quality measures relevant to the treatment of OUD and the literature assessing the utility of these measures in community practice. METHODS: Systematic searches of two national quality measure clearinghouses (National Quality Forum and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) were performed for measures that can be applied to the treatment of OUD. Measures were categorized as structural, process, or outcome measures. Second stage searches were then performed within Ovid/Medline focused on published studies investigating the feasibility, reliability, and validity of identified measures, predictors of their satisfaction, and related clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seven quality measures were identified that are applicable to the treatment of OUD. All seven were process measures that assess patterns of service delivery. One recently approved measure addresses retention in medication-assisted treatment for patients with OUD. Twenty-nine published studies were identified that evaluate the quality measures, primarily focused on initiation and engagement in care for addiction treatment generally. Most measures and related studies do not specifically incorporate the evidence base for the treatment of OUD or assess patient level outcomes such as overdose. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable progress, gaps exist in quality measures for OUD treatment. Development of a unified quality measurement framework such as an OUD Treatment Cascade will require further elaboration and refinement of existing measures across populations and settings. Such a framework could form the basis for applying strategies at clinical, organizational, and policy levels to expand access to quality care and reduce opioid-related mortality.
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing opioid overdose mortality, problems persist in the availability and quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Three FDA-approved medications (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) have high quality evidence supporting their use, but most individuals with OUD do not receive them and many experience relapse following care episodes. Developing and organizing quality measures under a unified framework such as a Cascade of Care could improve system level practice and treatment outcomes. In this context, a review was performed of existing quality measures relevant to the treatment of OUD and the literature assessing the utility of these measures in community practice. METHODS: Systematic searches of two national quality measure clearinghouses (National Quality Forum and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) were performed for measures that can be applied to the treatment of OUD. Measures were categorized as structural, process, or outcome measures. Second stage searches were then performed within Ovid/Medline focused on published studies investigating the feasibility, reliability, and validity of identified measures, predictors of their satisfaction, and related clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seven quality measures were identified that are applicable to the treatment of OUD. All seven were process measures that assess patterns of service delivery. One recently approved measure addresses retention in medication-assisted treatment for patients with OUD. Twenty-nine published studies were identified that evaluate the quality measures, primarily focused on initiation and engagement in care for addiction treatment generally. Most measures and related studies do not specifically incorporate the evidence base for the treatment of OUD or assess patient level outcomes such as overdose. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable progress, gaps exist in quality measures for OUD treatment. Development of a unified quality measurement framework such as an OUD Treatment Cascade will require further elaboration and refinement of existing measures across populations and settings. Such a framework could form the basis for applying strategies at clinical, organizational, and policy levels to expand access to quality care and reduce opioid-related mortality.
Authors: Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Margaret T Lee; Lee Panas; Grant A Ritter; Steve Davis; Tracy Leeper; Rebecca Moore; Mark Reynolds Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2007-05-23
Authors: Katherine E Watkins; Susan M Paddock; Teresa J Hudson; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Amy M Schrader; Kimberly A Hepner; Bradley D Stein Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Christina Andrews; Amanda Abraham; Colleen M Grogan; Harold A Pollack; Clifford Bersamira; Keith Humphreys; Peter Friedmann Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Theresa W Kim; Richard Saitz; Debbie M Cheng; Michael R Winter; Julie Witas; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Cindy Parks Thomas; Deborah W Garnick; Constance M Horgan; Kay Miller; Alex H S Harris; Melissa M Rosen Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2013-03-13
Authors: Alex H S Harris; Constance M Weisner; Mady Chalk; Victor Capoccia; Cheng Chen; Cindy Parks Thomas Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Babak Tofighi; Arthur Robin Williams; Chemi Chemi; Selena Suhail-Sindhu; Vicky Dickson; Joshua D Lee Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Elizabeth C Saunders; Sarah K Moore; Olivia Walsh; Stephen A Metcalf; Alan J Budney; Emily Scherer; Lisa A Marsch Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-01-21
Authors: Arthur Robin Williams; Edward V Nunes; Adam Bisaga; Frances R Levin; Mark Olfson Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.829
Authors: Elizabeth A Samuels; Gail D'Onofrio; Kristen Huntley; Scott Levin; Jeremiah D Schuur; Gavin Bart; Kathryn Hawk; Betty Tai; Cynthia I Campbell; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Benjamin J Oldfield; Kathleen A McGinnis; E Jennifer Edelman; Emily C Williams; Adam J Gordon; Kathleen Akgün; Stephen Crystal; Lynn E Fiellin; Julie R Gaither; Joseph L Goulet; P Todd Korthuis; Brandon D L Marshall; Amy C Justice; Kendall Bryant; David A Fiellin; Kevin L Kraemer Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-11-06