Strategies to implement alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care settings: a structured literature review.

Although alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) reduces drinking in primary care patients with unhealthy alcohol use, incorporating SBI into clinical settings has been challenging. We systematically reviewed the literature on implementation studies of alcohol SBI using a broad conceptual model of implementation, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to identify domains addressed by programs that achieved high rates of screening and/or brief intervention (BI). Seventeen articles from 8 implementation programs were included; studies were conducted in 9 countries and represented 533,903 patients (127,304 patients screened), 2,001 providers, and 1,805 clinics. Rates of SBI varied across articles (2-93% for screening and 0.9-73.1% for BI). Implementation programs described use of 7-25 of the 39 CFIR elements. Most programs used strategies that spanned all 5 domains of the CFIR with varying emphases on particular domains and sub-domains. Comparison of SBI rates was limited by most studies' being conducted by 2 implementation programs and by different outcome measures, scopes, and durations. However, one implementation program reported a high rate of screening relative to other programs (93%) and could be distinguished by its use of strategies that related to the Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation domains of the CFIR. Future studies could assess whether focusing on Inner Setting, Outer Setting, and Process of Implementation elements of the CFIR during implementation is associated with successful implementation of alcohol screening, as well as which elements may be associated with successful, sustained implementation of BI.

Primary health care quality in a national sample of children and youth with mental health impairment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the general pediatric health care quality experiences of children and youth with mental health impairment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2006 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey data for children and youth aged 5 to 17 years (n = 7263). Mental health impairment was defined using the recommended cut-point (score ≥ 16) on the parent version of the Columbia Impairment Scale. Health care quality was measured with the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems including parent ratings in 3 domains: provider communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly. Logistic regression was used to test associations between mental health impairment and dichotomized Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems measures (poor vs good quality) adjusted for demographic characteristics, health insurance, and socioeconomic status. Analysis was conducted with Stata, Version 10.1 SE, and all estimates accounted for the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey complex sampling design. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, health care experiences of children with mental health impairment (versus those without) were consistently rated less favorably by parents, with greater odds of inferior quality of care ratings in all domains: getting needed care (odds ratio [OR] = 2.35), getting care quickly (OR = 1.41), physician communication (OR = 1.72), and overall health care quality (OR = 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to identify specific aspects of care that families find problematic in relation to the organization and delivery of care within each quality domain. Interventions are needed to improve service systems for children and youth with mental health impairment, especially to support access to needed care.

Case-mix adjustment and the comparison of community health center performance on patient experience measures.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of case-mix adjustment on community health center (CHC) performance on patient experience measures. DATA SOURCES: A Medicaid-managed care plan in Washington State collected patient survey data from 33 CHCs over three fiscal quarters during 2007-2008. The survey included three composite patient experience measures (6-month reports) and two overall ratings of care. The analytic sample includes 2,247 adult patients and 2,859 adults reporting for child patients. STUDY DESIGN: We compared the relative importance of patient case-mix adjusters by calculating each adjuster's predictive power and variability across CHCs. We then evaluated the impact of case-mix adjustment on the relative ranking of CHCs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Important case-mix adjusters included adult self-reported health status or parent-reported child health status, adult age, and educational attainment. The effects of case-mix adjustment on patient reports and ratings were different in the adult and child samples. Adjusting for race/ethnicity and language had a greater impact on parent reports than adult reports, but it impacted ratings similarly across the samples. The impact of adjustment on composites and ratings was modest, but it affected the relative ranking of CHCs. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure equitable comparison of CHC performance on patient experience measures, reports and ratings should be adjusted for adult self-reported health status or parent-reported child health status, adult age, education, race/ethnicity, and survey language. Because of the differential impact of case-mix adjusters for child and adult surveys, initiatives should consider measuring and reporting adult and child scores separately.