MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255787800 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-33331/v2

Understanding Steps and Challenges to Take-home Naloxone and Buprenorphine/naloxone Implementation in Québec Emergency Rooms: Suboxed Project

2020· preprint· en· W4255787800 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annie Talbot, Rania Khemiri, Luc Londei‐Leduc, Christine Robin, Suzanne Marcotte, Guenièvre Therrien, Geneviève Goulet, Geneviève Beaudet-Hillman, Christine Ouellette, Suzanne Brissette, Aïssata Sako, Pierre Lauzon

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
Keywords(+)-NaloxoneBuprenorphineOpioidAnesthesiaMedicineMedical emergencyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Deaths attributable to drug abuse are on the rise across Canada. It is estimated that there were more than 13,900 opioid-related deaths from January 2016 to June 2019 in the country. Emergency departments (EDs) are often on the frontline of care provided to people at risk of opioid overdose within Québec’s healthcare system. A variety of programs to implement take-home naloxone distribution and/or the provision of opioid agonist treatment for ED patients who are at risk for overdose have been created in the United States and in Europe. However, few EDs in Canada have developed protocols for the provision of take-home naloxone and/or opioid agonist treatment by ED doctors. Methods A clinical algorithm for take home naloxone (THN) and prescription of buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N) was implemented in three EDs of Québec, Canada. This first phase of the SuboxED project required selecting clinical experts, describing the patient population, and creating partnerships with pharmacists and opioid agonist treatment clinics. Results: The clinical experts developed tools based on literature reviews and national and international guidelines. They also created educational tools and trained over 328 ED clinical staff. In addition, SuboxED ensured that a supply of take-home naloxone and B/n was available in the three ED sites for the study. Conclusion Implementing the proposed clinical algorithm for THN and prescription of B/N was challenging: drug supply and ED staff’s buy-in were among the most notable difficulties of SuboxED. Planning training sessions at three different institutions, each with its own governance structure and clinical culture, local realities and harm reduction priorities was complicated. Engaging already overworked ED teams consistently working in a gridlocked environments, revealed in itself to be a difficult endeavour.In the next phase of SuboxED, we will focus on data collection and analysis to evaluate both the implementation of the protocol through a retrospective review of electronic health records and satisfaction surveys of patients and healthcare professionals. Trial registration : none

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.396
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207