Abstract
Opioid use is a major problem in India and has high morbidity and mortality with a prevalence of 2.06%. There is a huge treatment gap for opioid use disorders (OUDs). Due to limited mental health resources and limited psychiatric training of medical practitioners in OUDs, a significant proportion of patients do not receive appropriate medical intervention. This article demonstrates how a primary care doctor working in a remote opioid substitution therapy (OST) clinic received assistance from the optional opioid module of clinical schedule for primary care psychiatry (CSP) and collaborative video consultation (CVC) module to address specific difficulties of patients already on Buprenorphine OST and improve the quality of care, thereby reducing chances of relapses. CVC module is a part of one-year digitally driven primary care psychiatry program designed by National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru. The opioid module was designed by NIMHANS, Bengaluru in collaboration with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi These observations warrant replication of this approach across diverse settings and at a larger scale to explore and evaluate its impact and effectiveness.
Copyright
Association for Helping Neurosurgical Sick People. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Derivative-Non Commercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit.
Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
