Search

Background: Despite the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to screen adults for unhealthy alcohol use, the implementation of alcohol screening in primary care remains suboptimal. Methods: A pre and post-implementation study design that used Agile implementation process to increase screening for unhealthy alcohol use in adult patients from October 2021 to June 2022 at a large primary care clinic serving minority and underprivileged adults in Indianapolis. Results: In comparison to a baseline screening rate of 0%, the agile implementation process increased and sustained screening rates above 80% for alcohol use using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption tool (AUDIT-C). Conclusions: Using the agile implementation process, we were able to successfully implement evidence-based recommendations to screen for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers and practitioners recognise the importance of context when implementing healthcare interventions, but the influence of wider environment is rarely mapped. This paper identifies the country and policy-related factors potentially explaining the country differences in outcomes of an intervention focused on improving detection and management of heavy alcohol use in primary care in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Qualitative data obtained through interviews, logbooks and document analysis are used to explain quantitative data on number of alcohol screenings and screening providers in each of the countries. Existing alcohol screening standards in Mexico, and policy prioritisation of primary care and consideration of alcohol as a public health issue in Colombia and Mexico positively contributed to the outcome, while the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact. In Peru, the context was unsupportive due to a combination of: political instability amongst regional health authorities; lack of focus on strengthening primary care due to the expansion of community mental health centres; alcohol considered as an addiction rather than a public health issue; and the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare. We found that wider environment-related factors interacted with the intervention implemented and can help explain country differences in outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening. DESIGN: This was an observational, qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S. APPROACH: Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers and practitioners recognise the importance of context when implementing healthcare interventions, but the influence of wider environment is rarely mapped. This paper identifies the country and policy-related factors potentially explaining the country differences in outcomes of an intervention focused on improving detection and management of heavy alcohol use in primary care in Colombia, Mexico and Peru. Qualitative data obtained through interviews, logbooks and document analysis are used to explain quantitative data on number of alcohol screenings and screening providers in each of the countries. Existing alcohol screening standards in Mexico, and policy prioritisation of primary care and consideration of alcohol as a public health issue in Colombia and Mexico positively contributed to the outcome, while the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact. In Peru, the context was unsupportive due to a combination of: political instability amongst regional health authorities; lack of focus on strengthening primary care due to the expansion of community mental health centres; alcohol considered as an addiction rather than a public health issue; and the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare. We found that wider environment-related factors interacted with the intervention implemented and can help explain country differences in outcomes.

Background: Although alcohol use disorder can complicate depression management, there is no standard process for assessing AUD symptoms (i.e., AUD diagnostic criteria) in primary care for patients who screen positive for depression. This study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and high-risk drinking reported by primary care patients on screening measures in routine care. Then, using data from a novel clinical program, this study characterizes the association between depressive symptoms and AUD symptoms reported by primary care patients with high-risk drinking via an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, electronic health record data were obtained from patients who visited 33 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics between 03/2018 and 02/2020 and completed depression (PHQ-2) and alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C) screening measures as part of routine care (N = 369,943). Patients who reported high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) also completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist where they reported the presence or absence of 11 AUD criteria as defined by the DSM-5 (N = 8,184). Generalized linear models estimated and compared the prevalence of high-risk drinking (AUDIT-C scores 7-12) and probable AUD (2-11 AUD symptoms on Alcohol Symptom Checklists) for patients with and without positive depression screens.Results: Patients who screened positive for depression had a 131% higher prevalence of high-risk drinking than those who screened negative (5.2% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.001). Among patients with high-risk drinking, positive depression screens were associated with a significantly higher prevalence of probable AUD (69.8% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001), with large differences in the prevalence of probable AUD observed with increasing PHQ-2 scores (e.g., probable AUD prevalence of 37.6%, 55.3% and 65.2%, for PHQ-2 scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively). Although the overall prevalence of high-risk drinking was higher for male patients, similar patterns of association between depression screens, high-risk drinking, and AUD symptoms were observed for male and female patients.Conclusions: Patients with positive depression screens are more likely to have high-risk drinking. Large percentages of patients with positive depression screens and high-risk drinking report symptoms consistent with AUD to healthcare providers when given the opportunity to do so using an Alcohol Symptom Checklist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Foetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs) are one of the most common preventable forms of developmental disability and congenital abnormalities globally, particularly in countries where alcohol is considered socially acceptable. Screening for alcohol use early in pregnancy can facilitate the detection of alcohol-exposed pregnancies and identify women who require further assessment. However, only a small percentage of children with FASD are identified in the United Kingdom. This may be partly attributed to a lack of awareness of the condition by National Health Service (NHS) health professionals. Methods: We developed an online survey to determine health care professionals' (midwives, health visitors, obstetricians, paediatricians, and general practitioners) perceived knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practices relating to alcohol in pregnancy and FASD. Results: There were a total of 250 responses to the surveys (78 midwives, 60 health visitors, 55 obstetricians, 31 paediatricians, and 26 general practitioners). About 58.1% of paediatricians had diagnosed a patient with foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) or FASD and 36.7% worried about stigmatisation with diagnosis. Paediatricians reported the highest levels of FASD training (54.8%), with much lower levels in midwives (21.3%). This was reflected in perceived knowledge levels; overall, only 19.8% of respondents knew the estimated UK prevalence of FASD for example. Conclusions: We identified a need for training in alcohol screening in pregnancy and FASD to improve awareness and recognition by UK professionals. This could improve patient care from the antenatal period and throughout childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risky drinking is associated with risky sexual experiences, however the relationship between alcohol and sex is complex. The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of delivering alcohol screening and brief interventions in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics. The objectives were to; understand the levels of alcohol use amongst patients; report on the number of alcohol interventions delivered; and to analyse the relationship between alcohol use with demographic data as well as diagnosed sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to see if there were any associations.Methods: All new patients attending GUM between April 2012 and March 2013 self-completed the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) prior to their clinical consultation. Where appropriate (scoring 8+ on AUDIT) the clinician would deliver up to 2-3 min of alcohol brief intervention. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA and logistic regression were carried out as appropriate.Results: AUDIT scores were available for 90% of all new patients (3058/3390) with an average mean score of 7.75. Of those who drank alcohol, 44% were categorised as being AUDIT positive, including 2% who had a score indicative of probable alcohol dependence (20+). 55 % (n = 638) of patients who screened positive on the AUDIT received a brief intervention whilst 24% (n = 674) of drinkers were diagnosed with a STI. Logistic regression modelling revealed that males, younger age groups and those of 'white' ethnicity were more likely to score positive on AUDIT. Patients classified as non-students, living in deprivation quintiles one to four and categorised as probable alcohol dependence on the AUDIT were more likely to be diagnosed with an STI.Conclusion: It is possible to embed alcohol screening into routine practice within sexual health services however further work is required to embed brief interventions particularly amongst increasing risk drinkers. If resources are limited, services may consider more targeted rather than universal alcohol screening to specific population groups. The study was undertaken in one GUM service in the North East of England and therefore findings may not be generalizable. The study did not assess efficacy of alcohol brief intervention in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports. Methods: The study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment. Results: Screening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51 %); followed by the PCP arm (9 %) and the Control arm (3.5 %). Screening increased over the 12 months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44 %) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4 %) or the Control arm (2.7 %). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm. Conclusion: Findings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models. Trial registration: Clinical Trials NCT01135654 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]