Implementation and evaluation of SBIRT training in a Community Health nursing course

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this paper is to report on the implementation and evaluation of a Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) educational program into an undergraduate nursing curriculum and to recommend modifications for future trainings. Design and Sample A one‐group pre‐test/post‐test design was used. The sample consisted of senior level undergraduate nursing students. Measures Core knowledge, perceived competency, and program satisfaction were measured. Process evaluation activities were performed to gather feedback on the training and solicit ideas and recommendations for improvement. Results Of the 354 nursing students enrolled in the training, 249 (70%) participated in the research portion, with 240 (96%) completed the pre‐ and post‐training evaluations. All four core knowledge components and 13 perceived competency indicators were statistically significant (p ≤ .001) when comparing pre‐ and post‐t test values. Process evaluation data collected through 25 telephone interviews found that the training improved the students’ confidence and ability to screen for substance misuse with patients. Conclusion Findings support the implementation of SBIRT training into an undergraduate nursing curriculum. Modifications for future training and research are proposed.

The Status of SBIRT Training in Health Professions Education: A Cross-Discipline Review and Evaluation of SBIRT Curricula and Educational Research

“…Of the 1,856 articles identified in the initial search (after duplicate were removed), 95 met our inclusion criteria, 42–136 the earliest of which was published in 2007. 48 Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the literature search and Supplemental Digital Appendix 3 at http://links.lww.com/ACADMED/B249 provides a summary of each of the included articles.…”

“…137 Of the 95 total studies, 22 had overlapping samples 43,44,47,50,58–60,77,81,90,94,97,98,104,105,109,114,115,117,123,124,132 and were consolidated into 10 nested studies, bringing the total study count to 83. SBIRT training was delivered to trainees across a range of professions (Table 1), with the most common being nursing (n = 34, 41%) 42,45–47,50,53–55,57,58,63,64,66–70,72,75,77,78,80–82,84,85,90,94,95,99,100,102,109,120,122,125,127,130,131 followed by medical residency (n = 28, 34%) 43,44,48,51,52,59–61,71,73,74,76,86,87,89,93,96,99,103,108,113–115,117,119,121,128,131–134 and social work (n = 24, 29%). 42,47,49,56,57,62,72,75,94,97–99,106,107,110–112,116...…”

“…42,47,49,56,57,62,72,75,94,97–99,106,107,110–112,116,123–126,129–131,135 All but 3 (4%) 64,106,130 of the 83 studies described the SBIRT training methods used (e.g., computer simulation, videos, experiential activities, coaching), and a majority reported some type of MI training methods (n = 54, 65%), as indicated by mentioning MI-specific training components. 42–46,48–57,59–63,67,68,72,74–78,82–84,86–88,90,93,95–98,101,103–105,107–111,113,117,119,121–124,126,129,131,132,134,136 Table 2 shows the different types of SBIRT and MI training methods used in these studies. On average, studies that described their training used 4.06 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.64) different SBIRT training methods and 3.31 (SD = 1.59) MI training methods.…”

“…The most common methods for SBIRT training were classroom didactics (n = 72, 90%), 42–53,55,56,58–60,62,63,65–67,69,72–105,107–111,113–126,128,129,131–136 experiential activities (e.g., role plays; n = 57, 71%), 42–48,50–52,55,56,58–60,62,63,67,71,72,74,76–78,80,81,83,84,86–90,94–99,101–105,108–111,113–126,128,129,131–134,136 and computer-based didactics (i.e., online learning; n = 41, 51%). 42,45,46,48,50,53,54,56–60,62,63,66,70,72,76–78,80–82,84,86–90,95,99,102,107–112,114,115,119,127,129,131,133,135,136 A similar pattern was found for common MI training methods, which included classroom didactics (n = 42, 78%), 42–46,49–52,55,57,59,60,63,...…”

Utilization of Phone Simulations to Assess Competency Within Nursing Education

“…Low-fidelity phone simulations have been used within educational settings for multiple health professions due to ease of accessibility for all modes of learning (face-to-face, hybrid, and fully distance) and the critical importance of developing decision making and communication skills for provision of safe, quality patient care. [2][3][4][5][6] They have also been used in interprofessional education to facilitate communication and team building due to ease of implementation as scheduling and location barriers are reduced. 7,8 Reported outcomes include increased student confidence, 9 decreased anxiety, 10 and perceived growth in role or self-perception of competence.…”