Implementation of a Medication for Addiction Treatment (MAT) and Linkage Program by Leveraging Community Partnerships and Medical Toxicology Expertise.

INTRODUCTION: Implementing a hospital medication for addiction treatment (MAT) and a linkage program can improve care for patients with substance use disorder (SUD); however, lack of hospital funding and brick and mortar SUD resources are potential barriers to feasibility. METHODS: This study assesses the feasibility of implementation of a SUD linkage program. Components of the program include a county-funded hospital opioid support team (HOST), a hospital-employed addiction recovery specialist (ARS), and a medical toxicology MAT induction service and maintenance program. Data for linkage by HOST, ARS, and MAT program were tracked from July 2018 to December 2019. RESULTS: From July 2018 through December 2019, 1834 patients were linked to treatment: 1536 by HOST and 298 by the ARS. The most common disposition categories for patients linked by HOST were 16.73% to medically monitored detoxification, 9.38% to intensive outpatient, and 8.59% to short-term residential treatment. Among patients linked by the ARS, 65.66% were linked to outpatient treatment and 9.43% were linked directly to inpatient treatment. A total of 223 patients managed by the ARS were started on MAT by medical toxicology and linked to outpatient MAT clinic: 72.68% on buprenorphine/naloxone, 24.59% on naltrexone, 1.09% buprenorphine, and 0.55% acamprosate. CONCLUSION: Implementing a MAT and linkage program in the ED and hospital setting was feasible. Leveraging medical toxicology expertise as well as community and funding partnerships was crucial to successful implementation

Adaptation of the Wound Healing Questionnaire universal-reporter outcome measure for use in global surgery trials (TALON-1 study): mixed-methods study and Rasch analysis

BackgroundThe Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model.ResultsIn the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach's α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever).ConclusionThis study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways