Practical Assessment of Alcohol Use Disorder in Routine Primary Care: Performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is highly prevalent but underrecognized and undertreated in primary care settings. Alcohol Symptom Checklists can engage patients and providers in discussions of AUD-related care. However, the performance of Alcohol Symptom Checklists when they are used in routine care and documented in electronic health records (EHRs) remains unevaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric performance of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist in routine primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning analyses of measurement consistency across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. PATIENTS: Patients seen in primary care in the Kaiser Permanente Washington Healthcare System who reported high-risk drinking on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test Consumption screening measure (AUDIT-C ≥ 7) and subsequently completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist between October 2015 and February 2020. MAIN MEASURE: Alcohol Symptom Checklists with 11 items assessing AUD criteria defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), completed by patients during routine medical care and documented in EHRs. KEY RESULTS: Among 11,464 patients who screened positive for high-risk drinking and completed an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (mean age 43.6 years, 30.5% female), 54.1% reported ≥ 2 DSM-5 AUD criteria (threshold for AUD diagnosis). IRT analyses demonstrated that checklist items measured a unidimensional continuum of AUD severity. Differential item functioning was observed for some demographic subgroups but had minimal impact on accurate measurement of AUD severity, with differences between demographic subgroups attributable to differential item functioning never exceeding 0.42 points of the total symptom count (of a possible range of 0-11). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists used in routine care discriminated AUD severity consistently with current definitions of AUD and performed equitably across age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Integrating symptom checklists into routine care may help inform clinical decision-making around diagnosing and managing AUD.

Practical assessment of DSM-5 alcohol use disorder criteria in routine care: High test-retest reliability of an Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is underdiagnosed and undertreated in medical settings, in part due to a lack of AUD assessment instruments that are reliable and practical for use in routine care. This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of a patient-report Alcohol Symptom Checklist questionnaire when it is used in routine care, including primary care and mental health specialty settings. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic test-retest reliability study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Kaiser Permanente Washington, an integrated health system in Washington state. The sample included 454 patients who reported high-risk drinking on a behavioral health screen and completed two Alcohol Symptom Checklists 1 to 21 days apart. Subgroups of these patients who completed both checklists in primary care (n = 271) or mental health settings (n = 79) were also examined. The primary measure was an Alcohol Symptom Checklist on which patients self-reported whether they experienced each of the 11 AUD criteria within the past year, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th edition (DSM-5). RESULTS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists completed in routine care and documented in EHRs had excellent test-retest reliability for measuring AUD criterion counts (ICC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). Test-retest reliability estimates were also high and not significantly different for the subsamples of patients who completed both checklists in primary care (ICC = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.85) or mental health settings (ICC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.83). Test-retest reliability was not moderated by having a past two-year AUD diagnosis, nor by the age or sex of the patient completing it. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol Symptom Checklists can reliably and pragmatically assess AUD criteria in routine care among patients who screen positive for high-risk drinking. The Alcohol Symptom Checklist may be a valuable tool in supporting AUD-related care and monitoring AUD criteria longitudinally in routine primary care and mental health settings.

Veteran families with complex needs: a qualitative study of the veterans' support system.

BACKGROUND: Families with complex needs face significant challenges accessing and navigating health and social services. For veteran families, these challenges are exacerbated by interactions between military and civilian systems of care, and the density of the veterans' non-profit sector. This qualitative study was designed to gather rich, detailed information on complex needs in veteran families; and explore service providers' and families' experiences of accessing and navigating the veterans' support system. METHODS: The study comprised participant background questionnaires (n = 34), focus groups with frontline service providers (n = 18), and one-on-one interviews with veteran families (n = 16) in Australia. The semi-structured focus groups and interviews were designed to gather rich, detailed information on four study topics: (i) health and wellbeing needs in veteran families; (ii) service-access barriers and facilitators; (iii) unmet needs and gaps in service provision; and (iv) practical solutions for improving service delivery. The study recruited participants who could best address the focus on veteran families with complex needs. The questionnaire data was used to describe relevant characteristics of the participant sample. The focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and a reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to identify patterns of shared meaning in the qualitative data. RESULTS: Both service providers and families found the veterans' support system difficult to access and navigate. System fragmentation was perceived to impede care coordination, and delay access to holistic care for veteran families with complex needs. The medico-legal aspects of compensation and rehabilitation processes were perceived to harm veteran identity, and undermine health and wellbeing outcomes. Recovery-oriented practice was viewed as a way to promote veteran independence and self-management. Participants expressed a strong preference for family-centred care that was informed by an understanding of military lifestyle and culture. CONCLUSION: The health and wellbeing needs of veteran families intensify during the transition from full-time military service to civilian environments, and service- or reintegration-related difficulties may emerge (or persist) for a significant period of time thereafter. Veteran families with complex needs are unduly burdened by care coordination demands. There is a pressing need for high-quality implementation studies that evaluate initiatives for integrating fragmented systems of care.

Effect of a Care Management Intervention on 12-Month Drinking Outcomes Among Patients With and Without DSM-IV Alcohol Dependence at Baseline.

BACKGROUND: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence. METHODS: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit. RESULTS: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO). CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

Increased Rates of Documented Alcohol Counseling in Primary Care: More Counseling or Just More Documentation?

BACKGROUND: Clinical performance measures often require documentation of patient counseling by healthcare providers. Little is known about whether such measures encourage delivery of counseling or merely its documentation. OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in provider documentation of alcohol counseling and patient report of receiving alcohol counseling in the Veterans Administration (VA) from 2009 to 2012. DESIGN: Retrospective time-series analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5413 men who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at an outpatient visit and responded to a confidential mailed survey regarding alcohol counseling from a VA provider in the prior year. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of provider documentation of alcohol counseling in the electronic health record and patient report of such counseling on the survey were assessed over 4 fiscal years. Annual rates were calculated overall and with patients categorized into four mutually exclusive groups based on their own reports of alcohol counseling (yes/no) and whether alcohol counseling was documented by a provider (yes/no). KEY RESULTS: Provider documentation of alcohol counseling increased 23.6% (95% CI: 17.0, 30.2), from 59.4% to 83.0%, while patient report of alcohol counseling showed no significant change (4.0%, 95% CI: -2.3, 10.3), increasing from 66.1% to 70.1%. An 18.7% (95% CI: 11.7, 25.7) increase in the proportion of patients who reported counseling that was documented by a provider largely reflected a 14.7% decline (95% CI: 8.5, 20.8) in the proportion of patients who reported alcohol counseling that was not documented by a provider. The proportion of patients who did not report counseling but whose providers documented it did not show a significant change (4.9%, 95%CI: 0.0, 9.9). CONCLUSIONS: If patient report is accurate, increased rates of documented alcohol counseling in the VA from 2009 to 2012 predominantly reflected improved documentation of previously undocumented counseling rather than delivery of additional counseling or increased documentation of counseling that did not meaningfully occur.

Excellent Patient Care Processes in Poor Hospitals? Why Hospital-Level and Patient-Level Care Quality-Outcome Relationships Can Differ.

Studies finding weak or nonexistent relationships between hospital performance on providing recommended care and hospital-level clinical outcomes raise questions about the value and validity of process of care performance measures. Such findings may cause clinicians to question the effectiveness of the care process presumably captured by the performance measure. However, one cannot infer from hospital-level results whether patients who received the specified care had comparable, worse or superior outcomes relative to patients not receiving that care. To make such an inference has been labeled the "ecological fallacy," an error that is well known among epidemiologists and sociologists, but less so among health care researchers and policy makers. We discuss such inappropriate inferences in the health care performance measurement field and illustrate how and why process measure-outcome relationships can differ at the patient and hospital levels. We also offer recommendations for appropriate multilevel analyses to evaluate process measure-outcome relationships at the patient and hospital levels and for a more effective role for performance measure bodies and research funding organizations in encouraging such multilevel analyses.

Social network moderators of naltrexone and behavioral treatment effects on heavy drinking in the COMBINE study.

BACKGROUND: Oral naltrexone is an efficacious medication for treatment of alcohol dependence, but small effect sizes and variability in outcomes suggest the presence of person-level moderators of naltrexone response. Identification of contextual or psychosocial moderators may assist in guiding clinical recommendations. Given the established importance of social networks in drinking outcomes, as well as the potential effects of naltrexone in reducing cue reactivity which may be especially important among those with more heavy drinkers and more alcohol cues in their networks, we examined pretreatment social network variables as potential moderators of naltrexone treatment effects in the COMBINE study. METHODS: The sample included all COMBINE study participants in medication conditions with full data on the Important People Inventory (IPI) and covariates at intake (N = 1,197). The intake IPI assessed whether participants had any frequent drinkers in their network and the average frequency of contact with these drinkers. The effects of treatment condition, pretreatment network variables, and their interactions on percent heavy drinking days were tested in hierarchical linear models, controlling for demographics and baseline clinical covariates. RESULTS: In treatment conditions involving medical management and combined behavioral intervention (CBI), the effects of active naltrexone on heavy drinking were significantly greater for individuals with frequent drinkers in their network (z = -2.66, p < 0.01) and greater frequency of contact with those drinkers (z = -3.19, p < 0.01). These network variables did not moderate the effects of active naltrexone without CBI. CONCLUSIONS: When delivered in conjunction with behavioral interventions, naltrexone can be more potent for alcohol-dependent adults who have greater contact with frequent drinkers prior to treatment, which may indicate patterns of environmental exposure to alcohol. Contextual, social risk factors are a potential avenue to guide personalized treatment of alcohol dependence.

Guidelines for the Reporting of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders.

BACKGROUND: The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD. METHODS: This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials. RESULTS: Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies.

Recommendations for the Design and Analysis of Treatment Trials for Alcohol Use Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 60 years, the view that "alcoholism" is a disease for which the only acceptable goal of treatment is abstinence has given way to the recognition that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) occur on a continuum of severity, for which a variety of treatment options are appropriate. However, because the available treatments for AUDs are not effective for everyone, more research is needed to develop novel and more efficacious treatments to address the range of AUD severity in diverse populations. Here we offer recommendations for the design and analysis of alcohol treatment trials, with a specific focus on the careful conduct of randomized clinical trials of medications and nonpharmacological interventions for AUDs. METHODS: This paper provides a narrative review of the quality of published clinical trials and recommendations for the optimal design and analysis of treatment trials for AUDs. RESULTS: Despite considerable improvements in the design of alcohol clinical trials over the past 2 decades, many studies of AUD treatments have used faulty design features and statistical methods that are known to produce biased estimates of treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The published statistical and methodological literatures provide clear guidance on methods to improve clinical trial design and analysis. Consistent use of state-of-the-art design features and analytic approaches will enhance the internal and external validity of treatment trials for AUDs across the spectrum of severity. The ultimate result of this attention to methodological rigor is that better treatment options will be identified for patients with an AUD.

Probability and predictors of patients converting from negative to positive screens for alcohol misuse.

BACKGROUND: Medicare reimburses providers for annual alcohol screening. However, the benefit of rescreening patients a year after a negative screen for alcohol misuse is unknown. We hypothesized that some subgroups of patients who screen negative would have a very low probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen (e.g., <0.1%), calling into question the value of annual alcohol screening for some patient subgroups. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study estimated the probability of converting to a positive screen for alcohol misuse a year after a negative screen among outpatients from 30 Veterans Health Administration (VA) medical centers. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening scores (range 0 to 12 points) from 2004 to 2008 were obtained from electronic health record data. Eligible patients screened negative on their initial screen (AUDIT-C scores 0 to 3 for men; 0 to 2 for women). The main outcome was a positive subsequent screen (AUDIT-C scores ≥4 men; ≥3 women). RESULTS: Among 21,081 women and 323,913 men who screened negative on an initial screen, 5.4% and 6.0%, respectively, screened positive a year later. The adjusted probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen varied from 2.1 to 38.9% depending on age, gender, and initial negative screen score. Women, older patients, and those with initial AUDIT-C scores of 0 were least likely to a convert to a positive subsequent screen, while younger men with AUDIT-C scores of 3 were most likely to a convert to a positive subsequent screen. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of a positive subsequent screen varied depending on age, gender, and initial negative screen score but exceeded 2% in all patient subgroups. Annual rescreening appears reasonable for all VA patients who had a negative screen the year prior.

Development of clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to improve mental, behavioral, and physical health by promoting clinical practices that are based on the best available evidence. The American Psychological Association (APA) is committed to generating patient-focused CPGs that are scientifically sound, clinically useful, and informative for psychologists, other health professionals, training programs, policy makers, and the public. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2011 standards for generating CPGs represent current best practices in the field. These standards involve multidisciplinary guideline development panels charged with generating recommendations based on comprehensive systematic reviews of the evidence. The IOM standards will guide the APA as it generates CPGs that can be used to inform the general public and the practice community regarding the benefits and harms of various treatment options. CPG recommendations are advisory rather than compulsory. When used appropriately, high-quality guidelines can facilitate shared decision making and identify gaps in knowledge.

Annual rescreening for alcohol misuse: diminishing returns for some patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Routine alcohol screening is widely recommended, and Medicare now reimburses for annual alcohol screening. Although up to 18% of patients will screen positive for alcohol misuse, the value of annual rescreening for patients who repeatedly screen negative is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the probability of converting to a positive alcohol screen at annual rescreening among VA outpatients who previously screened negative 2-4 times. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 179,035 VA outpatients (10,588 women) who previously screened negative on 2 and up to 4 consecutive annual alcohol screens and were rescreened the next year. MEASURES: AUDIT-C alcohol screening scores (range, 0-12) were obtained from electronic medical record data. The probability of converting to a positive screen (scores: men ≥4; women, ≥3) at rescreening after 2-4 prior negative screens was evaluated overall and across subgroups based on age, sex, and prior negative screen scores (scores: men, 0-3; women, 0-2). RESULTS: The overall probability of converting to a positive subsequent screen decreased modestly from 3.5% to 1.9% as the number of prior consecutive negative screens increased from 2 to 4, yet varied widely across subgroups based on age, sex, and prior negative screen scores (0.6%-38.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of converting to a positive screen at annual rescreening is strongly influenced by age, sex, and scaled screening scores on prior negative alcohol screens. Algorithms for the frequency of repeat alcohol screening for patients who repeatedly screen negative should be based on these factors. These results may have implications for other routine behavioral health screenings.

AUDIT-C scores as a scaled marker of mean daily drinking, alcohol use disorder severity, and probability of alcohol dependence in a U.S. general population sample of drinkers.

BACKGROUND: Brief alcohol screening questionnaires are increasingly used to identify alcohol misuse in routine care, but clinicians also need to assess the level of consumption and the severity of misuse so that appropriate intervention can be offered. Information provided by a patient's alcohol screening score might provide a practical tool for assessing the level of consumption and severity of misuse. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of data from the 2001 to 2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) included 26,546 U.S. adults who reported drinking in the past year and answered additional questions about their consumption, including Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption questionnaire (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening. Linear or logistic regression models and postestimation methods were used to estimate mean daily drinking, the number of endorsed alcohol use disorder (AUD) criteria ("AUD severity"), and the probability of alcohol dependence associated with each individual AUDIT-C score (1 to 12), after testing for effect modification by gender and age. RESULTS: Among eligible past-year drinkers, mean daily drinking, AUD severity, and the probability of alcohol dependence increased exponentially across increasing AUDIT-C scores. Mean daily drinking ranged from < 0.1 to 18.0 drinks/d, AUD severity ranged from < 0.1 to 5.1 endorsed AUD criteria, and probability of alcohol dependence ranged from < 1 to 65% across scores 1 to 12. AUD severity increased more steeply across AUDIT-C scores among women than men. Both AUD severity and mean daily drinking increased more steeply across AUDIT-C scores among younger versus older age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study could be used to estimate patient-specific consumption and severity based on age, gender, and alcohol screening score. This information could be integrated into electronic decision support systems to help providers estimate and provide feedback about patient-specific risks and identify those patients most likely to benefit from further diagnostic assessment.

Changes in alcohol consumption reported on routine healthcare screenings are associated with changes in depression symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption version (AUDIT-C) has been robustly validated as a point-in-time screen for unhealthy alcohol use, but less is known about the significance of changes in AUDIT-C scores from routine screenings over time. Unhealthy alcohol use and depression commonly co-occur, and changes in drinking often co-occur with changes in depression symptoms. We assess the associations between changes in AUDIT-C scores and changes in depression symptoms reported on brief screens completed in routine care. METHODS: The study sample included 198,335 primary care patients who completed two AUDIT-C screens 11 to 24 months apart and the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) depression screen on the same day as each AUDIT-C. Both screening measures were completed as part of routine care within a large health system in Washington state. AUDIT-C scores were categorized to reflect five drinking levels at both time points, resulting in 25 subgroups with different change patterns. For each of the 25 subgroups, within-group changes in the prevalence of positive PHQ-2 depression screens were characterized using risk ratios (RRs) and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Patient subgroups with increases in AUDIT-C risk categories generally experienced increases in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.95 to 2.00). Patient subgroups with decreases in AUDIT-C risk categories generally experienced decreases in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.52 to 1.01). Patient subgroups that did not have changes in AUDIT-C risk categories experienced little or no change in the prevalence of positive depression screens (RRs ranging from 0.98 to 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, changes in alcohol consumption reported on AUDIT-C screens completed in routine care were associated with changes in depression screening results. Results support the validity and clinical utility of monitoring changes in AUDIT-C scores over time as a meaningful measure of changes in drinking.

Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening and brief interventions (BIs) are ranked the third highest US prevention priority, but effective methods of implementing BI into routine care have not been described. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prevalence of documented BI among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients with alcohol misuse before, during, and after implementation of a national performance measure (PM) linked to incentives and dissemination of an electronic clinical reminder (CR) for BI. METHODS: VA outpatients were included in this study if they were randomly sampled for national medical record reviews and screened positive for alcohol misuse (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score ≥5) between July 2006 and September 2008 (N=6788). Consistent with the PM, BI was defined as documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking plus feedback linking drinking to health. The prevalence of BI was evaluated among outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse during 4 successive phases of BI implementation: baseline year (n=3504), after announcement (n=753) and implementation (n=697) of the PM, and after CR dissemination (n=1834), unadjusted and adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among patients with alcohol misuse, the adjusted prevalence of BI increased significantly over successive phases of BI implementation, from 5.5% (95% CI 4.1%-7.5%), 7.6% (5.6%-10.3%), 19.1% (15.4%-23.7%), to 29.0% (25.0%-33.4%) during the baseline year, after PM announcement, PM implementation, and CR dissemination, respectively (test for trend P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.

Evidence-based screening, diagnosis, and treatment of substance use disorders among veterans and military service personnel.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are among the most common and costly conditions in veterans and active duty military personnel, adversely affecting their health and occupational and personal functioning. The pervasive burden of SUD has been a continuing concern for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD), particularly as large numbers of service members return from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. The VA and DoD have prioritized implementation of evidence-based practices and treatment services to enhance the recognition and management of SUD in general medical and SUD specialty-care settings. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines for identifying, diagnosing, and treating SUD in VA and DoD general medical and SUD specialty-care settings, highlights evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for managing SUD, and describes barriers to successful treatment of veterans and service members at risk for SUD in VA and DoD health care systems.

Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening questionnaires have typically been validated when self- or researcher-administered. Little is known about the performance of alcohol screening questionnaires administered in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of alcohol screening conducted as part of routine outpatient clinical care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System to the results on the same alcohol screening questionnaire completed on a mailed survey within 90 days and identify factors associated with discordant screening results. DESIGN: Cross sectional. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 6,861 VA outpatients (fiscal years 2007-2008) who completed the AUDIT-C alcohol screening questionnaire on mailed surveys (survey screen) within 90 days of having clinical AUDIT-C screening documented in their medical records (clinical screen). MAIN MEASURES: Alcohol screening results were considered discordant if patients screened positive (AUDIT-C ≥ 5) on either the clinical or survey screen but not both. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence of discordance in different patient subgroups based on demographic and clinical characteristics, VA network and temporal factors (e.g. the order of screens). KEY RESULTS: Whereas 11.1% (95% CI 10.4-11.9%) of patients screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use on the survey screen, 5.7% (5.1- 6.2%) screened positive on the clinical screen. Of 765 patients who screened positive on the survey screen, 61.2% (57.7-64.6%) had discordant results on the clinical screen, contrasted with 1.5% (1.2-1.8%) of 6096 patients who screened negative on the survey screen. In multivariable analyses, discordance was significantly increased among Black patients compared with White, and among patients who had a positive survey AUDIT-C screen or who received care at 4 of 21 VA networks. CONCLUSION: Use of a validated alcohol screening questionnaire does not-by itself-ensure the quality of alcohol screening. This study suggests that the quality of clinical alcohol screening should be monitored, even when well-validated screening questionnaires are used.

Alcohol screening and risk of postoperative complications in male VA patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients who misuse alcohol are at increased risk for surgical complications. Four weeks of preoperative abstinence decreases the risk of complications, but practical approaches for early preoperative identification of alcohol misuse are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether results of alcohol screening with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire-up to a year before surgery-were associated with the risk of postoperative complications. DESIGN: This is a cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Male Veterans Affairs (VA) patients were eligible if they had major noncardiac surgery assessed by the VA's Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) in fiscal years 2004-2006, and completed the AUDIT-C alcohol screening questionnaire (0-12 points) on a mailed survey within 1 year before surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One or more postoperative complication(s) within 30 days of surgery based on VASQIP nurse medical record reviews. RESULTS: Among 9,176 eligible men, 16.3% screened positive for alcohol misuse with AUDIT-C scores ≥ 5, and 7.8% had postoperative complications. Patients with AUDIT-C scores ≥ 5 were at significantly increased risk for postoperative complications, compared to patients who drank less. In analyses adjusted for age, smoking, and days from screening to surgery, the estimated prevalence of postoperative complications increased from 5.6% (95% CI 4.8-6.6%) in patients with AUDIT-C scores 1-4, to 7.9% (6.3-9.7%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 5-8, 9.7% (6.6-14.1%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 9-10 and 14.0% (8.9-21.3%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 11-12. In fully-adjusted analyses that included preoperative covariates potentially in the causal pathway between alcohol misuse and complications, the estimated prevalence of postoperative complications increased significantly from 4.8% (4.1-5.7%) in patients with AUDIT-C scores 1-4, to 6.9% (5.5-8.7%) in patients with AUDIT-Cs 5-8 and 7.5% (5.0-11.3%) among those with AUDIT-Cs 9-10. CONCLUSIONS: AUDIT-C scores of 5 or more up to a year before surgery were associated with increased postoperative complications.

Why health care process performance measures can have different relationships to outcomes for patients and hospitals: understanding the ecological fallacy.

Relationships between health care process performance measures (PPMs) and outcomes can differ in magnitude and even direction for patients versus higher level units (e.g., health care facilities). Such discrepancies can arise because facility-level relationships ignore PPM-outcome relationships for patients within facilities, may have different confounders than patient-level PPM-outcome relationships, and may reflect facility effect modification of patient PPM-outcome relationships. If a patient-level PPM is related to better patient outcomes, that care process should be encouraged. However, the finding in a multilevel analysis that the proportion of patients receiving PPM care across facilities nevertheless is linked to poor hospital outcomes would suggest that interventions targeting the health care facility also are needed.

Daily telephone monitoring compared with retrospective recall of alcohol use among patients in early recovery.

Most studies comparing frequent self-monitoring protocols and retrospective assessments of alcohol use find good correspondence, but have excluded participants with significant comorbidity and/or social instability, and some have included abstainers. We evaluated the correspondence between measures of alcohol use based on daily interactive voice response (IVR) telephone monitoring and a 28-day modification of the Form-90 (Form-28). Participants were 25 outpatients with alcohol use disorder and significant PTSD symptomatology . Overall correlations between the IVR and Form-28 on days drinking and total standard drink units (SDUs) were strong for the entire sample and the subsample of drinkers (n = 7). Day-to-day correspondence between IVR and Form-28 was modest, but much stronger for the most recent week assessed than for the prior 3 weeks. Finally, the drinkers reported significantly greater total SDUs and heavy drinking days on the Form-28 than via IVR. The results indicate a need for further refinement of IVR methodology for treatment seeking populations as well as caution when retrospectively assessing drinking over time periods longer than a week among these individuals.