Sarah E Wakeman1,2, Nancy A Rigotti3,4, Yuchiao Chang3,4, Grace E Herman5, Ann Erwin6, Susan Regan3,4, Joshua P Metlay3,4. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. swakeman@partners.org. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. swakeman@partners.org. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Components of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have been shown to reduce inpatient and emergency department (ED) utilization. However, integrated treatment using pharmacotherapy and recovery coaches in primary care has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether integrated addiction treatment in primary care reduces inpatient and ED utilization and improves outpatient engagement. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study comparing patients in practices with and without integrated addiction treatment including pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching during a staggered roll-out period. PARTICIPANTS: A propensity score matched sample of 2706 adult primary care patients (1353 matched pairs from intervention and control practices) with a SUD diagnosis code, excluding cannabis or tobacco only, matched on baseline utilization. INTERVENTION: A multi-modal strategy that included forming interdisciplinary teams of local champions, access to addiction pharmacotherapy, counseling, and recovery coaching. Control practices could refer patients to an addiction treatment clinic offering pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions. MAIN MEASURES: The number of inpatient admissions, hospital bed days, ED visits, and primary care visits. KEY RESULTS: During the follow-up period, there were fewer inpatient days among the intervention group (997 vs. 1096 days with a mean difference of 7.3 days per 100 patients, p = 0.03). The mean number of ED visits was lower for the intervention group (36.2 visits vs. 42.9 per 100 patients, p = 0.005). There was no difference in the mean number of hospitalizations. The mean number of primary care visits was higher for the intervention group (317 visits vs. 270 visits per 100 patients, p < 0.001). Intervention practices had a greater increase in buprenorphine and naltrexone prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-randomized retrospective cohort study, integrated addiction pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching in primary care resulted in fewer hospital days and ED visits for patients with SUD compared to similarly matched patients receiving care in practices without these services.
BACKGROUND: Components of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment have been shown to reduce inpatient and emergency department (ED) utilization. However, integrated treatment using pharmacotherapy and recovery coaches in primary care has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether integrated addiction treatment in primary care reduces inpatient and ED utilization and improves outpatient engagement. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study comparing patients in practices with and without integrated addiction treatment including pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching during a staggered roll-out period. PARTICIPANTS: A propensity score matched sample of 2706 adult primary care patients (1353 matched pairs from intervention and control practices) with a SUD diagnosis code, excluding cannabis or tobacco only, matched on baseline utilization. INTERVENTION: A multi-modal strategy that included forming interdisciplinary teams of local champions, access to addiction pharmacotherapy, counseling, and recovery coaching. Control practices could refer patients to an addiction treatment clinic offering pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions. MAIN MEASURES: The number of inpatient admissions, hospital bed days, ED visits, and primary care visits. KEY RESULTS: During the follow-up period, there were fewer inpatient days among the intervention group (997 vs. 1096 days with a mean difference of 7.3 days per 100 patients, p = 0.03). The mean number of ED visits was lower for the intervention group (36.2 visits vs. 42.9 per 100 patients, p = 0.005). There was no difference in the mean number of hospitalizations. The mean number of primary care visits was higher for the intervention group (317 visits vs. 270 visits per 100 patients, p < 0.001). Intervention practices had a greater increase in buprenorphine and naltrexone prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-randomized retrospective cohort study, integrated addiction pharmacotherapy and recovery coaching in primary care resulted in fewer hospital days and ED visits for patients with SUD compared to similarly matched patients receiving care in practices without these services.
Authors: Eliza Hutchinson; Mary Catlin; C Holly A Andrilla; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Roger A Rosenblatt Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Alexander Y Walley; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Eugene C Lee; Shaula Forsythe; Veerappa K Chetty; Suzanne Mitchell; Brian W Jack Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: David A Fiellin; Declan T Barry; Lynn E Sullivan; Christopher J Cutter; Brent A Moore; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Maria C Raven; Kelly M Doran; Shannon Kostrowski; Colleen C Gillespie; Brian D Elbel Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 2.655
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: Paul J Joudrey; Nicholas Chadi; Payel Roy; Kenneth L Morford; Paxton Bach; Simeon Kimmel; Emily A Wang; Susan L Calcaterra Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: David S Kroll; Karen Wrenn; John A Grimaldi; Lorna Campbell; Lisa Irwin; Maria Pires; Natalie Dattilo; Julia Schechter; Nomi Levy-Carrick; David F Gitlin Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2020-08-17
Authors: Sarah E Wakeman; Martha Kane; Elizabeth Powell; Sydney Howard; Christopher Shaw; Susan Regan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Jessica L Mellinger; Gerald Scott Winder; Anne C Fernandez; Kristin Klevering; Amanda Johnson; Haila Asefah; Mary Figueroa; Jack Buchanan; Fred Blow; Anna S F Lok Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-04-09
Authors: Scott E Hadland; Amy M Yule; Sharon J Levy; Eliza Hallett; Michael Silverstein; Sarah M Bagley Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 7.124