Tag: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

  • The Recovery Support that is Available Following Overdose

    What subsequently happens to people who experience a drug overdose and are successfully rescued through emergency medical intervention?

    What is their fate after they leave the hospital or other emergency care setting?

    Missing in the media coverage of the unrelenting legions of drug overdose deaths in the United States is an equally important but less heralded story. What happens to people who experience a drug overdose and are successfully revived through emergency medical intervention? What is their fate after they leave the hospital or other emergency care setting? The Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery (CCAR)  and other  grassroots recovery community organizations (RCOs) nationwide are influencing positive outcomes to overdose by placing recovery coaches with first responders and doctors in the emergency departments in hospitals to advance recovery options for the revived overdose patients.

    The Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery (CCAR) is one of several hundred recovery advocacy and recovery support organizations (RCOs) rising on the American landscape in the last two decades.  CCAR began piloting an Emergency Department Recovery Coach (EDRC) Program in March of 2017. Through this program, CCAR-trained recovery coaches are on-call for hospital emergency rooms to offer assistance to patients and their families during an emergency room visit resulting from an adverse drug reaction or other alcohol- or another drug-related medical crisis. An evaluation of EDRC services provided between March and November 2017 within four collaborating hospitals revealed the following. CCAR-trained recovery coaches provided recovery support services to 534 patients/families during the 8-month evaluation period with a relatively even distribution of services provided across the four hospitals. Of those served by the EDRC, the majority were in the ER due to an alcohol- or opioid-related condition; 70% were male; and 5% were seen more than once during the evaluation period. Most importantly, of the 534-people interviewed, 528 were assertively linked to a detoxification program, inpatient or outpatient treatment, or community-based recovery support resources.

    A more formal and sustained evaluation of the EDRC program is underway in collaboration with Yale University, and the program is now being expanded to an additional four hospitals. Funding support for the EDRC comes from the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services through support of the federal block grant and a Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

    CCAR’s EDRC program has many distinct features worthy of replication and local refinement. Among the more striking of such features are the following-

    • The EDRC program is governed by a formal agreement between CCAR and each participating hospital that delineates the roles and responsibilities of each party.
    • The EDRC program is currently staffed by one Recovery Coach Manager and 9 full-time Recovery Coaches (RCs).
    • Emergency Department Recovery Coaches (EDRCs) are recruited and screened (2 interviews with background and reference checks) based on desired experience, skills, and a good work history, but also for what our EDRC manager, Jennifer Chadukiewicz, calls “a servant’s heart.”
    • All EDRCs go through more than 60 hours of training and spend the first weeks shadowing tenured EDRCs. The training includes the CCAR Recovery Coach Academy© (30 hours) as well as topical trainings, e.g., Narcan (naloxone administration), medication-assisted recovery, ethical decision-making, crisis intervention, and conflict resolution. Hospital specific training includes such areas as fire/general safety, OSHA, blood borne pathogens, infection control, hazardous materials, and HIPPA regulations.
    • EDRC Recovery Coaches are employed by CCAR rather than the hospitals and enter the hospitals as service vendors and “guests” who defer to leadership of ER staff.
    • The RCs are paid a livable wage ($20-$25/hr. to start plus benefits, health insurance, etc.) that allows them to work full time and support themselves and their families while affording time away for rest and self-care.
    • EDRC coverage is provided from 8 am to 12 midnight, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
    • Patients have the option of enrollment in enhanced Telephone Recovery Support (TRS) program (i.e., patients receive daily support calls for the next 10 days and then weekly if desired).
    • EDRC’s provide assertive linkage and transportation (when needed) to treatment and recovery support resources.
    • The EDRCs spend considerable time with community providers and other stakeholders building collaborative relationships that facilitate this patient referral and service linkage process.
    • CCAR provides each hospital emergency department with “prescription pad” style resource handouts that can be attached to discharge paperwork and given to patient friend/family member.

    There are critical windows of vulnerability and opportunity within addiction and recovery careers that serve to plunge one deeper into addiction or mark the catalytic beginning of a recovery process. The reversal of a drug overdose or treatment of other drug-related medical crises can constitute a recovery tipping point.

    The emergency room is not the only critical point of potential intervention to reduce the risk of drug-related deaths and to promote addiction recovery. For persons with a history of addiction, the days and weeks immediately following release from a correctional facility, release from an inpatient or residential detoxification/treatment program without medication support, or cessation of medication-assisted treatment, and even transfer from one medication-assisted treatment provider to another all constitute a zone of heightened risk for re-initiation of risky drug use and death. Altering such risks and tipping the scales toward recovery stabilization, recovery maintenance, and enhanced quality of personal/family life in long-term recovery should be the goals of every community. Recovery community organizations like CCAR are showing us how this can be done.

    This blog was written by William White, Rebecca Allen & Phil Valentine. It was originally posted on the William White web site: www.williamwhitepapers.com on January 18, 2018

    Connecticut Community of Addiction Recovery (CCAR) is one of the nation’s first RCOs, CCAR pioneered what have since become standard RCO service fare: recovery-focused professional and public education, legislative advocacy, recovery community centers, recovery celebration walks and conferences, recovery support groups, training for recovery home operators, face-to-face and telephone-based recovery support services, family-focused recovery education and support services, and collaboration with research scientists on the evaluation of the effects of peer support on long-term recovery outcomes. As an example of its reach, CCAR’s Recovery Coach Academy curriculum has been used in the training of more than 20,000 recovery coaches in more than 33 states and in such countries as Sweden, Vietnam, Canada, and Spain.

  • Is Recovery Coaching Effective?

    Is Recovery Coaching Effective?

    manhattan_bridgeTreatment professionals and researchers are calling for a change in the treatment model for substance use disorders (SUD). This change calls for shedding the acute care model (28 days of SUD treatment will fix you) to a continuum of care models, similar to how chronic diseases like diabetes or arthritis are treated. (Humphreys & Tucker, 2002; Institute of Medicine, 2005; McLellan et al., 2000; White, Boyle, Loveland, & Corrington, 2005).

    At the same time, the mental health and the substance abuse treatment fields have merged, creating the behavioral health field. With this merger, the recovery-oriented systems of care model (ROSC) has become the accepted approach to treatment for those with mental and substance use disorders. This holistic approach, rather than focusing on the addiction, considers the whole person and how they interact in real life. ROSC emphasizes that recovery depends on the connection of mind, body, and spirit, motivating addicts to choose to improve their mental health, their physical health, and to embrace a spiritual component of their recovery (SAMHSA, 2011). This multi-system approach has ROSC counselors encouraging visits to the general practitioner, the OBGyn and the dentist. They assess for co-occurring disorders and embrace one-on-one therapeutic treatment and group therapy. And ROSC practitioners embrace mutual support programs, such as AA, NA or even nontraditional mutual support groups like SOS, or Women for Sobriety. A spiritual program is also encouraged. Lastly, the newest introduction to the treatment field is the recovery coach.

    As mental health and addiction treatment services are adopting this recovery-oriented approach, the emphasis on incorporating various forms of recovery coaching or peer-based recovery support into treatment services is growing rapidly. Peer-based recovery support services are defined as

    “the process of giving and receiving nonprofessional, nonclinical assistance to achieve long-term recovery from mental health and substance use disorders” (Borkman, 1999)

    This support is provided by “peers,” “peer-recovery support specialists,” “recovery coaches,” “peer mentors,” or “peer support specialists” who have lived and experienced personal recovery (Borkman, 1999). The peers assist others in initiating, maintaining and embracing recovery from their mental health or substance use disorders.

    As recovery coaches and peers begin to infiltrate treatment centers and recovery support, community organizations, there is a needling question that arises: are recovery coaches effective in the recovery process?

    Studies have been completed on the effectiveness of recovery coaches aiding in individuals achieving long-term recovery since 2005. Many were small studies, some were not exactly scientific, nor could other studies stand up to researcher’s scrutiny. None of the studies had the critical mass to come to a clear conclusion. Ellen L. Bassuk, M.D., Justine Hanson, Ph.D., R. Neil Greene, M.A., Molly Richard, B.A., and Alexandre Laudet, PhD began examining the 1,221 studies that analyze the effectiveness of peer-delivered, recovery support services for individuals in recovery. They wrote a systematic review called Peer Delivered Recovery Support Services for Addictions in the United States: A Systematic Review.

    This compilation of all the current studies is to create an appraisal, and summarization of the success of peer-delivered, recovery support services, using strict scientific criteria. As part of their review process, the 1,221 studies were screened, but only nine studies were deemed to meet the strict review requirements.

    The nine studies examined the effectiveness of recovery support services that were delivered by a peer using a wide range of interventions and models. These studies also examined the variety of locations that offered peer support, including peer-run, drop-in centers (Ja et al., 2009), peer-run, recovery community organizations (Kamon & Turner, 2013), and Veteran’s Administration medical outpatient clinics (Bernstein et al., 2005).

    This review showed peer-delivered recovery support services accomplished the following successful outcomes:

    1. Decreased alcohol use
    2. Decreased drinking to intoxication by reducing the odds of drinking to intoxication by 2.9 percent (Smelson et al. 2013)
    3. Peer participation lowered re-hospitalization rates, meaning only 62 percent of participants from the peer based support group were re-hospitalized compared to 73 percent of those not receiving peer based support (Min et al. (2007)
    4. Increased post-discharge sobriety time was achieved by the individuals receiving the peer intervention (O’Connell et al. 2014)
    5. If peers led groups in life-skills training, those participants had 14.8 fewer days drinking
    6. Peer recovery support affected those discharged from inpatient treatment by maintaining a post-discharge sobriety rate of 43 percent to 48 percent as compared to 33 percent sobriety for those not receiving peer based support (Tracy et al. 2011)

    Overall, the review of these studies indicate that peers involved in recovery support interventions have beneficial effects on participants. While the reviewers can conclude that there is evidence supporting the effectiveness of peer-delivered, recovery support services, they acknowledge that additional research is necessary to determine the usefulness of peer support services. While this knowledge is encouraging, research in this area is just emerging, and there is a strong need to improve outcomes by completing future studies.


    References

    1. Humphreys, K., & Tucker, J. (2002). Toward more responsive and effective intervention systems for alcohol-related problems. Addiction, 97(2), 126–132.
    2. Institute of Medicine (2005). Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance use conditions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    3. McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689–1695.
    4. White, W., Boyle, M., Loveland, D., & Corrington, P. (2005). What is behavioral health recovery management? A brief primer. (Retrieved from www.addictionmanagement.org/recovery%20management.pdf).
    5. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2011). SAMHSA’s Working Definition of Recovery. (Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/recovery/).
    6. Borkman, T. (1999). Understanding self-help/mutual aid: Experiential learning in the commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
    7. Borkman, T. (1999). Understanding self-help/mutual aid: Experiential learning in the commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press
    8. Ja, D. Y., Gee, M., Savolainen, J.,Wu, S., & Forghani, S. (2009). Peers Reaching Out Supporting Peers to Embrace Recovery (PROPSPER): A final evaluation report. San Francisco, CA: DYJ, Inc. for Walden House, Inc. and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Retrieved from http://www.dyja./com/sites/default/files/u24/PROSPER%20Final%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf).
    9. Kamon, J., & Turner,W. (2013). Recovery coaching in recovery centers: What the initial data suggest: A brief report from the Vermont Recovery Network. Montpelier, Vermont Evidence-Based Solutions (Retrieved form https://vtrecoverynetwork.org/PDF/VRN_RC_eval_report.pdf).
    10. Bernstein, E., Bernstein, J., Tassiopoulos, K., Heeren, T., Levenson, S., & Hingson, R. (2005). Brief motivational intervention at a clinic visit reduces cocaine and heroin use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77, 49–59
    11. Smelson, D. A., Kline, A., Kuhn, J., Rodrigues, S., O’Connor, K., Fisher, W. Kane, V. (2013). A wraparound treatment engagement intervention for homeless veterans with co-occurring disorders. Psychological Services, 10(2), 161–167.
    12. Min, S. Y., Whitecraft, E., Rothbard, A. B., & Salzer, M. S. (2007). Peer support for persons with co-occurring disorders and community tenure: A survival analysis. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 30(3), 207–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.2975/30.3.2007.207.213.
    13. O’Connell, M. J., Flanagan, E., Delphin, M., & Davidson, L. (2014). Enhancing outcomes for persons with co-occurring disorders through skills training and peer recovery supports. Unpublished manuscript.
    14. Tracy, K., Burton, M., Nich, C., & Rounsaville, B. (2011). Utilizing peer mentorship to engage high recidivism substance-abusing patients in treatment. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 37(6), 525–531
  • Alcohol Kills One Person Every Ten Seconds

    manhattan_bridge_post_versionThe misuse and abuse of alcohol affect the lives, health and well-being of billions of people. A World Health Organization 2014 report stated the consumption of alcohol led to 3.3 million deaths around the world. In essence, the report says that alcohol kills 1 person every 10 seconds.

    Shekhar Saxena, head of the World Health Organization’s Mental Health and Substance Abuse department, reports that there are roughly 3.25 billion people in the world that drink, and these drinkers consume an average of 4.5 gallons of pure alcohol a year. China is estimated to increase it’s per person, per year alcohol consumption ratio by an additional 1.5 liters of pure alcohol by 2025.

    According to SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), more than half of all U.S. adult citizens drink alcohol, with 6.6% meeting criteria for an alcohol-use disorder.

    One in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years are due to excessive alcohol use.

    A CDC study, published in June of this year, found that nearly 70% of deaths due to drinking involved working-age adults, and about 70% of those deaths involved males. Nearly 88,000 people die in the U.S. from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third most preventable cause of death in the United States. In 2013, fatal accidents involving an alcohol-impaired driver accounted for 10,076 deaths or 30.8 % of all driving fatalities.

    Men are more likely than women to experience alcohol-related deaths. Although more women are drinking today as compared to 2012, of the 88,000 alcohol related deaths, approximately 62,000 were men and 26,000 were women. This study proclaims that excessive alcohol use can shortened the lives of working-age adults by about 30 years.

    Alexandra Sifferlin for Time Magazine reported that harmful alcohol use not only leads to addiction, but it can put people at a higher risk of over 200 disorders like liver disease, tuberculosis and pneumonia.

    Binge drinking can damage the frontal cortex and other areas of the brain

    The CDC report shows that 16% of drinkers partake in binge drinking, which is the most dangerous form of alcohol consumption. Some of the risks associated with binge drinking are well known. It increases the risk for sexual assault, violence and self-harm. But the physical effects of such behaviors on the body are often not discussed. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), there’s strong evidence to suggest that regular binge drinking impacts executive functioning and decision making by damaging the frontal cortex and other areas of the brain.

    According to the 2013 The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), approximately 5.4 million people (about 14.2%) in the age range of 12-20 years, were binge drinkers (15.8% of males and 12.4% of females).

    One in every four families are impacted by alcoholism

    More than 10% of U.S. children live with a parent with alcohol problems, according to a 2012 study.

    According to Herma Silverstein, author of the book; Alcoholism, one of every four families has problems with alcohol.

    The CDC study also found that about 5% of the alcohol related deaths in the U.S. involved people younger than age 21.

    In 2012, 58.3% of people who tried alcohol for the first time were younger than 18.

    Drinking during pregnancy can cause brain damage to the infant, leading to a range of developmental, cognitive, and behavioral problems, otherwise called Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD). People/children with difficulties in the following areas may have FASD or alcohol-related birth defects:

    • Coordination
    • Emotional control
    • Learning challenges
    • Socialization skills
    • Focus in class, holding down a job

    These statistics are over powering and most definitely build an excellent argument to stop drinking, especially over this Fourth of July long holiday weekend. Please share these statistics with a friend, post on your social media pages, re-publish in your blog, or newsletter.


    References used in this blog:

    The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) is one of the 27 institutes and centers that comprise the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIAAA supports and conducts research on the impact of alcohol use on human health and well-being. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

    Preventing Chronic Disease (PCD) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal established by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. The mission of PCD is to promote the open exchange of information and knowledge among researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and others who strive to improve the health of the public through chronic disease prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/features/alcohol-deaths/

    The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) provides national and state-level data on the use of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs (including non-medical use of prescription drugs) and mental health in the United States https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), is an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.samhsa.gov/

    Alexandra Sifferlin, (2015) What Drinking Does to Your Body over Time, Time Magazine, http://time.com/author/alexandra-sifferlin/

    And

    Alexandra Sifferlin, (2014) Alcohol Kills 1 Person Every 10 Seconds, Report Says, Time Magazine, http://time.com/96082/alcohol-consumption-who/

    Silverstein, Herma. (1990), Alcoholism. New York: Franklin Watts http://allpsych.com/journal/alcoholism/#.VZQkhWPH_VI