Advertisement

Overcoming Barriers to Adopting and Implementing Pharmacotherapy: the Medication Research Partnership

  • Raina Croff
  • Kim HoffmanEmail author
  • Kelly Alanis-Hirsch
  • Jay Ford
  • Dennis McCarty
  • Laura Schmidt
Article
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Pharmacotherapy includes a growing number of clinically effective medications for substance use disorder, yet there are significant barriers to its adoption and implementation in routine clinical practice. The Medication Research Partnership (MRP) was a successful effort to promote adoption of pharmacotherapy for opioid and alcohol use disorders in nine substance abuse treatment centers and a commercial health plan. This qualitative analysis of interviews (n = 39) conducted with change leaders at baseline and at the end/beginning of 6-month change cycles explains how treatment centers overcame obstacles to the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of pharmacotherapy. Results show that barriers to adopting, implementing, and sustaining pharmacotherapy can be overcome through incremental testing of organizational change strategies, accompanied by expert coaching and a learning community of like-minded professionals. The greatest challenges lie in overcoming abstinence-only philosophies, establishing a business case for pharmacotherapy, and working with payers and pharmaceutical representatives.

Notes

Acknowledgments

An award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA029716) supported the study design, implementation, and analysis. We would like to thank our participating providers: Bowling Green Brandywine (Lisa Olander), Eagleville Hospital (Charlie Folks), Horsham Clinic (Billie-Jo Sellman), Livengrin Foundation (Charlie Wolfe); Mirmont Treatment Centers (Pam Fries-Coffey); Maryland Treatment Centers (Meghan Westwood); Pace (Bruce Johnson); Penn Foundation (Christopher Squillaro, DO); and White Deer Run Allenwood (Amber Dissinger and Kieran Pelletier). In addition, we would like to thank Aetna (Dr. Hyong Un, Danielle Yemm, Bruce D Condit, and Dawn R Keiser) for their support in the development and implementation of the project. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Kimberly A Johnson who was an active member of the research team.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. McCarty was the Principal Investigator on Research Service Agreements from Purdue Pharma and Alkermes, Inc. and he receives support on awards from the National Institutes of Health (UG1 DA015815, R33 DA035640, P50 DA018165, R01 MH1000001, and R01 DA036522). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Amato L, Minozzi S, Davoli M, et al. Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments versus pharmacological treatments for opioid detoxification. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011;(9):CD005031.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005031.pub4
  2. 2.
    Alanis-Hirsch K, Croff R, Ford JH, et al. Extended-release naltrexone: A qualitative analysis of barriers to routine use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2016;62:68–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Oser CB. Barriers to the implementation of medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders: the importance of funding policies and medical infrastructure. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2011;34(4):375–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knudsen HK, Abraham AJ, Roman PM. Adoption and implementation of medications in addiction treatment programs. Journal of Addiction Medicine. 2011;5(1):21–27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181d41ddb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knudsen HK, Roman PM. Financial factors and the implementation of medications for treating opioid use disorders. Journal of Addiction Medicine. 2012;6(4):280–286.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0b013e318262a97a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt LA, Rieckmann T, Abraham A, et al. Advancing recovery: implementing evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders at the systems level. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2012;73(3):413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffman KA, Quanbeck A, Ford JH, et al. Improving substance abuse data systems to measure `waiting time to treatment’: Lessons learned from a quality improvement initiative. Health Informatics Journal. 2011;17(4):256–265.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211420090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffman KA, Green CA, Ford JH, et al. Improving quality of care in substance abuse treatment using five key process improvement principles. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research. 2012;39(3):234–244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-011-9270-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molfenter T, Sherbeck C, Zehner M, et al. Implementing buprenorphine in addiction treatment: payer and provider perspectives in Ohio. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy. 2015;10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0009-2
  10. 10.
    Molfenter T, McCarty D, Capoccia V, et al. Development of a multilevel framework to increase use of targeted evidence-based practices in addiction treatment clinics. Public Health Frontiers. 2013;2(1):11–20.  https://doi.org/10.5963/PHF0201002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment website. http://www.niatx.net. Accessed May 19, 2017.
  12. 12.
    McCarty D, Gustafson DH, Wisdom JP, et al. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): Enhancing access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;88(2–3):138–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoffman KA, Ford JH, Choi D, et al. Replication and sustainability of improved access and retention within the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;98(1–2):63–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ford, J.H. II, Abraham, A., Lupulescu-Mann, N. et al. Promoting adoption of medication for opioid and alcohol use disorders through system change. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2017 78(5), 735–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langley G, Moen R, Nolan K, et al. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance, 2nd Edition. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cleghorn D, Headrick L. The PDSA cycle at the core of learning in health professions education. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement. 1996;22(3):206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ford JH, Green CA, Hoffman KA, et al. Process improvement needs in substance abuse treatment: admissions walk-through results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;33(4):379–389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2007.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glaser B and Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. 1967 Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogers E. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th Edition. Free Press 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wisdom JP, Ford II JH, Hayes RA, McCarty D. et al. Addiction treatment agencies’ use of data: a qualitative assessment. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. 2006;33(4):394–407.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-006-9039-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Capoccia VA, Cotter F, Gustafson DH, et al. Making “stone soup”: improvements in clinic access and retention in addiction treatment. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2007;33(2):95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorr D, Bonner LM, Cohen AN, et al. Informatics systems to promote improved care for chronic illness: A literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(2):156–163.  https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taxman FS, Rudes DS. Implementation of contingency management in probation agencies using a case controlled longitudinal design: a PDSA study protocol. Health Justice. 2013;1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-7899-1-7
  24. 24.
    Stetler CB, McQueen L, Demakis J, et al. An organizational framework and strategic implementation for system-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI Series. Implementation Science. 2008;3:30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bray P, Cummings DM, Wolf M, et al. After the collaborative is over: what sustains quality improvement initiatives in primary care practices? Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2009;35(10):502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parand A, Dopson S, Vincent C. The role of chief executive officers in a quality improvement: A qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1).  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001731
  27. 27.
    Parand A, Benn J, Burnett S, et al. Strategies for sustaining a quality improvement collaborative and its patient safety gains. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2012;24(4):380–390.  https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzs030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parker LE, de Pillis E, Altschuler A, et al. Balancing participation and expertise: A comparison of locally and centrally managed health care quality improvement within primary care practices. Qualitative Health Research. 2007;17(9):1268–1279.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Acevedo A, Lee MT, Garnick DW, et al. Agency-level financial incentives and electronic reminders to improve continuity of care after discharge from residential treatment and detoxification. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2017.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gardner B, Whittington C, McAteer J, et al. Using theory to synthesise evidence from behaviour change interventions: the example of audit and feedback. Social Science and Medicine. 2010;70(10):1618–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malte CA, Berger D, Saxon AJ, et al. Electronic medical record alert associated with reduced opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing in high-risk veteran patients. Medical Care. 2018;56(2):171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 2011;38(1):4–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science. 2013;8:117.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kruse CS, Mileski M, Alaytsev V, et al. Adoption factors associated with electronic health record among long-term care facilities: A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e006615.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prendergast M, Welsh WN, Stein L, et al. Influence of organizational characteristics on success in implementing process improvement goals in correctional treatment settings. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research. 2017;44(4):625–646.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-016-9531-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lord S, Moore SK, Ramsey A, et al. Implementation of a substance use recovery support mobile phone app in community settings: qualitative study of clinician and staff perspectives of facilitators and barriers. Journal of Medical Internet Research Mental Health. 2016;3(2):e24.  https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.4927 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Department of Human Health and Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2016. Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities. 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rieckmann T, Muench J, McBurnie MA, et al. Medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders within a national community health center research network. Substance Abuse. 2016;37(4):625–634.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2016.1189477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon Health and Science University-Portland State University School of Public HealthPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Systems Research and AnalysisUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.School of MedicineUniversity of California at San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations