Implementation and maintenance of an emergency department naloxone distribution and peer recovery specialist program

• Published in: Academic emergency medicine Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 294 - 307
• Main Authors: Jacka, Brendan P., Ziobrowski, Hannah N., Lawrence, Alexis, Baird, Janette, Wentz, Anna E., Marshall, Brandon D. L., Wightman, Rachel S., Mello, Michael J., Beaudoin, Francesca L., Samuels, Elizabeth A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2022
• Subjects: Analgesics, Opioid - therapeutic use; Counseling; Drug overdose; Drug Overdose - drug therapy; Drug Overdose - prevention & control; Drug therapy; Emergency medical care; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Naloxone - therapeutic use; Narcotic Antagonists - therapeutic use; Narcotics; Opiate Overdose; Opioid-Related Disorders - drug therapy; Opioid-Related Disorders - prevention & control; Peer tutoring; Recovery (Medical); Retrospective Studies; Substance abuse treatment
• ISSN: 1069-6563; 1553-2712; 1553-2712
• DOI: 10.1111/acem.14409

Study Objective Emergency department (ED)‐based naloxone distribution and peer‐based behavioral counseling have been shown to be feasible, but little is known about utilization maintenance over time and clinician, patient, and visit level factors influencing implementation. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of an ED overdose prevention program providing take‐home naloxone, behavioral counseling, and treatment linkage for patients treated for an opioid overdose at two Rhode Island EDs from 2017 to 2020: one tertiary referral center and a community hospital. Utilizing a Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework, we evaluated program reach, adoption, implementation modifiers, and maintenance using logistic and Poisson regression. Results Seven hundred forty two patients were discharged after an opioid overdose, comprising 966 visits (median: 32 visits per month; interquartile range: 29, 41). At least one intervention was provided at most (86%, 826/966) visits. Take‐home naloxone was provided at 69% of visits (637/919). Over half (51%, 495/966) received behavioral counseling and treatment referral (65%, 609/932). Almost all attending physicians provided take‐home naloxone (97%, 105/108), behavioral counseling (95%, 103/108), or treatment referral (95%, 103/108) at least once. Most residents and advanced practice practitioners (APPs) provided take home naloxone (78% residents; 72% APPs), behavioral counseling (76% residents; 67% APPs), and treatment referral (80% residents; 81% APPs) at least once. Most clinicians provided these services for over half of the opioid overdose patients they cared for. Patients were twice as likely to receive behavioral counseling when treated by an attending in combination with a resident and/or APP (adjusted odds ratio: 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.68, 3.12) compared to an attending alone. There was no depreciation in use over time. Conclusions ED naloxone distribution, behavioral counseling, and referral to treatment can be successfully integrated into usual emergency care and maintained over time with high reach and adoption. Further work is needed to identify low‐cost implementation strategies to improve services use and dissemination across clinical settings.