RESUMO

BACKGROUND: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) are high-risk for short-term mortality and morbidity. Emergency department (ED) interventions can reduce those risks, but benefits wane without ongoing community follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an ED-based intensive community outreach program. METHODS: At two urban EDs between October 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled patients with OUD not currently on opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in a prospective cohort study evaluating a one-year intensive community outreach program, which provided ongoing addictions care, housing resources, and community support. We surveyed patients at intake and at scheduled outreach encounters at one, two, six, and twelve months. Follow-up surveys assessed OAT uptake, addictions care engagement, housing status, quality of life scores, illicit opioid use, and outreach helpfulness. We used descriptive statistics for each period and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses to account for missing data. RESULTS: Of 84 baseline participants, 29% were female and 32% were housed, with a median age of 33. Sixty participants (71%) completed at least one follow-up survey. Survey completion rates were 37%, 38%, 39%, and 40% respectively at one, two, six, and twelve months. Participants had a median of three outreach encounters. Among respondents, OAT was 0% at enrolment and ranged from 38% to 56% at follow-up; addictions care engagement was 22% at enrolment and ranged from 65% to 81% during follow-up; and housing was 40% at enrolment and ranged from 48% to 59% during follow-up. Improvements from baseline to follow-up occurred for all time periods. OAT and engagement in care benefits were maintained in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Respondents rated the outreach program as helpful at all time periods, CONCLUSION: An ED-initiated intensive outreach program for patients with OUD not yet on OAT was associated with a persistent increase in OAT use and engagement in care, as well as housing.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Many emergency department (ED) patients with opioid use disorder are candidates for home buprenorphine/naloxone initiation with to-go packs. We studied patient opinions and acceptance of buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs, and factors associated with their acceptance. METHODS: We identified patients at two urban EDs in British Columbia who met opioid use disorder criteria, were not presently on opioid agonist therapy and not in active withdrawal. We offered patients buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as standard of care and then administered a survey to record buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance, the primary outcome. Survey domains included current substance use, prior experience with opioid agonist therapy, and buprenorphine/naloxone related opinions. Patient factors were examined for association with buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients enrolled, median age was 33 years, 27% were female, 67.4% had previously taken buprenorphine/naloxone, and 19.1% had never taken opioid agonist therapy. Overall, 78.7% believed that EDs should dispense buprenorphine/naloxone to-go packs. Thirty-eight (42.7%) patients accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go. Buprenorphine/naloxone to-go acceptance was associated with lack of prior opioid agonist therapy, less than 10 years of opioid use and no injection drug use. Reasons to accept included initiating treatment while in withdrawal; reasons to reject included prior unsatisfactory buprenorphine/naloxone experience and interest in other treatments. CONCLUSION: Although less than half of our study population accepted buprenorphine/naloxone to-go when offered, most thought this intervention was beneficial. In isolation, ED buprenorphine/naloxone to-go will not meet the needs of all patients with opioid use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider buprenorphine/naloxone to-go as a low-barrier option for opioid use disorder treatment from the ED when integrated with robust addiction care services.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: De nombreux patients des services d'urgence (SU) atteints d'un trouble lié à la consommation d'opioïdes sont des candidats à l'initiation à la buprénorphine/naloxone à domicile avec des trousses à emporter. Nous avons étudié les opinions des patients et l'acceptation des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, ainsi que les facteurs associés à leur acceptation. MéTHODES: Nous avons identifié des patients à deux urgences urbaines de la Colombie-Britannique qui répondaient aux critères relatifs aux troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes, qui ne suivaient pas actuellement un traitement aux agonistes des opioïdes et qui n'étaient pas en sevrage actif. Nous avons offert aux patients la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme norme de soins, puis nous avons administré une enquête pour enregistrer l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter, le critère de jugement principal. Les domaines d'enquête comprenaient la consommation actuelle de substances, l'expérience antérieure avec le traitement aux agonistes opioïdes et les opinions liées à la buprénorphine/naloxone. Les facteurs du patient ont été examinés pour déterminer l'association avec l'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. RéSULTATS: Sur 89 patients inscrits, l'âge médian était de 33 ans, 27,0% étaient des femmes, 67,4% avaient déjà pris de la buprénorphine/naloxone et 19,1% n'avaient jamais pris de traitement aux agonistes opioïdes. Dans l'ensemble, 78,7% des répondants étaient d'avis que les SU devraient distribuer des paquets de buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. Trente-huit (42,7%) patients ont accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter. L'acceptation de la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter était associée à l'absence de traitement antérieur par agonistes opioïdes, à moins de 10 ans d'utilisation d'opioïdes et à l'absence de consommation de drogues injectables. Les raisons d'accepter comprenaient le fait de commencer un traitement pendant le sevrage; les raisons de rejeter comprenaient une expérience antérieure insatisfaisante de buprénorphine/naloxone et un intérêt pour d'autres traitements. CONCLUSION: Bien que moins de la moitié de notre population à l'étude ait accepté la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter lorsqu'elle lui était offerte, la plupart ont pensé que cette intervention était bénéfique. Isolément, la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter à l'urgence ne répondra pas aux besoins de tous les patients atteints de troubles liés à l'utilisation d'opioïdes. Les cliniciens et les décideurs devraient considérer la buprénorphine/naloxone à emporter comme une option à faible barrière pour le traitement des troubles liés à la consommation d'opioïdes par l'urgence lorsqu'elle est intégrée à de solides services de soins de la toxicomanie.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to measure the risk of return Emergency Department (ED) visits in patients presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis. Secondary objectives included: (1) describing the characteristics of patients returning within 30 days to the ED with substance-induced psychosis, and (2) identifying risk factors associated with such ED return. METHODS: At two urban sites from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, we included consecutive patients presenting to the ED with substance-induced psychosis defined by their ED discharge diagnosis of psychosis and clinical evidence of substance use. We described ED resources utilized by this patient population including ED time and disposition then subsequently described return visits within 30 days and characteristics among those patients who returned. RESULTS: We identified 611 unique patients presenting with substance-induced psychosis, with 813 total ED visits. The median age was 35 years (IQR 28-45), 71.4% (n = 436) were male, and 44.8% (n = 274) were homeless. The median ED length of stay was 619 min (IQR 313-898), and 48.4% (n = 296) were admitted to hospital. Forty percent of patients (n = 237) returned to the ED within 30 days of the index substance-induced psychosis visit, 116 (18.9%) returning more than once. Of these return visits, 74 (31.2%) were for recurrent substance-induced psychosis. Younger age, female gender, no opioid use, and no prior history of bipolar disorder were identified as common characteristics among those returning to the ED with substance-induced psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: In ED patients with substance-induced psychosis, nearly half of all patients were admitted to hospital, 40% had a 30 days return ED visit, and one-third of those were for substance-induced psychosis. We identified clinically relevant factors common to those returning with recurrent substance-induced psychosis.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: L'objectif principal de cette étude était de mesurer le risque de retour aux urgences chez les patients se présentant aux urgences avec un diagnostic de psychose induite par une substance. Les objectifs secondaires comprenaient : 1) décrire les caractéristiques des patients qui retournent aux urgences dans les 30 jours avec une psychose induite par la substance, et 2) déterminer les facteurs de risque associés à ce retour aux urgences. MéTHODES: Dans deux sites urbains, du 1er janvier 2018 au 31 décembre 2019, nous avons inclus des patients consécutifs se présentant aux urgences avec une psychose induite par une substance, définie par leur diagnostic de psychose à la sortie des urgences et des preuves cliniques de consommation de substances. Nous avons décrit les ressources des urgences utilisées par cette population de patients, notamment le temps passé aux urgences et les dispositions prises, puis nous avons décrit les visites de retour dans les 30 jours et les caractéristiques des patients qui sont revenus. RéSULTATS: Nous avons identifié 611 patients uniques présentant une psychose induite par une substance, avec un total de 813 visites aux urgences. L'âge médian était de 35 ans (IQR 28-45), 71,4 % (n = 436) étaient des hommes et 44,8 % (n = 274) étaient sans domicile fixe. La durée médiane du séjour aux urgences était de 619 minutes (IQR 313-898), et 48,4 % (n = 296) ont été hospitalisés. Quarante pour cent des patients (n = 237) sont retournés aux urgences dans les 30 jours suivant la visite de référence pour une psychose due à une substance, 116 (18,9 %) y étant retournés plus d'une fois. Parmi ces visites de retour, 74 (31,2 %) concernaient une psychose récurrente induite par une substance. Un âge plus jeune, le sexe féminin, l'absence de consommation d'opioïdes et d'antécédents de troubles bipolaires ont été identifiés comme des caractéristiques communes chez les personnes revenant aux urgences pour une psychose induite par une substance. CONCLUSIONS: Chez les patients des urgences souffrant de psychose due à une substance, près de la moitié des patients ont été hospitalisés, 40 % sont revenus aux urgences dans les 30 jours, dont un tiers pour une psychose due à une substance. Nous avons identifié des facteurs cliniquement pertinents communs à ceux qui reviennent avec une psychose récurrente induite par une substance.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Psychosis is a well established complication of non-prescription drug use. We sought to measure the 1-year mortality of emergency department patients with substance-induced psychosis (SIP). METHODS: This study was a multi-centre, retrospective electronic medical records review of patients presenting to the ED with substance-induced psychosis (SIP). We interrogated the hospital ED database from Jan 1, 2018 and Jan 1, 2019 to identify consecutive patients. All patients were followed for one year from index visit, and classified as alive/dead at that time. Patients were included in the study if they met the following criteria: 1) ED discharge diagnosis of psychosis NOS and a positive urine drugs of abuse screen (UDAS) or the patient verbally endorsed drug use, or 2) Mental disorder due to drug use and "disorganized thought", "bizarre behavior" or "delusional behavior" documented in the chart and one or more of the following criteria: a) arrival with police, b) mental health certification, c) physical restraints, d) chemical restraints. We excluded patients who were not British Columbia residents, since we were unable to ascertain if they were alive or dead at 1 year from their index ED visit. Primary statistical analysis was logistic regression for risk of death in 1 year, based on plausible risk factors, selected a priori. RESULTS: We identified 813 presentations for SIP (620 unique patients). The median age of the entire cohort was 35 years (IQR 28-44), and 69.5% (n = 565) were male. Thirty five patients (4.3%; 95% CI 3.2-5.9) had died one year after their initial presentation to the ED for SIP. Separate multivariable logistic regression analyses, controlling for age, demonstrated schizophrenia (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.8-11.1) significantly associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients presenting to the ED with SIP, the 1-year mortality was 4.3%. Controlling for age, schizophrenia was a notable risk factor for increased 1-year mortality.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Integrated youth services (IYS) provide multidisciplinary care (including mental, physical, and social) prioritizing the needs of young people and their families. Despite a significant rise in emergency department (ED) visits by young Canadians with mental health and substance use (MHSU) concerns over the last decade, there remains a profound disconnect between EDs and MHSU integrated youth services. The first objective of this study was to better understand the assessment, treatment, and referral of young people (ages 12-24 years) presenting to the ED with MHSU concerns. The second objective was to explore how to improve the transition from the ED to IYS for young people with MHSU concerns. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured one-on-one video and phone interviews with stakeholders in British Columbia, Canada in the summer of 2020. Snowball sampling was utilized, and participants (n = 26) were reached, including ED physicians (n = 6), social workers (n = 4), nurses (n = 2), an occupational therapist (n = 1); a counselor (n = 1); staff/leadership in IYS organizations (n = 4); mental health/family workers (n = 3); peer support workers (n = 2), and parents (n = 3). A thematic analysis (TA) was conducted using a deductive and inductive approach conceptually guided by the Social Ecological Model. RESULTS: We identified three overarching themes, and factors to consider at all levels of the Social Ecological Model. At the interpersonal level inadequate communication between ED staff and young people affected overall care and contributed to negative experiences. At the organizational level, we identified considerations for assessments and the ED and the hospital (wait times, staffing issues, and the physical space). At the community level, the environment of IYS and other community services were important including wait times and hours of operation. Policy level factors identified include inadequate communication between services (e.g., different charting systems and documentation). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into important long-term systemic issues and more immediate factors that need to be addressed to improve the delivery of care for young people with MHSU challenges. This research supports intervention development and implementation in the ED for young people with MHSU concerns.

Assuntos