Publications

BACKGROUND

The opioid use disorder (OUD) epidemic is a national public health crisis. Access to effective treatment with buprenorphine is limited, in part because few physicians are trained to prescribe it. Little is known about how post-graduate trainees learn to prescribe buprenorphine or how to optimally train them to prescribe. We therefore aimed to explore the experiences and attitudes of residents learning to prescribe buprenorphine within two primary care-based opioid treatment models. We performed semi-structured interviews with second- and third-year internal medicine residents at an urban academic residency program. Participating residents practiced in clinics providing buprenorphine care using either a nurse care manager model or a provider-centric model. Subjects were sampled purposively to ensure that a diversity of perspectives were included. Interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached and were analyzed using principles of thematic analysis. The research team developed a consensus code list. Each transcript was then independently coded by two researchers. The team then summarized each code and generated a set of themes that captured the main ideas emerging from the data. We completed 14 interviews. Participants reported learning to prescribe buprenorphine through didactics, longitudinal outpatient prescribing, mentorship, and inpatient experiences. We characterized their attitudes toward patients with OUD, medication treatment of OUD, their own role in buprenorphine care, and future prescribing. Participants practicing in both clinical models viewed learning to prescribe buprenorphine as a normal part of their training and demonstrated positive attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. Longitudinal outpatient experiences with buprenorphine prescribing can prepare residents to prescribe buprenorphine and stimulate interest in prescribing after residency. Both nurse care manager and provider-centric clinical models can provide meaningful experiences for medical residents. Educators should attend to the volume of patients and inductions managed by each trainee, patient-provider continuity, and supporting trainees in the clinical encounter.

BACKGROUND

The large-scale social distancing efforts to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission have dramatically changed human behaviors associated with traumatic injuries. Trauma centers have reported decreases in trauma volume, paralleled by changes in injury mechanisms. We aimed to quantify changes in trauma epidemiology at an urban Level I trauma center in a county that instituted one of the earliest shelter-in-place orders to inform trauma care during future pandemic responses.

METHODS

A single-center interrupted time-series analysis was performed to identify associations of shelter-in-place with trauma volume, injury mechanisms, and patient demographics in San Francisco, California. To control for short-term trends in trauma epidemiology, weekly level data were analyzed 6 months before shelter-in-place. To control for long-term trends, monthly level data were analyzed 5 years before shelter-in-place.

RESULTS

Trauma volume decreased by 50% in the week following shelter-in-place (p < 0.01), followed by a linear increase each successive week (p < 0.01). Despite this, trauma volume for each month (March-June 2020) remained lower compared with corresponding months for all previous 5 years (2015-2019). Pediatric trauma volume showed similar trends with initial decreases (p = 0.02) followed by steady increases (p = 0.05). Reductions in trauma volumes were due entirely to changes in nonviolent injury mechanisms, while violence-related injury mechanisms remained unchanged (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Although the shelter-in-place order was associated with an overall decline in trauma volume, violence-related injuries persisted. Delineating and addressing underlying factors driving persistent violence-related injuries during shelter-in-place orders should be a focus of public health efforts in preparation for future pandemic responses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological study, level III.