Prevalence and Correlates of Positive Follow-up Screens in Primary Care for Unhealthy Alcohol and Other Drug Use After a Negative Screen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion and characteristics of adults in primary care (PC) who screen positive for unhealthy substance use (SU) (alcohol and/or other drug) 1 year or more after screening negative. METHODS: Screening consisted of single-item questions for unhealthy use of alcohol and other drugs (illicit drugs and prescription medications). Health educators conducted in-person screening of patients presenting for a PC appointment. SU severity (low, moderate, high) was assessed with the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated predictors of a positive follow-up screen. RESULTS: Among 9215 patients who previously screened negative, 237 (2.6%) screened positive for unhealthy SU (42% alcohol only, 43% other drug only, 15% alcohol and other drug). The mean interval between screens was 19 months. Most alcohol use was low risk (ASSIST score ≤10) (81%), whereas most drug use was moderate risk (ASSIST score 4-26) (77%). Patients between ages of 18 to 25 had a higher proportion of positive follow-up screens (7.4% [33/ 443]) as well as those with a self-identified history of SU problems (9.4% [40/421]). Patients with a higher odds of a positive follow-up screen were male (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.64; 95% CI: 2.02-3.45), used tobacco (AOR 2.38; 95% CI: 1.75-3.23), had a longer interval between screenings (AOR 3.26; 95% CI: 1.84-5.75). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for unhealthy SU 1 year or more after screening negative identified additional patients at-risk. These findings highlight the need to empirically determine the incremental benefits of screening all PC patients annually.

Implementation of a Universal Screening Process for Substance Use in Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a standardized universal substance use screening process in an outpatient prenatal clinic at an urban tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Using a quality-improvement framework that involved process modeling, stakeholder analyses, and plan-do-study-act cycles, we implemented universal substance use screening for prenatal patients using a modified 5Ps screening tool (Parents, Peers, Partner, Past, Present). Implementation included an operational workflow based on the SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment) model. The primary outcome measure was percentage of patients who were screened for substance use, with a goal of 90% screened. Secondary outcome measures were percentage who screened positive and percentage of the time a positive screen resulted in documentation of a brief intervention by a health care practitioner. RESULTS: Over a 19-month implementation period, 733 patient encounters were sampled. A substance use screen was completed in 618 (84%). We exceeded our goal of screening 90% of eligible patients for the final 6 months of data collection. Of the 618 completed screens, 124 (20%) screened positive. Health care practitioner documentation of brief interventions for patients with a positive screen reached 80% in the final phase of implementation, but then declined to 50% by the completion of the study period. CONCLUSION: A sustainable and generalizable process to carry out substance use screening within a large prenatal practice is feasible, and assisted with identification of patients not known to be at risk. Further efforts are needed to evaluate how to sustain health care practitioner documentation of intervention in response to positive screens.

Screening for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use by health educators: do primary care clinicians document screening results?

OBJECTIVES: Health educators are increasingly being used to deliver preventive care including screening and brief intervention (SBI) for unhealthy substance use (SU) (alcohol or drug). There are few data, however, about the "handoff" of information from health educator to primary care clinician (PCC). Among patients identified with unhealthy SU and counseled by health educators, the objective of this study was to examine (1) the proportion of PCC notes with documentation of SBI and (2) the spectrum of SU not documented by PCCs. METHODS: Before the PCC-patient encounter, health educators screened for SU, assessed severity (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test), and counseled patients. They also conveyed this information to the PCC before the PCC-patient encounter. Researchers reviewed the electronic medical record for PCC documentation of SBI performed by the health educator and/or the PCC. RESULTS: Among patients with the health educator-identified SU, only 69% (342/495) of PCC notes contained documentation of screening by the health educator and/or the PCC. Documentation was found in all encounters with patients with likely dependent SU, but only 62% and 59% of encounters with patients with risky alcohol and drug use, respectively. Documentation of cocaine or heroin use was higher than that of alcohol or marijuana use but still not universal. Although all SU-identified patients had received a brief intervention (from a health educator and possibly a PCC), only 25% of PCC notes contained documentation of a brief intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients screened and counseled by health educators for unhealthy SU, SBI was often not documented by PCCs. These results suggest that strategies are needed to integrate SBI by primary care team members to advance the quality of care for patients with unhealthy SU.