1. Computerized alcohol screening identified more at-risk drinkers in a level 2 than a level 1 trauma center.
- Author
-
Imani, Ghasem, Barrios, Cristobal, Anderson, Craig L, Hosseini Farahabadi, Maryam, Banimahd, Faried, Chakravarthy, Bharath, Hoonpongsimanont, Wirachin, McCoy, Christopher E, Mercado, Georginne, Farivar, Babak, Pham, Jacqueline K, and Lotfipour, Shahram
- Subjects
Humans ,Alcoholism ,Diagnosis ,Computer-Assisted ,Risk Assessment ,Retrospective Studies ,Adolescent ,Adult ,Aged ,Middle Aged ,Trauma Centers ,Referral and Consultation ,Female ,Male ,Young Adult ,At-risk drinking ,Computerized alcohol screening ,Level 1 trauma center ,Level 2 trauma center ,Diagnosis ,Computer-Assisted ,Substance Abuse ,Alcohol Use and Health ,Prevention ,Clinical Research ,Injury (total) Accidents/Adverse Effects ,Screening And Brief Intervention For Substance Abuse ,Public Health ,Public Health and Health Services - Abstract
BackgroundAlcohol abuse is recognized as a significant contributor to injury. It is therefore essential that trauma centers implement screening and brief intervention (SBI) to identify patients who are problem drinkers. Although, the utility of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers have been widely studied in level 1 trauma centers, few studies have been done in level 2 centers. This study evaluates the usefulness of SBI in identifying at-risk drinkers and to investigate the pattern of alcohol drinking among level 2 trauma patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of a convenience sample of trauma patients participating in computerized alcohol screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (CASI) in an academic level 1 trauma center and a nearby suburban community hospital level 2 trauma center. CASI utilized Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) to screen patients. We compared the pattern of alcohol drinking, demographic factors, and readiness-to-change scores between those screened in a level 2 and 1 trauma center.ResultsA total of 3,850 and 1,933 admitted trauma patients were screened in level 1 and 2 trauma centers respectively. There was no difference in mean age, gender, and language between the two centers. Of those screened, 10.2% of the level 1 and 14.4% of the level 2 trauma patients scored at-risk (AUDIT 8-19) (p =20) (p
- Published
- 2017