TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Methods for Alcohol and Drug Screening in Primary Care Clinics
AU - McNeely, Jennifer
AU - Adam, Angéline
AU - Rotrosen, John
AU - Wakeman, Sarah E.
AU - Wilens, Timothy E.
AU - Kannry, Joseph
AU - Rosenthal, Richard N.
AU - Wahle, Aimee
AU - Pitts, Seth
AU - Farkas, Sarah
AU - Rosa, Carmen
AU - Peccoralo, Lauren
AU - Waite, Eva
AU - Vega, Aida
AU - Kent, Jennifer
AU - Craven, Catherine K.
AU - Kaminski, Tamar A.
AU - Firmin, Elizabeth
AU - Isenberg, Benjamin
AU - Harris, Melanie
AU - Kushniruk, Andre
AU - Hamilton, Leah
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants UG1DA013035 (Dr Rotrosen), UG1DA015831, and HHSN271201400028C (The Emmes Company) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McNeely reported receiving personal fees from the National Council for Quality Assurance outside the submitted work. Dr Adam reported receiving a research fellowship from the Swiss Foundation for Alcohol Research outside the submitted work. Dr Rotrosen reported being a principal investigator or coinvestigator on studies that received funding and/or donated or discounted medication from the Addiction– Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System, Alkermes, Braeburn Pharmaceuticals/Camurus, Indivior (formerly Reckitt Benckiser), and Pear Therapeutics and serving as an unpaid member of an Alkermes steering committee outside the submitted work. Dr Wakeman reported receiving textbook royalties from Springer Publishing and personal fees from Alosa Health, Celero Systems, OptumLabs, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Wilens reported receiving consulting fees from Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Ironshore, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Vallon Pharmaceuticals; receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press as a coeditor of the textbook ADHD in Adults and Children, Guilford Press as an author of Straight Talk About Psychiatric Medications for Kids, and Ironshore as a co-owner of the Before School Functioning Questionnaire; and serving as a clinical consultant to Bay Cove Human Services, the Gavin Foundation, US Major League Baseball, US Minor League Baseball, and the US National Football League outside the submitted work. Dr Kushniruk reported receiving grants from AE Informatics during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/5/20
Y1 - 2021/5/20
N2 - Importance: Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective: To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions: Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results: Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948.
AB - Importance: Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations. Objective: To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)-integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021. Interventions: Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script. Results: Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106599855&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10721
DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10721
M3 - Article
C2 - 34014326
AN - SCOPUS:85106599855
SN - 2574-3805
VL - 4
SP - E2110721
JO - JAMA network open
JF - JAMA network open
IS - 5
M1 - E2110721
ER -