Initial Steps Taken by Nine Primary Care Practices to Implement Alcohol Screening Guidelines with Hypertensive Patients

Abstract

Many medical conditions are caused or exacerbated by heavy drinking, necessitating alcohol screening and discussion in primary care practices. This is particularly true of hypertension, the most common primary diagnosis in the United States, which has been linked to the regular consumption of 3 or more standard alcoholic beverages a day.

The Accelerating Alcohol Screening-Translating Research into Practice (AA-TRIP) project was designed to improve detection and management of alcohol problems in primary care patients with hypertension. Medical providers are being trained using the Practice Partner Research Network's-Translating Research into Practice (PPRNet-TRIP) quality improvement model. This includes a multi-method intervention (electronic medical records, on-site academic detailing, practice feedback reports and annual network meetings) to help practices increase adherence to clinical guidelines.

Qualitative analyses of initial steps taken by nine primary care practices toward the routine implementation of alcohol screening guidelines are presented. Organizational factors and provider and patient characteristics all influenced the method and consistency of alcohol screening and intervention. Perceived time constraints, patient sensitivity to questions about alcohol, and possible stigma associated with a diagnosis of alcoholism were also relevant barriers requiring problem solving.     

Brief Intervention in Hazardous Drinking: An Important Adjunct to Medical School ATOD Curriculum

Most medical school alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) curricula emphasize the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence, even though a significant amount of alcohol-related morbidity and mortality is associated with the hazardous use of alcohol. An increased emphasis on screening for hazardous drinking and the use of early intervention has been shown to be effective in reducing heavy drinking in the primary care setting. This paper describes a family medicine clerkship seminar on clinical preventive medicine that focuses on tobacco and alcohol use. Results indicate that students learn that brief intervention counseling can influence patient behavior and plan to continue to use it in future patient encounters. However, the low number of students electing to intervene in hazardous drinking suggests that more curricular time is needed to overcome student resistance to addressing the alcohol use patterns of their patients.     

Use of Alcohol Screening and Brief Interventionsin Primary Care Settings:Implementation and Barriers.

Although evidence indicates that brief alcohol screening and interventions are effective across primary care settings, implementation of these techniques has been problematic. The primary objective of this study was to determine current practices and barriers for screening and interventions with primary care patients across randomly selected clinics in a large health care system, the Veterans Health Administration. Focus groups and mailed structured surveys were used. Results from providers indicated that 85% of patients treated in primary care received some screening for alcohol use disorders. The CAGE was the predominant screening tool. The primary clinical focus was on treatment referrals for patients who met abuse/dependence criteria. Lack of time was the most important perceived barrier to implementing screening and brief alcohol interventions for at-risk and problem drinkers. Implications for implementation of screening and intervention programs for a range of drinkers (at-risk use, problem use, abuse, dependence) are discussed.     

The Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of Screening and Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Medical Settings

SUMMARY

Economic evaluation can be a valuable tool for assessing the efficiency and value of health care programs. To examine the literature on the economic evaluation of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings, relevant studies were identified in the MEDLINE database (1966 through November 2006) and by hand-searching the references of identified articles and relevant journals. The 15 identified studies used a range of economic evaluation methods, including cost analysis, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. Nearly all of the studies supported the use of alcohol screening and brief intervention. The studies that prospectively collected cost and effect data and/or conformed closely to methodological guidelines demonstrated a strong economic benefit of alcohol screening and brief intervention when compared to usual care. Overall, the reviewed studies support alcohol SBI in medical settings as a wise use of health care resources and illustrate the usefulness of economic evaluation for assessing alcohol prevention and treatment programs.     

The cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in medical settings.

Economic evaluation can be a valuable tool for assessing the efficiency and value of health care programs. To examine the literature on the economic evaluation of alcohol screening and brief intervention in medical settings, relevant studies were identified in the MEDLINE database (1966 through November 2006) and by hand-searching the references of identified articles and relevant journals. The 15 identified studies used a range of economic evaluation methods, including cost analysis, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. Nearly all of the studies supported the use of alcohol screening and brief intervention. The studies that prospectively collected cost and effect data and/or conformed closely to methodological guidelines demonstrated a strong economic benefit of alcohol screening and brief intervention when compared to usual care. Overall, the reviewed studies support alcohol SBI in medical settings as a wise use of health care resources and illustrate the usefulness of economic evaluation for assessing alcohol prevention and treatment programs.     

Encouraging Physicians to Screen for and Intervene in Substance Use Disorders: Obstacles and Strategies for Change

ABSTRACT

The scientific literature was reviewed to identify obstacles and effective ways to improve primary care physician screening, interventions, and management of patient substance use disorders (SUDs). Major obstacles identified are physician lack of skills and self-efficacy in patient counseling, inadequate training at all levels of medical education, and lack of reimbursement and other health care systems support for services to patients. Physician abuse of drugs does not appear to be a major obstacle. Physician attitudes about patients with SUDS and the effectiveness of treatment services need to be addressed. Research points to the use of a multifaceted change strategy. Key components include practice-based training emphasizing screening and counseling skills throughout medical education, clinical systems to ensure regular SUD services (screening, intervention, and referral) to patients, and reimbursement and coverage systems to support physician interventions and patient services.     

Encouraging physicians to screen for and intervene in substance use disorders: obstacles and strategies for change

The scientific literature was reviewed to identify obstacles and effective ways to improve primary care physician screening, interventions, and management of patient substance use disorders (SUDs). Major obstacles identified are physician lack of skills and self-efficacy in patient counseling, inadequate training at all levels of medical education, and lack of reimbursement and other health care systems support for services to patients. Physician abuse of drugs does not appear to be a major obstacle. Physician attitudes about patients with SUDS and the effectiveness of treatment services need to be addressed. Research points to the use of a multifaceted change strategy. Key components include practice-based training emphasizing screening and counseling skills throughout medical education, clinical systems to ensure regular SUD services (screening, intervention, and referral) to patients, and reimbursement and coverage systems to support physician interventions and patient services.     

Primary Care Physician‐Pharmacist Collaborative Care Model: Strategies for Implementation

The Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians To Improve Outcomes Now (CAPTION) trial recently found that a pharmacist intervention for hypertension could be implemented in diverse medical offices. In this issue of Pharmacotherapy, the article by Brian Isetts and colleagues discusses the complexity of the patient population, the specific functions the pharmacists performed, and the time estimates from billing records used to quantify time spent during face‐to‐face patient encounters. This invited commentary will discuss findings from the CAPTION trial and provide recommendations for strategies to implement similar interventions for patients with other chronic medical conditions seen in primary care practices.     

Organizational attributes and screening and brief intervention in primary care

Overconsumption of alcohol is well known to lead to numerous health and social problems. Prevalence studies of United States adults found that 20% of patients meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder. Routine screening for alcohol use is recommended in primary care settings, yet little is known about the organizational factors that are related to successful implementation of screening and brief intervention (SBI) and treatment in these settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate organizational attributes in primary care practices that were included in a practice-based research network trial to implement alcohol SBI. The Survey of Organizational Attributes in Primary Care (SOAPC) has reliably measured four factors: communication, decision-making, stress/chaos and history of change. This 21-item instrument was administered to 178 practice members at the baseline of this trial, to evaluate for relationship of organizational attributes to the implementation of alcohol SBI and treatment. No significant relationships were found correlating alcohol screening, identification of high-risk drinkers and brief intervention, to the factors measured in the SOAPC instrument. These results highlight the challenges related to the use of organizational survey instruments in explaining or predicting variations in clinical improvement. Comprehensive mixed methods approaches may be more effective in evaluations of the implementation of SBI and treatment.     

Under what circumstances are nurses willing to engage in brief alcohol interventions?: A qualitative study from primary care in Sweden

To improve alcohol prevention in primary health care, it has been suggested that primary care nurses are an under-utilised resource. The aim of this study was to identify under what circumstances primary care nurses in Sweden are willing to engage in alcohol prevention. All nurses at three primary health care centres in Östergötland, Sweden were invited to participate in focus group interviews; 26 nurses participated. The nurses considered primary health care to be just one among other sectors within the community with responsibility for alcohol prevention. The role of health care in alcohol prevention was perceived to be important but mainly secondary preventive. The nurses felt justified screening all patients' alcohol habits only when they could refer to an obligation or a time-limited project. Otherwise, they mainly wanted to engage in screening patients with alcohol-related symptoms or diagnoses and other risk groups. Reasons for refraining from alcohol screening and intervention included lack of self-efficacy, time consumption and fear of harming their relationship with the patient. New strategies for alcohol prevention in primary care are discussed.     

Electronic screening and brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care waiting rooms – A pilot project

Abstract

Background: In primary care, electronic self-administered screening and brief interventions for unhealthy alcohol may overcome some of the implementation barriers of face-to-face intervention. We developed an anonymous electronic self-administered screening brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol use and assessed its feasibility and acceptability in primary care practice waiting rooms. Two modes of delivery were compared: with or without the presence of a research assistant (RA) to make patients aware of the device’s presence and help users. Using the device was optional. Methods: The devices were placed in 10 participating primary care practices waiting rooms for 6?weeks, and were accessible on a voluntary basis. Number of appointments by each practice during the course of the study was recorded. Access to the electronic brief intervention was voluntary among those who screened positive. Screening and brief intervention rates and characteristics of users were compared across the modes of delivery. Results: During the study, there were 7270 appointments and 1511 individuals used the device (20.8%). Mean age of users was 45.3 (19.5), and 57.9% screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Of them, 53.8% accessed the brief intervention content. The presence of the RA had a major impact on the device’s usage (59.6% vs 17.4% when absent). When the RA was present, participants were less likely to screen positive (49.4% vs 60.7%, P?=?0.0003) but more likely to access the intervention (62.7% vs 51.4%, P?=?0.009). Results from the satisfaction survey indicated that users found the device easy to use (93.5%), questions useful (89–95%) and 77.2% reported that their friends would be willing to use it. Conclusions: This pilot project indicates that the implementation of an electronic screening and brief intervention device for unhealthy alcohol is feasible and acceptable in primary care practices but that, without human support, its use is rather limited.     

How and when health-care practitioners in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services deliver alcohol screening and brief intervention, and why they don't: a qualitative study

Introduction. Indigenous Australians experience a disproportionately high burden of alcohol‐related harm. Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) offers the potential to reduce this harm if barriers to its delivery in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) can be optimally targeted. Aims. Examine health‐care practitioners' perceptions of, and practices in, alcohol SBI in ACCHSs. Methods. Semi‐structured group interviews with 37 purposively selected health staff across five ACCHSs. Results. Alcohol screening independent of standard health assessments was generally selective. The provision of brief intervention was dependent upon factors related to the patient. Four key factors underlying health‐care practitioners' perceptions of alcohol SBI were prominent: outcome expectancy; role congruence; utilisation of clinical systems and processes; and options for alcohol referral. Discussion. The influence of outcome expectancy and role congruence on health‐care practitioners' alcohol SBI practices has been identified previously, as has to a lesser extent, their less than optimal use of clinical systems and processes. The influence of options for alcohol referral on health‐care practitioners' willingness to deliver alcohol SBI primarily related to their misunderstanding of alcohol SBI and the lack of culturally appropriate alcohol referral options for their patients. Conclusion. An intervention combining interactive, supportive and reinforcing evidence‐based dissemination strategies is most likely required to enhance health‐care practitioners' knowledge and skills in alcohol SBI delivery, positively orientate them to their role in its delivery, and facilitate integration of evidence‐based alcohol SBI into routine clinical processes and locally available systems.[Clifford A, Shakeshaft A, Deans C. How and when health‐care practitioners in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services deliver alcohol screening and brief intervention, and why they don't: A qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Rev 2012;31:13–19]     

Biochemical alcohol screening in primary health care

Alcohol biomarkers such as carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) and gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT) have significant potential for enhancing the quality of medical treatment in primary health care settings. Recent studies demonstrate that these laboratory tests can help the general practitioner in several ways. First, CDT and GGT can detect current heavy drinking in primary care patients with a fair degree of sensitivity (approximately 60% to 70%), with CDT being more specific (approximately 90%). When combined with self-report tests, they can provide a clinically useful alcohol screening battery. Second, elevated CDT and GGT levels have been correlated with specific alcohol-sensitive diseases (e.g., hypertension) and, as such, can serve as risk indicators for those diseases. Third, alcohol biomarkers have proven to be useful in monitoring the effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions with medical patients. Unfortunately, preliminary findings indicate that physicians have little knowledge of current biomarker research as applied to primary health care. Translational studies are needed on methods to facilitate knowledge and use of alcohol biomarkers by general practitioners.     

Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking

Issues. Although screening and brief intervention (BI) in the primary‐care setting reduces unhealthy alcohol use, its efficacy among patients with dependence has not been established. This systematic review sought to determine whether evidence exists for BI efficacy among patients with alcohol dependence identified by screening in primary‐care settings. Approach. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) extracted from eight systematic reviews and electronic database searches published through September 2009. These RCTs compared outcomes among adults with unhealthy alcohol use identified by screening who received BI in a primary‐care setting with those who received no intervention. Key Findings. Sixteen RCTs, including 6839 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 excluded some or all persons with very heavy alcohol use or dependence; one in which 35% of 175 patients had dependence found no difference in an alcohol severity score between groups; and one in which 58% of 24 female patients had dependence showed no efficacy. Conclusion and Implications. Alcohol screening and BI has efficacy in primary care for patients with unhealthy alcohol use, but there is no evidence for efficacy among those with very heavy use or dependence. As alcohol screening identifies both dependent and non‐dependent unhealthy use, the absence of evidence for the efficacy of BI among primary‐care patients with screening‐identified alcohol dependence raises questions regarding the efficiency of screening and BI, particularly in settings where dependence is common. The finding also highlights the need to develop new approaches to help such patients, particularly if screening and BI are to be disseminated widely.[Saitz R. Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: Absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29;631–640]     

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Screening,Brief Intervention,and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) in Primary Care in Integrated Health Care Settings

Background: Substance abuse in the United States is a serious public health concern impacting morbidity and mortality. However, systematic screening and intervention has not been widely adopted into routine practice by health care organizations and routine screening and intervention is not currently in place for primary care at Kaiser Permanente Colorado. Therefore, a formative evaluation was conducted to explore and enhance implementation of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) approach in the organization. Methods: Key clinical stakeholders, including internal and family medicine physicians, primary care nurses, mental health therapists, chemical dependency clinicians, and clinic-based psychologists provided feedback. Two focus groups were also conducted with patient stakeholders: one in English and one in Spanish. Results: All clinical stakeholders promoted clinic-based psychologists to conduct brief intervention and determine referral to treatment as the optimal implementation program. Inclusion of the patient perspective also highlighted the importance of considering this perspective in implementation. Both patient groups were generally supportive of SBIRT, especially the educational value of screening questions defining healthy drinking limits; however, English-speaking patients noted privacy concerns and Spanish-speaking patients noted frequently being asked about drug or alcohol use. Organizationally, systems exist to facilitate drug and alcohol use screening, intervention, and referral to treatment. However, physician time, alignment with other priorities, and lack of consistent communication were noted potential barriers to SBIRT implementation. Conclusions: Clinicians expressed concerns about competing priorities and the need for organizational leadership involvement for successful SBIRT implementation. A unique suggestion for successful implementation is to utilize existing primary care clinic-based psychologists to conduct brief intervention and facilitate referral to treatment. Patient stakeholders supported universal screening, but cultural differences in opinions and current experience were noted, indicating the importance of including this perspective when evaluating implementation potential.     

The efficacy of a brief alcohol intervention combined with %CDT feedback in patients being treated for type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension

OBJECTIVE: Alcohol biomarkers are being developed to improve a physician's ability to identify and intervene with patients with chronic medical problems adversely affected by heavy alcohol use. This article reports the findings of a brief intervention trial which included feedback to patients of their carbohydrate-deficient transferrin (CDT) test results. METHOD: A pilot study was conducted to test the efficacy of brief clinician advice to reduce alcohol use and improve health status in a sample of 151 patients being treated for Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The intervention included informing patients of their CDT levels. The patients were randomized to a usual care or brief intervention group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences at baseline between the two groups in alcohol use, CDT levels, addiction rates, age, gender, socioeconomic status or health status measures. Following brief intervention, significant differences were observed in the intervention group in alcohol use and CDT: The proportion of heavy drinkers at the 12-month follow-up compared with baseline decreased from 35.8% to 24.7% in the intervention group, with no change in the control group (p < .044). CDT levels decreased as well from 2.79% to 2.41% (16% change) in the control group and 3.05% to 2.35% (28% change) in the intervention group, with significantly more intervention-group patients reducing their CDT level by at least 25% (p < .006). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides new information suggesting brief intervention, combined with feedback on CDT levels, can reduce alcohol use and %CDT in a sample of primary care patients being treated for Type 2 diabetes and hypertension.