Cupp Julia A, Byrne Kaileigh A, Herbert Kristin, Roth Prerana J
Prisma Health-Upstate, Greenville, USA.
Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Aug;37(11):2768-2776. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07360-w. Epub 2022 Mar 16.
For patients with substance use disorder (SUD), a peer recovery coach (PRC) intervention increases engagement in recovery services; effective support services interventions have occasionally demonstrated cost savings through decreased acute care utilization.
Examine effect of PRCs on acute care utilization.
Combined results of 2 parallel 1:1 randomized controlled trials.
Inpatient adults with substance use disorder INTERVENTIONS: Inpatient PRC linkage and follow-up contact for 6 months vs usual care (providing contact information for SUD resources and PRCs) MAIN MEASURES: Acute care encounters (emergency and inpatient) 6 months before and after enrollment; encounter type by primary diagnosis code category (mental/behavioral vs medical); 30-day readmissions with Lace+ readmission risk scores.
A total of 193 patients were randomized: 95 PRC; 98 control. In the PRC intervention, 66 patients had a pre-enrollment acute care encounter and 56 had an encounter post-enrollment, compared to the control group with 59 pre- and 62 post-enrollment (odds ratio [OR] = -0.79, P = 0.11); there was no significant effect for sub-groups by encounter location (emergency vs inpatient). There was a significant decrease in mental/behavioral ED visits (PRC: pre-enrollment 17 vs post-enrollment 10; control: pre-enrollment 13 vs post-enrollment 16 (OR = -2.62, P = 0.02)) but not mental/behavioral inpatient encounters or medical emergency or inpatient encounters. There was no significant difference in 30-day readmissions corrected for Lace+ scores (15.8% PRC vs 17.3% control, OR = 0.19, P = 0.65).
PRCs did not decrease overall acute care utilization but may decrease emergency encounters related to substance use.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04098601, NCT04098614).
对于患有物质使用障碍(SUD)的患者,同伴康复教练(PRC)干预可提高其参与康复服务的程度;有效的支持服务干预偶尔会通过减少急性护理的使用而显示出成本节约。
研究同伴康复教练对急性护理使用的影响。
两项平行的1:1随机对照试验的综合结果。
患有物质使用障碍的住院成年患者
住院期间由同伴康复教练进行6个月的联系和随访,与常规护理(提供物质使用障碍资源和同伴康复教练的联系信息)对比
入组前和入组后6个月的急性护理就诊情况(急诊和住院);按主要诊断编码类别划分的就诊类型(精神/行为类与医疗类);使用Lace+再入院风险评分的30天再入院情况。
共有193名患者被随机分组:95名接受同伴康复教练干预;98名作为对照组。在同伴康复教练干预组中,66名患者在入组前有急性护理就诊,56名在入组后有就诊,而对照组入组前有59名、入组后有62名(优势比[OR]= -0.79,P = 0.11);按就诊地点(急诊与住院)划分的亚组无显著影响。精神/行为类急诊就诊有显著减少(同伴康复教练干预组:入组前17次,入组后10次;对照组:入组前13次,入组后16次(OR = -2.62,P = 0.02)),但精神/行为类住院就诊、医疗急诊或住院就诊无显著减少。校正Lace+评分后的30天再入院情况无显著差异(同伴康复教练干预组为15.8%,对照组为17.3%,OR = 0.19,P = 0.65)。
同伴康复教练并未降低总体急性护理利用率,但可能减少与物质使用相关的急诊就诊。
ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04098601,NCT04098614)。