Rapid Access Addiction Medicine Clinics for People With Problematic Opioid Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: New approaches are needed to provide care for individuals with problematic opioid use (POU). Rapid access addiction medicine (RAAM) clinics offer a flexible, low-barrier, rapid access care model for this population. Objective: To assess the associations of RAAM clinics with emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and mortality for people with POU. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study involving a matched control group was performed using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Anonymized data from 4 Ontario RAAM clinics (cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Oshawa, and Sudbury) were linked with health administrative data. Analyses were performed on a cohort of individuals who received care at participating RAAM clinics and geographically matched controls who did not receive care at a RAAM clinic. All visits occurred between October 2, 2017, and October 30, 2019, and data analyses were completed in spring 2023. A propensity score-matching approach was used to balance confounding factors between groups, with adjustment for covariates that remained imbalanced after matching. Exposures: Individuals who initiated care through the RAAM model (including assessment, pharmacotherapy, brief counseling, harm reduction, triage to appropriate level of care, navigation to community services and primary care, and related care) were compared with individuals who did not receive care through the RAAM model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite measure of ED visits for any reason, hospitalization for any reason, and all-cause mortality (all measured up to 30 days after index date). Outcomes up to 90 days after index date, as well as outcomes looking at opioid-related ED visits and hospitalizations, were also assessed. Results: In analyses of the sample of 876 patients formed using propensity score matching, 440 in the RAAM group (mean [SD] age, 36.5 [12.6] years; 276 [62.7%] male) and 436 in the control group (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.8] years; 258 [59.2%] male), the pooled odds ratio (OR) for the primary, 30-day composite outcome of all-cause ED visit, hospitalization, or mortality favored the RAAM model (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.92). Analysis of the same outcome for opioid-related reasons only also favored the RAAM intervention (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.76). Findings for the individual events of hospitalization, ED visit, and mortality at both 30-day and 90-day follow-up also favored the RAAM model, with comparisons reaching statistical significance in most cases. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with POU, RAAM clinics were associated with reductions in ED visits, hospitalizations, and mortality. These findings provide valuable evidence toward a broadened adoption of the RAAM model in other regions of North America and beyond.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".