OBJECTIVE: Rising rates of opioid overdose deaths require innovative programs to prevent and reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates adoption, utilization, and maintenance of an emergency department (ED) take-home naloxone and peer recovery coach consultation program for ED patients at risk of opioid overdose. METHODS: Using a Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, we conducted a retrospective provider survey and electronic medical record (EMR) review to evaluate implementation of a naloxone distribution and peer recovery coach consultation program at two EDs. Provider adoption was measured by self-report using a novel survey instrument. EMRs of discharged ED patients at risk for opioid overdose were reviewed in three time periods: preimplementation, postimplementation, and maintenance. Primary study outcomes were take-home naloxone provision and recovery coach consultation. Secondary study outcome was referral to treatment. Chi-square analysis was used for study period comparisons. Logistic regression was conducted to examine utilization moderators. Poisson regression modeled utilization changes over time. RESULTS: Most providers reported utilization (72.8%, 83/114): 95.2% (79/83) provided take-home naloxone and 85.5% (71/83) consulted a recovery coach. There were 555 unique patients treated and discharged during the study periods: 131 preimplementation, 376 postimplementation, and 48 maintenance. Postimplementation provision of take-home naloxone increased from none to more than one-third (35.4%, p < 0.001), one-third received consultation with a recovery coach (33.1%, 45/136), and discharge with referral to treatment increased from 9.16% to 20.74% (p = 0.003). Take-home naloxone provision and recovery coach consultation did not depreciate over time. CONCLUSIONS: ED naloxone distribution and consultation of a community-based peer recovery coach are feasible and acceptable and can be maintained over time.
OBJECTIVE: Rising rates of opioid overdose deaths require innovative programs to prevent and reduce opioid-related morbidity and mortality. This study evaluates adoption, utilization, and maintenance of an emergency department (ED) take-home naloxone and peer recovery coach consultation program for ED patients at risk of opioid overdose. METHODS: Using a Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, we conducted a retrospective provider survey and electronic medical record (EMR) review to evaluate implementation of a naloxone distribution and peer recovery coach consultation program at two EDs. Provider adoption was measured by self-report using a novel survey instrument. EMRs of discharged ED patients at risk for opioid overdose were reviewed in three time periods: preimplementation, postimplementation, and maintenance. Primary study outcomes were take-home naloxone provision and recovery coach consultation. Secondary study outcome was referral to treatment. Chi-square analysis was used for study period comparisons. Logistic regression was conducted to examine utilization moderators. Poisson regression modeled utilization changes over time. RESULTS: Most providers reported utilization (72.8%, 83/114): 95.2% (79/83) provided take-home naloxone and 85.5% (71/83) consulted a recovery coach. There were 555 unique patients treated and discharged during the study periods: 131 preimplementation, 376 postimplementation, and 48 maintenance. Postimplementation provision of take-home naloxone increased from none to more than one-third (35.4%, p < 0.001), one-third received consultation with a recovery coach (33.1%, 45/136), and discharge with referral to treatment increased from 9.16% to 20.74% (p = 0.003). Take-home naloxone provision and recovery coach consultation did not depreciate over time. CONCLUSIONS: ED naloxone distribution and consultation of a community-based peer recovery coach are feasible and acceptable and can be maintained over time.
Authors: Maribeth C Lovegrove; Deborah Dowell; Andrew I Geller; Sandra K Goring; Kathleen O Rose; Nina J Weidle; Daniel S Budnitz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Alan B McGuire; Kristen Gilmore Powell; Peter C Treitler; Karla D Wagner; Krysti P Smith; Nina Cooperman; Lisa Robinson; Jessica Carter; Bradley Ray; Dennis P Watson Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-06-19
Authors: Kristina Monti; Keren Bachi; Madeline Gray; Vibhor Mahajan; Gabrielle Sweeney; Anna M Oprescu; Kevin G Munjal; Yasmin L Hurd; Sabina Lim Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Kristin E Schneider; Saba Rouhani; Noelle P Weicker; Miles Morris; Susan G Sherman Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Miriam Harris; Samantha F Schoenberger; Spoorthi Sampath; Alexander Y Walley; Sarah M Bagley Journal: Addiction Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mary Funke; Marcus C Kaplan; Holly Glover; Nicole Schramm-Sapyta; Andrew Muzyk; Jennifer Mando-Vandrick; Alexander Gordee; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Emily Sterrett; Stephanie A Eucker Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Dennis P Watson; Tess Weathers; Alan McGuire; Alex Cohen; Philip Huynh; Clay Bowes; Daniel O'Donnell; Krista Brucker; Sumedha Gupta Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.492