Introduction: Methadone is a medically necessary and lifesaving medication for many patients with opioid use disorder. To adequately address these patients’ needs, methadone should be offered in the hospital, but barriers exist that limit its continuation upon discharge. The code of federal regulations allows for methadone dosing as an inpatient as well as outpatient dispensing for
up to three days to facilitate linkage to treatment. As a quality initiative, we created a new workflow for discharging patients on methadone to return to the emergency department (ED) for uninterrupted dosing.

Methods: Our addiction medicine team changed hospital methadone policy to better allow hospitalization as a window of opportunity to start methadone. This necessitated the creation of a warm-handoff process to link patients to methadone clinics if that linkage could not happen immediately on discharge. Thus, our team created the “ED Bridge” process, which uses the “3-day rule” to dispense methadone from the ED post hospital discharge. We then followed every patient we directed through this workflow as an observational cohort for outcomes and trends.

Results: Of the patients for whom ED bridge dosing was planned, 40.4% completed all bridge dosing and an additional 17.3% received at least one but not all bridge doses. Established methadone patients made up 38.1% of successful linkages, and 61.9% were patients who were newly started on methadone in the hospital.

Conclusion: Improving methadone as a treatment option remains an ongoing issue for policymakers and advocates. Our ED bridge workflow allows us to expand access and continuation of methadone now using existing laws and regulations, and to better use hospitals as a point of entry into methadone treatment.

Background

Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations.

Objectives

We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool.

Methods

As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability.

Results

Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95).

Conclusions

We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.