A national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.

No abstract

Although alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) reduces drinking in primary care patients with unhealthy alcohol use, incorporating SBI into clinical settings has been challenging. We systematically reviewed the literature on implementation studies of alcohol SBI using a broad conceptual model of implementation, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify domains addressed by programs that achieved high rates of screening and/or brief intervention (BI). Seventeen articles from 8 implementation programs were included; studies were conducted in 9 countries and represented 533,903 patients (127,304 patients screened), 2,001 providers, and 1,805 clinics. Rates of SBI varied across articles (2-93% for screening and 0.9-73.1% for BI). Implementation programs described use of 7-25 of the 39 CFIR elements. Most programs used strategies that spanned all 5 domains of the CFIR with varying emphases on particular domains and sub-domains. Comparison of SBI rates was limited by most studies' being conducted by 2 implementation programs and by different outcome measures, scopes, and durations. However, one implementation program reported a high rate of screening relative to other programs (93%) and could be distinguished by its use of strategies that related to the Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation domains of the CFIR. Future studies could assess whether focusing on Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation elements of the CFIR during implementation is associated with successful implementation of alcohol screening, as well as which elements may be associated with successful, sustained implementation of BI.

Aims The US Veterans Health Administration [Veterans Affairs (VA)] used performance measures and electronic clinical reminders to implement brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use. We evaluated whether documented brief intervention was associated with subsequent changes in drinking during early implementation. Design Observational, retrospective cohort study using secondary clinical and administrative data. Setting Thirty VA facilities. Participants Outpatients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C ≥ 5)] in the 6 months after the brief intervention performance measure (n = 22 214) and had follow-up screening 9–15 months later (n = 6210; 28%). Measurements Multi-level logistic regression estimated the adjusted prevalence of resolution of unhealthy alcohol use (follow-up AUDIT-C <5 with ≥2 point reduction) for patients with and without documented brief intervention (documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking). Findings Among 6210 patients with follow-up alcohol screening, 1751 (28%) had brief intervention and 2922 (47%) resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up. Patients with documented brief intervention were older and more likely to have other substance use disorders, mental health conditions, poor health and more severe unhealthy alcohol use than those without (P-values < 0.05). Adjusted prevalences of resolution were 47% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 42–52%] and 48% (95% CI = 42–54%) for patients with and without documented brief intervention, respectively (P = 0.50). Conclusions During early implementation of brief intervention in the US Veterans Health Administration, documented brief intervention was not associated with subsequent changes in drinking among outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use and repeat alcohol screening.

No abstract

We identified barriers to and facilitators of prescribing AUD medications in PC, which, if addressed and/or capitalized on, may increase provision of AUD medications. Providers more willing to prescribe may be the optimal target of a customized implementation intervention to promote changes in prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) never receive treatment and SUDs are underrecognized in primary care (PC) where patients can be treated or linked to treatment. Asking PC patients to directly report SUD symptoms on questionnaires might help identify SUDs but to our knowledge, this approach is previously untested. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and severity of DSM-5 SUD symptoms reported by PC patients as part of routine care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using secondary data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 241,265 adult patients who visited one of 25 PC sites in an integrated health system in Washington state and had alcohol, cannabis, or other drug use screening documented in their EHRs (March 2015-July 2018) were included in main analyses if they had a positive screen for high-risk substance use defined as AUDIT-C score 7-12 points, or report of past-year daily cannabis use or any other drug use. MAIN MEASURES:The main outcome was number of SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5), reported on Symptom Checklists (0-11) for alcohol or other drugs: 2-3 mild; 4-5 moderate; 6-11 severe. RESULTS: Of screened patients, 16,776 (5.7%) reported high-risk use of alcohol (2.4%), cannabis (3.9%), and/or other drugs (1.7%), and 65.0-69.9% of those completed Symptom Checklists. Of those with high-risk alcohol use, 52.5% (95% CI 50.9-54.0%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe alcohol use disorders. Of those reporting daily cannabis use, 29.8% (28.6-30.9%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. Of those reporting any other drug use, 37.5% (35.7-39.3%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Many PC patients who screened positive for high-risk substance use reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUDs on self-report Symptom Checklists. Use of SUD Symptom Checklists could support PC providers in making SUD diagnoses and initiating discussions of substance use.

No abstract