Table 2.
Comparison Between PWID-E and PWID-I
| Practice Setting and Available Resources | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Respondents (n = 239), No. (%) |
PWID Eligible (n = 171), No. (%) |
PWID Ineligible (n = 68), No. (%) |
P Value | |
| Practice setting | .720 | |||
| Urban | 179 (74.9) | 127 (74.3) | 52 (77.6) | |
| Suburban | 43 (18.0) | 33 (19.3) | 10 (14.9) | |
| Rural | 16 (6.7) | 11 (6.4) | 5 (7.5) | |
| Access to inpatient addiction services | .198 | |||
| Yes | 183 (76.6) | 135 (79.4) | 48 (70.6) | |
| No | 45 (18.8) | 30 (17.6) | 15 (22.1) | |
| Not sure | 10 (4.2) | 5 (2.9) | 5 (7.4) | |
| Access to addiction outpatient support | .129 | |||
| No access | 4 (1.7) | 2 (1.2) | 2 (2.9) | |
| Not sure | 27 (11.3) | 18 (10.7) | 9 (13.2) | |
| Yes, but limited | 119 (49.8) | 80 (47.3) | 39 (57.4) | |
| Yes, good access | 70 (29.3) | 53 (31.4) | 17 (25.0) | |
| Yes, excellent access | 17 (7.1) | 16 (9.5) | 1 (1.5) | |
| Is inpatient peer support available for PWID | .644 | |||
| Yes | 76 (31.8) | 56 (32.9) | 20 (29.4) | |
| No | 87 (36.4) | 59 (34.7) | 28 (41.2) | |
| Not sure | 75 (31.4) | 55 (32.4) | 20 (29.4) | |
| Is peer support available for outpatient PWID on OPAT | .132 | |||
| Yes | 43 (18.0) | 36 (21.4) | 7 (10.6) | |
| No | 85 (35.6) | 59 (35.1) | 26 (43.9) | |
| Not sure | 103 (43.1) | 73 (43.5) | 30 (45.5) | |
| Is social work/case management available for inpatient PWID | .030 | |||
| Yes | 220 (92.1) | 162 (95.3) | 58 (85.3) | |
| No | 5 (2.1) | 2 (1.2) | 3 (4.4) | |
| Not sure | 13 (5.4) | 6 (3.5) | 7 (10.3) | |
| Is social work/case management available for outpatient PWID on OPAT | .009 | |||
| Yes | 86 (36.0) | 72 (42.6) | 14 (21.2) | |
| No | 74 (31.0) | 49 (29.0) | 25 (37.9) | |
| Not sure | 75 (31.4) | 48 (28.4) | 27 (40.9) | |
| Perceived barriers to inclusion | ||||
| Risk of patients tampering with PICC line | 159 (66.5) | 107 (62.6) | 52 (76.5) | .040 |
| PICC may be trigger for relapse to drug use | 103 (43.1) | 70 (40.9) | 33 (48.5) | .282 |
| Housing insecurity | 189 (79.1) | 141 (82.5) | 48 (70.6) | .042 |
| Inadequate access to inpatient addiction treatment during hospitalization | 87 (36.4) | 62 (36.3) | 25 (36.8) | .941 |
| Inadequate access to outpatient addiction treatment after hospitalization | 131 (54.8) | 96 (56.5) | 35 (51.5) | .484 |
| Medical–legal risk too high | 65 (27.2) | 33 (19.3) | 32 (47.1) | <.001 |
| Colleagues not all aligned—no consensus in my ID practice whether OPAT is appropriate for PWID | 100 (41.8) | 68 (39.8) | 32 (47.1) | .302 |
| Primary hospital teams (medicine, surgery) would not be supportive with OPAT for this population | 60 (25.1) | 41 (24.0) | 19 (27.9) | .524 |
| Patient would not be accepted by visiting/home health nurse services or pharmacy/infusion company | 157 (65.7) | 115 (67.3) | 42 (61.8) | .420 |
| Payor/insurance issues | 88 (36.8) | 66 (38.6) | 22 (32.4) | .367 |
| Other | 26 (10.9) | 20 (11.7) | 6 (8.8) | .520 |
| No barriers | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | .527 |
Abbreviations: ID, infectious diseases; OPAT, outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy; PICC, peripherally inserted central catheter; PWID, people who inject drugs; PWID-E, respondents who reported that PWID are eligible; PWID-I, respondents who reported that PWID are ineligible.