RAMS Alumni Spotlight: Dr. Susan L. Calcaterra

For our February 2026 RAMS Alumni Spotlight, we interviewed Dr. Susan L. Calcaterra, MD, MPH, MS from the 6th RAMS Cohort (2017-2019) about her background and work since completing the RAMS Program.

Susan is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Department of Medicine, Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Hospital Medicine. She is the Director of the Addiction Medicine Consultation Service at the University of Colorado Hospital and a Denver Health Opioid Treatment Program Physician. She has focused her research on topics including the expansion of hospital-based addiction treatment, opioid stewardship in the hospital setting, and hospital-based interventions to reduce opioid overdose deaths post hospital discharge.

Read on to learn more about Susan!

Tell us about your clinical and research background. What led you to study substance use?

During residency, I attended a presentation given by a physician in our clinic who published a very impactful research study in NEJM describing mortality rates of people released from prison compared to the general population. Her presentation fascinated me and so I introduced myself to her after her talk, inquiring if she had any projects I could take on. She generously offered to mentor me as I wrote up and published my first manuscript, a process I found to be both interesting and rewarding. She remains both my mentor and a good friend today. My interest in addiction research stemmed from my experiences working as a resident during the prescription opioid epidemic and later as a hospitalist at our city’s safety net hospital. It was clear that we, as clinicians, did not have the clinical skills or knowledge to address the underlying reason for many of our patient’s hospitalizations — their severe drug or alcohol use disorder—which frequently led to rehospitalization. This contributed to clinician burnout and moral distress. My research goals grew from these experiences.

In what ways did your involvement with the RAMS Program assist you with your research career?

My involvement with RAMS was career changing. The research support, advice, and feedback provided by Drs. Samet, O’Connor, and Edelman strengthened my K08 application. They provided letters of support on my K08 that certainly strengthened my grant application. The relationships I developed with my peers in my RAMS cohort have persisted despite our diverse locations across North America. The RAMS reunion lunches at AMERSA are a major highlight of the conference. I am in awe of my RAMS peers and their incredible successes over the years. I feel incredibly fortunate to be a part of the RAMS community; is one of the most rewarding aspects of my career.

Did you move institutions post-fellowship? If so, what was the most challenging about this transition?

Post-fellowship, I moved from one local institution to another. Prior to fellowship, I was a hospitalist at our city’s safety-net hospital and had planned to return there after fellowship to develop and implement an addiction consultation service while also writing a K08. Soon after completing fellowship, it became clear that the hospital did not have the resources to support the addiction consultation service in the near future or to provide me with protected research time. I was fortunate to find a position at our local university hospital with protected time to write and apply for a K08. Ultimately, I obtained independent state funding to develop and implement an addiction consultation service at our university hospital and my K08 was funded at the same time – it was an exciting time in my career.

What would you consider an interesting or surprising finding from your research so far?

I can never predict which project or research study will resonate the most with people. Some of my smallest, unfunded studies were the most impactful. For me, it has been fruitful to follow most leads at least halfway to see where they end up. A small project could change the trajectory of your research and career.

Tell us about some directions you see your research going in.

I am excited to gains skills conducting pragmatic clinical trials and partnering with others outside of my institution.  I also think there are opportunities to work across care settings, both in the inpatient and outpatient/OTP setting.

What has been a particularly challenging IRB issue you have had recently?

Working through the IRB process gets easier each time I submit an application. The most challenging IRB issues occurred in my early days of research and usually involved me not submitting the correct form or document which required multiple amendments and email communication with the IRB liaison. Recently, I met with my local IRB to understand the details of when to apply for an IND to the FDA. There is always more to learn!

Have you ever had an experience with a revise and resubmit decision and/or a rejection, and if so, what errors did you make and what would you have changed / what did you change?

Almost always, the review process leads to a stronger paper. If a reviewer does not understand something and requests clarification, then others will likely have the same confusion. When I feel frustrated by a reviewer’s comment, I remind myself that reviewers are freely giving up their limited time to provide feedback on my work—it is a generous act of collegiality. Over the years, I have had plenty of manuscript rejections. One that was stands out was a rejection following an extensive revision in which I felt I addressed the reviewer’s concerns. Ultimately, the editor felt the paper had a fatal flaw and so rejected it for this reason. It was a hard pill to swallow, but I submitted the paper elsewhere and it was ultimately published.

Tell us one thing about yourself that readers might find interesting.

I had a freak accident right before I was supposed to start medical school – I broke my hip and was non-weight bearing (on crutches) for three months. Of course, anatomy and physiology is a class all first-year medical students are required to take. As one may imagine, the floor can be slippery in the anatomy lab. My medical school was concerned that I would slip and fall while on crutches, so they required I split my first year of medical school into two years – physiology in year 1 and anatomy in year 2, which meant I would be in medical school for five years instead of four years. While I was disappointed, in the end, it worked out. My medical school extension led to an unexpected introduction to my future husband, which would not have happened if I hadn’t broken my hip!