Presentation on theme: "Recovery Oriented Systems of Care: Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) Michael Dennis, Ph.D. & Christy K Scott, Ph.D. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal &"— Presentation transcript:
Recovery Oriented Systems of Care: Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) Michael Dennis, Ph.D. & Christy K Scott, Ph.D. Chestnut Health Systems, Normal & Chicago, IL Presentation Mid-Atlantic Regional Dissemination Workshop: Cutting edge treatment. A CTN Regional Dissemination Conference, Baltimore, MD, on June 3-4, 2010. This presentation was supported by funds and data from NIDA R37-DA11323 and R01- DA021174-03. The opinions are those of the authors do not reflect official positions of the government. We would like to thank Belinda Willis, Rodney Funk, and Lilia Hristova, Lisa Nicholson, for their assistance in preparing this presentation. Please address comments or questions to the author at firstname.lastname@example.org or 309-451- 7801
2 Primary Sources for this presentation Scott, C.K, & Dennis, M.L. (2003). Recovery Management Checkups: An Early Re-Intervention Model. Chicago: Chestnut Health Systems. Available online at http://www.chestnut.org/LI/downloads/Scott_&_Dennis_20 03_RMC_Manual-2_25_03.pdf. http://www.chestnut.org/LI/downloads/Scott_&_Dennis_20 03_RMC_Manual-2_25_03.pdf Scott, C. K., & Dennis, M. L. (2009). Results from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the impact of quarterly recovery management checkups with adult chronic substance users. Addiction. 2009;104:959-971 Scott, C.K. Dennis, M.L. (in press). Recovery Management Checkups with adult chronic substance users. In Kelly, J.F., and White, W.L. (Eds), Addiction Recovery Management: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Springer These and other articles from the ERI experiments are included in full on the memory sticks
3 Evolution of the General Acute Care Model During the early 1900s, infectious diseases accounted for 60% of the deaths while only 20% resulted from chronic conditions. This high incidence of infectious versus chronic conditions drove the ways in which various systems of care developed in this country. Specifically, systems of care were organized around an episodic relationship in which a person seeks treatment, receives an assessment and treatment, and leaves the appointment or is discharged and assumed cured This pattern produced expectations by patients, service providers, and policy makers that patients receive treatment followed by rapid positive outcomes or results.
4 Implications of an Acute Care Model for Addiction Treatment and Research Substance abuse treatment has historically been organized around single episodes of care with the expectation that when patients finished the treatment they would be cured. Indirect focus on changing the social recovery environment (with TCs being a major exception) Passive referrals to address co-occurring problems Minimal or no post-discharge monitoring or check-ups Evaluation of outcomes over relatively short periods of time (6-12 months) with the expectation that improvements should continue after treatment.
5 Conflicts with the Current Paradigm An emerging body of evidence from treatment epidemiology studies (e.g., DARP, TOPS, DATOS, UCLA, PENN, PETSA) suggests that the typical pathway to recovery often involves multiple episodes of care over many years. Among people admitted to publicly funded treatment reported in TEDS, for instance, 60% of the people had been in treatment before (including 23% 1x, 13% 2xs, 7% 3xs, 17% 4 or more). Focus is expanding beyond matching at intake to matching along a continuum of care based on the response to treatment and the need for monitoring and continuing care is evident
6 Conflicts with the Current Paradigm (continued) Evaluation of outcomes are increasingly looking at longer periods of time (2 to 5 years or more) and across multiple episodes of care. In a recent study looking at the pathways to recovery Dennis, Scott et al found the median time from first use to a year of abstinence was 27 years, And, the median time from first treatment to a year of abstinence was 9 years with 3 to 4 treatment episodes (Dennis, Scott, et al, 2005).
7 Managing Chronic Conditions In the U.S., chronic conditions currently account for 70 to 80% of the deaths (Matarazzo, 1982; Sexton, 1979) and for 70% of all health care expenditures (Institute of Medicine, 2001). Over 10 years ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM; 1993) report noted that ongoing management of chronic conditions can control the severity and progression of a number of chronic conditions. Recently, the addictions field has started to embrace the idea that addiction often resembles other chronic conditions and that the typical acute care models of treatment may be outdated (McLellan et al., 2000; 2005; Weisner et al., 2004). The purpose of this presentation is to review a Recovery Management Model developed recently to manage addiction over time and to improve patient outcomes.
8 Common Features of Early Re-Intervention Models proactively tracking patients and providing regular checkups, screening patients for early evidence of problems, motivating people to make or maintain changes, negotiating access to additional formal care and potential barriers to it, and emphasizing early formal re-intervention when problems do arise. The core assumption of these approaches is that earlier detection and re-intervention will improve long-term outcomes.
9 Substance Use Careers Last for Decades Cumulative Survival Years from first use to 1+ years abstinence 302520151050 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.3.2.1 0.0 Median duration of 27 years (IQR: 18 to 30+) Source: Dennis, Scott et al (2005). Understanding Addiction as a Chronic Condition
10 Treatment Careers Last for Years Cumulative Survival Years from first Tx to 1+ years abstinence 2520151050 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.3.2.1 0.0 Median duration of 9 years (IQR: 3 to 20) and 3 to 4 episodes of care Source: Dennis, Scott et al (2005). Understanding the Response to Treatment
11 Understanding the Cycles of Relapse, Treatment, Incarceration and Recovery In the Community Using (71% stable) In Treatment (35% stable) In Recovery (76% stable) 8% 33% Incarcerated (60% stable) 3% 18% 15% 9% 16% 27% 4% 5% 17% 2% Source: Scott et al 2005, Dennis & Scott, 2007 33% moved per quarter 82% moved 1+ times 62% multiple times. Focus of RMC: Shortening time using in community until entering treatment Increasing likelihood of entering recovery Treatment is not the only, but the mostly likely path to enter recovery
12 What predicted the transition from using to treatment? Less Likely with Frequency of Use Treatment Resistance More Likely with Problem orientation Desire for help Prior weeks of treatment Amount of self help Self help engagement Need to be proactive Need to address barriers Need to be convinced problems are solvable Need to keep engaged in treatment Need to engage in self help Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) by 2 to 3 times
13 A subset of these factors also predict the transition from treatment to recovery? Less Likely with Frequency of Use Treatment Resistance More Likely with Amount of self help Self help engagement Importance of linkage to recovery community Importance of degree of engagement In its current form, RMC relies on treatment as the primary pathway to self-help
14 Managing Addiction & Recovery Requires Tracking Assessing Linking Engaging Retaining. Which we call the TALER Model (Scott & Dennis, 2003, in press)
15 Some challenges for Managing Addiction & Recovery Substance-abusing lifestyles often lead to unstable living arrangements, alienation from friends and family members, and a high rate of social isolation High rates of multi-morbidity (e.g., health problems, psychiatric illness, criminal justice involvement, unemployment, homelessness) can complicate recovery. Friends, family and systems of care often view relapse as a moral failing or choice. Low rates of insurance, personal resources and social support create barriers to recovery
17 Tracking Model (continued) (Scott 2004) Yes Key
18 Tracking Model (continued) (Scott 2004) No Key
19 Other Key Facets of Tracking Weekly monitoring and staff meetings Recycling contact information Anticipating institutional barriers and design issues particular to a target population Split incentives Customer services
20 Tracking Model Results Reliably achieves over 90% regardless of study, level of care, age, race, primary substance, mental health, homelessness, or geography in over 30,000 interviews Typically average 94-97% 3 to 9 years later, with 85-95% within 2 weeks of target date Average cost is generally under $300/wave, less than most research studies (typically $500-1,000 per wave) with follow rates more like 70-85%. Scott has been able to teach others to replicate this success in over a dozen different independent studies
21 Assessing ERI experiments 1 and 2 used the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN; Dennis et al 2003) In ERI 1 we used annual on-site saliva testing and a lab based urine tests Several problem were identified including: - Saliva and urine not agreeing, turned out to be related to delays in shipping and addressed with freezing - Urine and self report not agreeing (aka false negative & positive) - Rate of false negatives growing over time
22 Assessing (Continued) In ERI 2 we switched to quarterly on-site urine cup, gave the results to the participant BEFORE asking detailed recency of use questions, and probed any inconsistencies One step cup and laboratory tests agreed 99% of time in subsamples that were frozen before shipping False negative rates were low and shrinking over time Experiment 2 was more likely to identify people in need of treatment (30% vs. 44%, d=.30, p<.05)
23 Comparison of False Negative Rates by Substance at 24 months 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Opiates Marijuana CocaineAny Drug Tested ERI 1ERI 2 At 24 months FN were at 19% for any drug Introducing the new protocol in ERI 2 dropped the 24 month FN rate to 3%
24 Rates of False Negatives Also Dropping Over Time in ERI 2 * False Negative defined as the percent with positive urine & no past month use reported
25 Assessment Any 1 of the following indicated the need for RMC… Had 13 or more of 90 days of use Had 1 or more of 90 days of getting drunk or being high for most of the day Had 1 or more of 90 days where AOD use caused not to meet responsibilities Any past month symptom of abuse or dependence Self reported a need to return to treatment Did not attempt with people already in treatment, incarcerated, or living out side of the Chicago area. The revised urine protocol in ERI 2 helped to increase the percent identified in need from an average of 30% per quarter to 42% per quarter
26 Linkage Meeting Linkage Manager (LM) uses motivational interviewing to: - provide feedback to patients regarding their current substance use and related problems, - discuss implications of managing addiction as a chronic condition, and - discuss treatment barriers. - assess and discuss level of motivation for treatment - schedule treatment intake appointment and develop plan for showing to the appointment Starting in ERI-2, LM also offered alternatives to treatment (e.g., 12 step, faith based organizations, or other recovery groups, behavior change plans )
27 RMC Treatment Follow-up Plan My Linkage Manager, _________________, is available: To help me get into a program To me by telephone. I have an appt. for treatment ______________, Some things I want to talk to the treatment program staff about are: ___________________________________ My Linkage Manager will meet me at the treatment program and will be available to: Support me through the first stages of treatment Discuss my progress Monitor my length of stay I agree that I will not leave treatment without contacting my Linkage Manager We hope that Linkage Assistance and Engagement Support will be helpful to you. 1 800 990-5670 (ITS FREE) (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
28 RMC Alternative Recovery Plan My Linkage Manager, _________________, is available To help me get into a treatment program. Discuss options other than treatment to address substance abuse To me by telephone. Things I will do to improve my current situation and how often I will do them: How often? Attend 12 step/self help meetings _______________ Attend church/ faith based programs ____________ Meet with Recovery Coach _____________________ Support programs (housing) ___________________ Call my Linkage Manager ______________________ We hope that Linkage Assistance will be helpful to you. 1 800 990-5670 (ITS FREE) (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
29 Client transferred to LM Linkage Meeting Flowchart LM greets client Introduces self Shakes client hand Engages in brief casual conversation LM provides personalized feedback to client using the Linkage Assistance Worksheet(LAW) Review substance use and related problems Review barriers to treatment Engage in change talk with the client Determine level of motivation (using Ruler) 0-2 Little Motivation Express empathy Roll with resistance Explore ways to increase motivation Keep treatment an option 3-7 Moderate Motivation Explore ambivalence Elicit motivational statements Roll with resistance Explore treatment as an option 8-10 Highly Motivated Explore any ambivalence Support self-efficacy Talk about treatment LM discuss treatment with client (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
30 Linkage Meeting Flowchart LM discuss treatment with client Client agrees to go to treatment Negotiate same day access Discuss barriers Problem solve to address barriers Client agrees to treatment later in week clt signs M90 release Client agrees to go the treatment same day clt signs M90 release Implement Not same day access to treatment protocol Implement Same day access to treatment protocol LM Compensates client Gives clt schedule card Gives clt copy of REC plan Gives clt copy of M90 rel. Completes LM log LM Compensates client for interview Thanks them for time Gives clt copy of REC plan Gives clt copy of M90 release Gives clt schedule card LM business card w/ toll free # Completes LM Log Escorts clt out of the building (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
31 Linkage Meeting Flowchart LM discuss treatment with client Client refuses treatment Discuss alternative options to treatment Client refuses all services LM provide client with Copy of REC plan Gives LM card with toll free # Keep option open to call LM Compensates client for interview Gives clt schedule card Thanks clt for time Escorts clt out of the building Discuss other options Self help groups Church/Faith activities YMCA LM and client Complete REC plan Give clt copy of REC plan Link clt to alternative Keep option open to call (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
32 Engagement In advance we had negotiated an accelerated readmission process that allows the agency to accept our follow-up assessment and intake someone in within 1- 2 days On an individual level the Linkage Manager (LM) also.. - Scheduled appointments for treatment and next quarterly checkups. - Transported patients to treatment intake and stayed through the intake process.
33 Retention LM visited the treatment programs weekly to check in with clients currently there and contacted all at least weekly to proactively identify any unmet needs or concerns Treatment agency staff agreed to contact LM before discharging a client LM attempts to act as an omnibudsman and keep client in treatment If client leaves, LM tries to shift to an alternative plan
34 Engagement and Retention Flowchart Client admitted to inpatient txt LM and HC staff walk clt to unit Txt day 1 Face to face with cltSchedule Day 4 meeting Reinforce motivationGive clt congrats card Txt day 4 Face to face meeting Schedule Day 8 meeting Reinforce motivation Hand clt Thank you card Txt day 8 Face to face meetingReinforce motivation Introduce relapse plan and chronic disease model Schedule Day 14 mtg Hand clt Thank you card Txt day 14 Face to face meeting Revisit relapse plan and chronic disease model Thank you, Good job card Client at-risk to leave Txt Client has behavior issues at Txt agency Client wants to leave txt Txt agency staff call LM Pre-mature discharge Intervention Immediately schedule meeting with client, LM and HC tx. staff. Discuss client issues and concerns to come to a resolution Client decides to stay in txt Client leaves treatment Or Is asked to leave LM continues with protocol (Scott & Dennis, 2003)
35 RMC Protocol Adherence Rate by Experiment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Follow-up Interview (93 vs. 96%) d=0.18 Treatment Need (30 vs. 44%) d=0.31* Linkage Attendance (75 vs. 99%) d=1.45* Agreed to Assessment (44 vs. 45%) d=0.02 Showed to Assessment (30 vs. 42%) d=0.26* Showed to Treatment (25 vs. 30%) d=0.18* Treatment Engagement (39 vs. 58%) d=0.43* Range of rates by quarter * P(H: RMC1=RMC2)<.05 ERI-1 ERI-2 Generally averaged as well or better Improved Screening Quality assurance and transportation assistance reduced the variance Improved Tx Engagement (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
36 H1: return to treatment at a higher rate % Readmitted (Months 4-24) Results *p<.05(d=+0.41)*(d=+0.21)* (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
37 H2: receive more total days of treatment Mean Days of Treatment Received (of 630) Results *p<.05(d=+0.23)*(d=+0.27)* (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
38 H3: experience more days of abstinence Percent of Days of Abstinence (of 630) Results *p<.05(d=+0.29)*(d=+0.04) (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
39 H4: less successive quarters of unmet need for treatment % of quarters with unmet treatment need (of 7) Results *p<.05(d=-0.32)*(d=-0.19)* (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
40 H5: be less likely to need treatment at the end of year two % with unmet need for treatment (month 24) Results *p<.05(d=-0.24)*(d=-0.21)* (Scott & Dennis, 2009)
41 Results from ERI Experiment 2 after 4 years Relative to the control group, RMC helped to Reduce the time from relapse to readmission by 71% months (45 vs 13 months) Increase the percent reentering treatment by 37% (51% vs. 70%) Increase the days of treatment by 41% (112 vs.79 days) Reduce the successive quarters of being in Need of treatment by 21% (50 vs.38% of 14 quarters) Reduce the number of substance problems x months by 29% r (126 vs. 89 of 720 problem x months) Increase the days of abstinence by 9% (1026 vs. 932 of 1350 days)
42 Cost of RMC Relative to outcome monitoring only, adding RMC to follow up increased costs per quarter by 81% ($177 vs. $321 per quarter) The cost of RMC can also be thought of in several other ways including: - $843 per person found in need of treatment - $3,011per person entering and staying in treatment at least 14 days
43 Some Limitations of RMC Biggest effects are the first few times we bring them back to treatment, after that it can become a revolving door Treatment systems are not set up to handle people coming back to treatment for the 4 th to 15 th time. Given that over a third relapse in 90 days, a quarter may be too long of an initial period Need better linkage to 12 step and other recovery support services Costs could be very different if done by non- researchers and/or with less detailed assessment
44 Next Steps Just submitting year 4 findings Currently evaluating the cost, cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost of RMC Just completed a 5 year follow-up wave for ERI to evaluate the impact of removing RMC and to evaluate 5 year HIV seroconversion Just finished recruitment for a 3 year randomized trial of RMC with women coming out of cook county jailing using RMC plus new components targeting HIV risk behaviors and criminal activity Examining the indirect effect of RMC on other outcomes Planning a pilot study of RMC with adolescents
45 American Psychiatric Association. (1994). American Psychiatric Association diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR) (4th - text revision ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Epstein, J. F. (2002). Substance dependence, abuse and treatment: Findings from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA Series A-16, DHHS Publication No. SMA 02-3642). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Retrieved from http://www.DrugAbuseStatistics.SAMHSA.gov. http://www.DrugAbuseStatistics.SAMHSA.gov GAIN Coordinating Center Data Set (2005). Bloomington, IL: Chestnut Health Systems. See www.chestnut.org/li/gain.www.chestnut.org/li/gain Kessler, R. C., Nelson, G. B., McGonagle, K. A., Edlund, M. J., Frank, R. G., & Leaf, P. J. (1996). The epidemiology of co-occurring mental disorders and substance use disorders in the national comorbidity survey: Implications for prevention and services utilization. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 17-31. Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K. (under review). Managing substance use disorders (SUD) as a chronic condition. NIDA Science and Perspectives. Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K., Funk, R., & Foss, M. A. (2005). The duration and correlates of addiction and treatment careers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28, S51-S62. Dennis, M. L., Scott, C. K., & Funk, R. (2003). An experimental evaluation of recovery management checkups (RMC) for people with chronic substance use disorders. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(3), 339-352. Office Applied Studies (2002). Analysis of the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) on line at http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-SERIES/00064.xml. http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-SERIES/00064.xml Office Applied Studies (2002). Analysis of the 2002 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) on line data at http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-SERIES/00056.xml) Scott, C.K, & Dennis, M.L. (2003). Recovery Management Checkups: An Early Re-Intervention Model. Chicago: Chestnut Health Systems. Available online at http://www.chestnut.org/LI/downloads/Scott_&_Dennis_2003_RMC_Manual-2_25_03.pdf. http://www.chestnut.org/LI/downloads/Scott_&_Dennis_2003_RMC_Manual-2_25_03.pdf Scott, C.K. Dennis, M.L. (in press). Recovery Management Checkups with adult chronic substance users. In Kelly, J.F., and White, W.L. (Eds), Addiction Recovery Management: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Springer Scott, C. K., & Dennis, M. L. (2009). Results from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the impact of quarterly recovery management checkups with adult chronic substance users. Addiction. 2009;104:959-971 Scott, C. K., Dennis, M. L., & Foss, M. A. (2005). Utilizing recovery management checkups to shorten the cycle of relapse, treatment re-entry, and recovery. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 78, 325-338. Scott, C. K., Foss, M. A., & Dennis, M. L. (2005). Pathways in the relapse, treatment, and recovery cycle over three years. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28, S61-S70. World Health Organization (WHO). (1999). The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth revision (ICD-10). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from www.who.int/whosis/icd10/index.html. www.who.int/whosis/icd10/index.html References and Related Work