Opportunities for the improvement of the methadone service in primary health care, from the professionals’ point of view
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.181Keywords:
Methadone Treatment Program, welfare quality improvement, EFQM model, Delphi consensus methodAbstract
Objective: To identify and prioritize improvement opportunities, according to the European Foundation for Quality Management model (EFQM) model, of the methadone dispensing service in Andalusian Primary Health Care, from the point of view of professionals. Method: Delphi consensus method, implemented from September 2007 to March 2008 by means of three rounds of interviews with questionnaires administered by electronic mail to 39 professionals. The Panel of experts was made up of Dispensers and Prescribers of methadone as well as Coordinators of welfare services from the Methadone Treatment Program (MTP). Selection criteria were: Being in active employment with a minimum of 3 years experience. Sample diversification variables: Professional role, geographical environment and type of habitat. Recruitment: By means of key professional bodies from different institutions. Results: 48 improvement opportunities were identified. Thirteen of these obtained a high level of agreement in the final round. According to the EFQM model, the dimensions that obtained the most consensus in relation to improving the care service were: Leadership, Alliances and Resources. The dimension that caused the greatest disagreement was Processes. Conclusions: In spite of its having been implemented since 1997 in Andalusian Primary Health Care, the methadone dispensing service is at an implementation phase, rather than what could be classed as a fully deployed stage.References
Torrens M. Spain Report. En: Casselman J, Meuwissen K, Opdebeeck A. Legal Aspects of Substitution Treatment. An Insight into Nine European Countries. Lisboa: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Adiction (EMCDDA); 2003; 61-69.
EMCDDA. Annual Report of the State of the Drugs Problem in the EU and Norway. Lisboa: EMCDDA; 2002.
San Molina L. Evolución de la dependencia de heroína y su asistencia en España. Adicciones 2005; 17:9-19.
Ministerio del Interior. Plan Nacional de Drogas. Memorias 2001. Madrid: Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional de Drogas; 2002.
Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Evaluación 2003. Estrategia
Nacional Sobre Drogas 2000-2008. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2004.
March JC, Martín E, Oviedo E, Rodríguez C, Rivadeneira S. Los Programas de Tratamiento con Metadona: situación real e ideal definida por profesionales. Trastornos Adictivos 2006; 8:225-35.
March JC, Oviedo E, Martín E, Rivadeneira S, Rodríguez C. Percepción de usuarios de los Programas de Tratamiento con metadona sobre la accesibilidad y atención recibida por el equipo terapéutico. Adicciones 2006; 18:359-70.
VVAA. Identificando recomendaciones y buenas prácticas MEHIB. Granada: EASP. 2004. Disponible en: http://www.easp.es/mehib.
Torrens M. Programas de mantenimiento con metadona: Cómo aumentar su eficiencia. Zambon Group. 2005. Disponible en: http://www.zambon.es/enlaces_menuizq/03.htm.
Ball JC, Ross A. The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment; patients, programs, services and outcomes.(1991). New York, Spinger-Verlag.
Bell J. Quality improvement for methadone maintenance treatment. Subst Use Misuse 2000; 35: 1735-56.
Saxon J. Pretreatment characteristics, program philosophy and level of ancillary services as predictors of methadone maintenance treatment outcomes. Addiction 1996; 91: 1197-1209.
Farrell M, Ward J, Mattick R, Hall W, Stimson GV, des Jarlais D et al. Methadone Mantenaince Treatment in Opiate Dependence: a Review. BMJ 1994; 309: 997-1001
Carlson MJ, Gabriel RM. Patient satisfaction, use of services, and one-year outcomes in publicly funded substance abuse treatment. Psychiatr Serv 2001; 52:1230-6.
Farré M, Mas A, Torrens M, Moreno V, Camí J. Retention rate and illicit opioid use during methadone maintenance interventions: A meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend 2002; 65, 283-290.
Madden A, Lea T, Bath N, Winstock AR. Satisfaction guaranteed?
What clients on methadone and buprenorphine think about their treatment? Drug Alcohol Rev 2008; 27: 671-8.
Trujols J, Pérez de los Cobos J. La perspectiva de los usuarios sobre los tratamientos de mantenimiento con metadona: una revisión centrada en la satisfacción con el tratamiento. Adicciones 2005; 17: 181-204.
Jones SS, Power R, Dale A. The patients’ charter: drug user’s views on the ‘ideal’ methadone programme. Addict Res Theory 1994; 1: 323-34.
March JC, Oviedo E, Martín E, Rivadeneira S, Rodríguez C. Percepción de usuarios de los Programas de Tratamiento con metadona sobre la accesibilidad y atención recibida por el equipo terapéutico. Adicciones 2006; 18:359-70.
Ducharme LJ, Luckey JW. Implementation of the methadone treatment quality assurance system. Findings from the feasibility study. Eval Health Prof 2000; 23: 72-90.
Czechowicz D, Hubbard RL, Phillips CD, Fountain DL, Cooper JR, Molinari SP, Luckey JW, Graham LA. Methadone Treatment Quality Assurance System (MTQAS): A federal effort to assess the feasibility of using outcome indicators for methadone treatment. J Maint Addict 1997; 1: 11-24.
Wintle D. Pain management for the opioid-dependent patient. Br J Nurs 2008; 17:47-51.
Flego A. Methadone Treatment and Quality. The EFQM Excellence Model. Heroin Add and Rel Clin Probl 2006; 8:13-36.
Bobrova N, Rughnikov U, Neifeld E, Rhodes T, Alcorn R, Kirichenko S, et al. Challenges in providing drug user treatment services in Russia: providers’ views. Subst Use Misuse 2008; 43 (12-13):1770-84.
Hobden KL, Cunningham JA. Barriers to the dissemination of four harm reduction strategies: a survey of addiction treatment providers in Ontario Harm Reduc J 2006; 3:35.
Arias DM. Programas de mantenimiento con agonistas opiáceos y atención primaria. Cad Aten Primaria 1998; 5:164-8.
Lahoz B, Moratalla G, Lineros C, Barros C. Consenso para la atención a los usuarios del Programa de Mantenimiento con Metadona en los centros de salud de la provincia de Cádiz. Aten Primaria 2000; 25:417-21.
Velarde C, Peinó J, Gómez de Caso JA. Programa de mantenimiento
con metadona en heroinómanos por vía intravenosa. ¿Qué información tienen los médicos de atención primaria?. Aten Primaria 1996; 17:581-84.
Millán Carrasco A, Venegas Sánchez J, Rodríguez Reinado C, March Cerdá JC, Romero Vallecillos M, Fernández Ruiz I, et al. Orientaciones para la mejora de la calidad total del servicio de dispensación de metadona en atención primaria. En: XIII Congreso SESPAS. Libro de Actas; 4-6 de marzo. Sevilla: Gac Sanit 2009; 23 (Especial Congreso 1): 103.
Millán Carrasco A, Rodríguez Reinado C, Venegas Sánchez J, Pérez Lázaro JJ. Acciones para mejorar el servicio de dispensación de metadona en atención primaria [en prensa]. Aten Primaria, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.aprim. 2009.05.013.
Fundación Europea para la Gestión de la Calidad (EFQM). Conceptos fundamentales de la Excelencia. Bruselas: EFQM; 2003.
Nabitz U, Schramade M, Schippers G. Evaluating treatment process redesign by applying the EFQM Excellence Model. Int J Qual Health Care 2006; 18 (5): 336–345.
Pérez C. ¿Deben estar las técnicas de consenso incluidas entre las técnicas de investigación cualitativa? Rev Esp Salud Pública 2000; 4:319-21.
Landeta J. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2006; 73:467-82.
Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311:376-80.
Yánez R, Cuadra R. La técnica Delphi y la investigación en los
servicios de salud. Cienc enferm 2008; 14:9-15.
