Table 4 Qualitative results of the expert workshop. Main categories including a description of subcategories are presented

Acceptance of the MATE-Interview

• Research assistants felt comfortable in conducting the interview after an initial training period and perceived information they gathered by the MATE-assessment as useful

• Patients seemed to appreciate the structure of the MATE-Interview including fully structured modules and modules with open questions; for some patients depending on physical and mental state, the MATE interview in combination with the CSSRI-EU seemed to be too demanding

• Staff of treatment unit (team) appreciated feedback of the interview results

Acceptance of the study procedures

• Research assistants judged the study procedure, i.e. necessary assessments, material, and work flow, after initial training as being clear and acceptable. Training and ongoing supervision throughout the study was very helpful. Research assistants felt that the initial 2 days of training were too short to acquire all necessary skills for conducting the interviews and feedback sessions

• Patients generally were interested in participation and seemed to benefit from study participation;

• The team accepted the study procedures, while the perception of the PCMP implementation as study instead of daily routine was given in all participating treatment sites. Threats to the conduction were seen in high personnel fluctuation and also a high patient turnover

Cooperation of team and research assistants

• Cooperation of team and research assistants was seen as an essential agent of a successful implementation of the study.

• Good cooperation lead to better exchange and integration of the information gathered within the study procedures and the course of treatment

• Communication barriers occurred in namely in one of the participating sites, since parts of the team usually involved in treatment referral felt not sufficiently informed and feared to be “replaced” by PCPM

Plausibility of PCPM

• Recommendations calculated from the MATE-dimension scores in stage B of the PCPM were judged as reasonable, plausible and in many cases adequately matching the patients’ needs.

• Communication of the recommendations within the team and to the patient (stage C) was judged as easy to understand and beneficial for the patient

• Research assistants and team members perceived a high consistency between results of the PCPM and other clinical information regarding the patient

• Threats to a reasonable use of PCPM during the study were especially seen in lacking coordination between the treatment as usual and the study procedures, especially regarding treatment referral

Implementation of PCPM in routine care

• Potential benefits in qualified withdrawal treatment: a higher transparency within the team and also between team and patient; a potential increase of quality in a setting with high personnel fluctuation was seen as major benefits when fully implemented in daily routine.

• Potential barriers in qualified withdrawal treatment: the use of PCPM as realized in the study was seen as too time-consuming. Especially given a high patient turnover on these wards and a generally too little impact of treatment recommendations or arrangements for aftercare on the treatment patients actually receive afterwards, the effort of using PCPM was judged as too high by some of the participants

• Facilitators of implementation: Several possibilities were discussed to reduce effort by maintaining the benefits of PCPM usage including a shortened version of the MATE for use in qualified withdrawal treatment and integration of the assessment results in already existing procedures as team meetings and regular visits

• Implementation in other settings: drug counselling services and primary care were discussed as possible settings for an implementations of PCPM