“We’ve Learned It’s a Medical Illness, Not a Moral Choice”: Qualitative Study of the Effects of a Multicomponent Addiction Intervention on Hospital Providers’ Attitudes and Experiences
BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUD) represent a national epidemic with increasing rates of SUD-related hospitalizations. However, most hospitals lack expertise or systems to directly address SUD. Healthcare professionals feel underprepared and commonly hold negative views toward patients with SUD. Little is known about how hospital interventions may affect providers’ attitudes and experiences toward patients with SUD.
OBJECTIVE: To explore interprofessional hospital providers’ perspectives on how integrating SUD treatment and care systems affect providers’ attitudes, beliefs, and experiences.
DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The study was part of a formative evaluation of the Improving Addiction Care Team (IMPACT), an interprofessional hospital-based addiction medicine service with rapid-access pathways to post-hospital SUD treatment.
SETTING: Single urban academic hospital in Portland, Oregon.
PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary hospital providers.
MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a thematic analysis using an inductive approach at a semantic level.
RESULTS: Before IMPACT, participants felt that hospitalization did not address addiction, leading to untreated withdrawal, patients leaving against medical advice, chaotic care, and staff “moral distress.” Participants felt that IMPACT “completely reframes” addiction as a treatable chronic disease, improving patient engagement and communication, and humanizing care. Participants valued post-hospital SUD treatment pathways and felt having systems to address SUD reduced burnout and provided relief. Providers noted that IMPACT had limited ability to address poverty or engage highly ambivalent patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Providers’ distress of caring for patients with SUD is not inevitable. Hospital-based SUD interventions can reframe providers’ views of addiction and may have significant implications for clinical care and providers’ well-being.
© 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine
Many felt that providing intensive medical care without addressing people’s underlying SUD was a waste of time and resources. As one cardiac surgeon reflected:
“[Patients] ended up either dead or reinfected. Nobody wanted to do stuff because we felt it was futile. Well, of course, it’s futile …. you’re basically trying to fix the symptoms. It’s like having a leaky roof and just running around with a bunch of buckets, which is like surgery. You gotta fix the roof…otherwise they will continue to inject bacteria into their bodies.”
Care with IMPACT:
Providers felt integrating hospital-based systems to address SUD legitimized addiction as a treatable disease.
Participants described IMPACT as a “sea change” that “completely reframes” addiction as “a medical condition that actually has a treatment.” As one social worker observed, “when it’s somebody in a white coat with expertise who’s talking to another doctor it really can shift mindsets in an amazing way.” Others echoed this, stating that an addiction team “legitimized the fact that this is an actual disease that we need to treat - and a failure to treat it is a failure to be a good doctor.”
Providers felt that by addressing addiction directly, “IMPACT elevated the consciousness of providers and nurses … that substance use disorders are brain disorders and not bad behavior.” They described that this legitimization, combined with seeing firsthand the stabilizing effects of medications for addiction, allowed providers to understand SUD as a chronic disease, and not a moral failing.
Providers felt IMPACT improved patient engagement and humanized care by treating withdrawal, directly communicating about SUD, and modeling compassionate care.
Providers noted that treating withdrawal had a dramatic effect on patient engagement and care. One surgeon explained, “by managing their opioid dependence and other substance abuse issues … it’s easier for the staff to take care of them, it’s safer, and the patients feel better taken care of because the staff will engage with them.” Many noted that conflict-ridden “conversations were able to go to the side, and we were able to talk about other things to build rapport.” Others noted that this shift felt like “more productive time.”
In addition, providers repeatedly emphasized that having clear hospital standards and a process to engage patients “really helps … establish rapport with patients: ‘This is how we work this. These are your boundaries. And this is what will happen if you push those boundaries.’ There it is.” Providers attributed improved patient-provider communication to “frank conversation,” “the right amount of empathy,” and a less judgmental environment. As one attending described, “I don’t know if it gives them a voice or allows us to hear them better … but something’s happening with communication.”
Many participants highlighted that IMPACT modeled compassionate bedside interactions, exposed the role of trauma in many patients’ lives, and helped providers see SUD as a disease spectrum. One attending noted that to “actually appreciate the subtleties – just the severity of the disorder – has been powerful.” One resident said:
“There’s definitely a lot of stigma around patients with use disorders that probably shows itself in subtle ways throughout their hospitalization. I think IMPACT does a good job … keeping the patient in the center and keeping their use disorder contextualized in the greater person … [IMPACT] role models bedside interactions and how to treat people like humans.”
Providers valued post-hospital SUD treatment pathways.
Providers valued previously nonexistent post-hospital SUD treatment pathways, stating “this relationship with [community treatment] … it’s like an answer to prayers,” and “this isn’t just like we’re being nicer.” One attending described:
“Starting them on [methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone] and then making the next step in the outpatient world happen has been huge. That transition is so critical … that’s been probably the biggest impact.”
Providers felt relief after IMPACT implementation.
Providers felt that by addressing SUD treatment gaps and providing addiction expertise, IMPACT helped alleviate the previously widespread feelings of “moral distress.” One resident explained “having [IMPACT] as a lifeline, it just feels so good.” As an infectious disease consultant noted, “it makes people more open to treating people if they don’t feel isolated and out of their depth.” Others noted that IMPACT supported better multidisciplinary collaboration, which “reduced a lot of tension between the teams.” One nurse summarized:
“I think you feel more empowered when you’ve got the right medication, … the knowledge, and you feel like you have the resources. You actually feel like you’re making a difference.”
Respondents acknowledged that even with IMPACT, some patients leave AMA or relapse. However, by understanding addiction as a relapsing and remitting disease, providers reconceptualized “success,” further reducing feelings of emotional burnout and stress: “there will be ups and downs, it’s not gonna be a straight linear success.” One case manager reflected,
