Browsing by Author "O’Donnell, Daniel"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of an emergency department-based opioid overdose survivor intervention: Difference-in-difference analysis of electronic health record data to assess key outcomes
    (Elsevier, 2021) Watson, Dennis P.; Weathers, Tess; McGuire, Alan; Cohen, Alex; Huynh, Philip; Bowes, Clay; O’Donnell, Daniel; Brucker, Krista; Gupta, Sumedha; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    Background: In recent years, a number of emergency department (ED)-based interventions have been developed to provide supports and/or treatment linkage for people who use opioids. However, there is limited research supporting the effectiveness of the majority of these interventions. Project POINT is an ED-based intervention aimed at providing opioid overdose survivors with naloxone and recovery supports and connecting them to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). An evaluation of POINT was conducted. Methods: A difference-in-difference analysis of electronic health record data was completed to understand the difference in outcomes for patients admitted to the ED when a POINT staff member was working versus times when they were not. The observation window was January 1, 2012 to July 6, 2019, which included N = 1462 unique individuals, of which 802 were in the POINT arm. Outcomes of focus include MOUD opioid prescriptions dispensed, active non-MOUD opioid prescriptions dispensed, naloxone access, and drug poisonings. Results: The POINT arm had a significant increase in MOUD prescriptions dispensed, non-MOUD prescriptions dispensed, and naloxone access (all p-values < 0.001). There was no significant effect related to subsequent drug poisoning-related hospital admissions. Conclusions: The results support the assertion that POINT is meeting its two primary goals related to increasing naloxone access and connecting patients to MOUD. Generalization of these results is limited; however, the evaluation contributes to a nascent area of research and can serve a foundation for future work.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prevalence and correlates of incarceration following emergency medical services response to overdose
    (Elsevier, 2022) Ray, Bradley; Hedden, Bethany J.; Carroll, Jennifer J.; del Pozo, Brandon; Wagner, Karla; Kral, Alex H.; O’Donnell, Daniel; Victor, Grant; Huynh, Phil; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: To describe the prevalence of incarceration among survivors of non-fatal overdose addressed through an emergency medical services (EMS) response, and compare incarceration by whether the emergency was for opioid-involved or stimulant-involved overdose. Methods: Administrative records on 192,113 EMS incidents and 70,409 jail booking events occurring between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020 in Indianapolis, Indiana were record-linked at the event level. Incarceration taking place within 6-hours of an EMS incident was associated with that incident. Logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of incarceration after an overdose. Results: Among all EMS incidents, 2.6% were followed by incarceration. For overdose EMS incidents, the prevalence of incarceration was 10.0%. Overdose incidents had higher odds than non-overdose incidents of leading to a charge of felony, booked on a warrant, and transferred to another law enforcement agency upon release. Prevalence of incarceration following a stimulant-involved overdose was 21.3%, compared to 9.3% for opioid-involved overdose survivors. Compared to persons from other EMS incidents, overdose survivors had greater odds of incarceration (AOR=3.48, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 3.22, 3.75, p < .001), with opioid-involved overdoses (AOR=3.03, 95% CI=2.76, 3.33, p < .001) and stimulant-involved overdoses (AOR=6.70, 95% CI=5.26, 8.55, p < .001) leading to higher odds of incarceration. Conclusion: Incarceration in county jail followed one in ten overdose-involved EMS responses. As illicit drug consumption increasingly involves stimulants, the frequency of incarceration following these events is likely to increase. Policy changes and interventions are needed to reduce incarceration after overdose emergencies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Results from the POINT pragmatic randomized trial: An emergency department-based peer recovery coach intervention to increase opioid use disorder treatment linkage and reduce recurrent overdose
    (Sage, 2024) Watson, Dennis P.; Tillson, Martha; Taylor, Lisa; Xu, Huiping; Ouyang, Fangqian; Beaudoin, Francesca; O’Donnell, Daniel; McGuire, Alan B.; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    Background: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present at the emergency department (ED), a potentially critical point for intervention and treatment linkage. Peer recovery support specialist (PRSS) interventions have expanded in US-based EDs, although evidence supporting such interventions has not been firmly established. Methods: Researchers conducted a pragmatic trial of POINT (Project Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment), an ED-initiated intervention for harm reduction and recovery coaching/treatment linkage in 2 Indiana EDs. Cluster randomization allocated patients to the POINT intervention (n = 157) versus a control condition (n = 86). Participants completed a structured interview, and all outcomes were assessed using administrative data from an extensive state health exchange and state systems. Target patients (n = 243) presented to the ED for a possible opioid-related reason. The primary outcome was overdose-related ED re-presentation. Key secondary outcomes included OUD medication treatment linkage, duration of medication in days, all-cause ED re-presentation, all-cause inpatient re-presentation, and Medicaid enrollment. All outcomes were assessed at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-enrollment. Ad hoc analyses were performed to assess treatment motivation and readiness. Results: POINT and standard care participants did not differ significantly on any outcomes measured. Participants who presented to the ED for overdose had significantly lower scores (3.5 vs 4.2, P < .01) regarding readiness to begin treatment compared to those presenting for other opioid-related issues. Conclusions: This is the first randomized trial investigating overdose outcomes for an ED peer recovery support specialist intervention. Though underpowered, results suggest no benefit of PRSS services over standard care. Given the scope of PRSS, future work in this area should assess more recovery- and harm reduction-oriented outcomes, as well as the potential benefits of integrating PRSS within multimodal ED-based interventions for OUD.