PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be \u3e 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ( electronic health records, [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings

Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation

A1 Introduction to the 8(th) Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers, Lisa Simpson D1 Discussion forum: Population health D&I research Felicia Hill-Briggs D2 Discussion forum: Global health D&I research Gila Neta, Cynthia Vinson D3 Discussion forum: Precision medicine and D&I research David Chambers S1 Predictors of community therapists’ use of therapy techniques in a large public mental health system Rinad Beidas, Steven Marcus, Gregory Aarons, Kimberly Hoagwood, Sonja Schoenwald, Arthur Evans, Matthew Hurford, Ronnie Rubin, Trevor Hadley, Frances Barg, Lucia Walsh, Danielle Adams, David Mandell S2 Implementing brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in primary care: Clinicians' experiences from the field Lindsey Martin, Joseph Mignogna, Juliette Mott, Natalie Hundt, Michael Kauth, Mark Kunik, Aanand Naik, Jeffrey Cully S3 Clinician competence: Natural variation, factors affecting, and effect on patient outcomes Alan McGuire, Dominique White, Tom Bartholomew, John McGrew, Lauren Luther, Angie Rollins, Michelle Salyers S4 Exploring the multifaceted nature of sustainability in community-based prevention: A mixed-method approach Brittany Cooper, Angie Funaiole S5 Theory informed behavioral health integration in primary care: Mixed methods evaluation of the implementation of routine depression and alcohol screening and assessment Julie Richards, Amy Lee, Gwen Lapham, Ryan Caldeiro, Paula Lozano, Tory Gildred, Carol Achtmeyer, Evette Ludman, Megan Addis, Larry Marx, Katharine Bradley S6 Enhancing the evidence for specialty mental health probation through a hybrid efficacy and implementation study Tonya VanDeinse, Amy Blank Wilson, Burgin Stacey, Byron Powell, Alicia Bunger, Gary Cuddeback S7 Personalizing evidence-based child mental health care within a fiscally mandated policy reform Miya Barnett, Nicole Stadnick, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Anna Lau S8 Leveraging an existing resource for technical assistance: Community-based supervisors in public mental health Shannon Dorsey, Michael Pullmann S9 SBIRT implementation for adolescents in urban federally qualified health centers: Implementation outcomes Shannon Mitchell, Robert Schwartz, Arethusa Kirk, Kristi Dusek, Marla Oros, Colleen Hosler, Jan Gryczynski, Carolina Barbosa, Laura Dunlap, David Lounsbury, Kevin O'Grady, Barry Brown S10 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Expert recommendations for tailoring strategies to context Laura Damschroder, Thomas Waltz, Byron Powell S11 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Extreme facilitation: Helping challenged healthcare settings implement complex programs Mona Ritchie S12 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Using menu-based choice tasks to obtain expert recommendations for implementing three high-priority practices in the VA Thomas Waltz S13 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Siri, rate my therapist: Using technology to automate fidelity ratings of motivational interviewing David Atkins, Zac E. Imel, Bo Xiao, Doğan Can, Panayiotis Georgiou, Shrikanth Narayanan S14 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Identifying indicators of implementation quality for computer-based ratings Cady Berkel, Carlos Gallo, Irwin Sandler, C. Hendricks Brown, Sharlene Wolchik, Anne Marie Mauricio S15 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Improving implementation of behavioral interventions by monitoring emotion in spoken speech Carlos Gallo, C. Hendricks Brown, Sanjay Mehrotra S16 Scorecards and dashboards to assure data quality of health management information system (HMIS) using R Dharmendra Chandurkar, Siddhartha Bora, Arup Das, Anand Tripathi, Niranjan Saggurti, Anita Raj S17 A big data approach for discovering and implementing patient safety insights Eric Hughes, Brian Jacobs, Eric Kirkendall S18 Improving the efficacy of a depression registry for use in a collaborative care model Danielle Loeb, Katy Trinkley, Michael Yang, Andrew Sprowell, Donald Nease S19 Measurement feedback systems as a strategy to support implementation of measurement-based care in behavioral health Aaron Lyon, Cara Lewis, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Semret Nicodimos, Freda Liu, Nathanial Jungbluth S20 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Common loop assay: Methods of supporting learning collaboratives Allen Flynn S21 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Innovating audit and feedback using message tailoring models for learning health systems Zach Landis-Lewis S22 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Implementation science and learning health systems: Connecting the dots Anne Sales S23 Facilitation activities of Critical Access Hospitals during TeamSTEPPS implementation Jure Baloh, Marcia Ward, Xi Zhu S24 Organizational and social context of federally qualified health centers and variation in maternal depression outcomes Ian Bennett, Jurgen Unutzer, Johnny Mao, Enola Proctor, Mindy Vredevoogd, Ya-Fen Chan, Nathaniel Williams, Phillip Green S25 Decision support to enhance treatment of hospitalized smokers: A randomized trial Steven Bernstein, June-Marie Rosner, Michelle DeWitt, Jeanette Tetrault, James Dziura, Allen Hsiao, Scott Sussman, Patrick O’Connor, Benjamin Toll S26 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A patient-centered approach to successful community transition after catastrophic injury Michael Jones, Julie Gassaway S27 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - Conducting PCOR to integrate mental health and cancer screening services in primary care Jonathan Tobin S28 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A comparative effectiveness trial of optimal patient-centered care for US trauma care systems Douglas Zatzick S29 Preferences for in-person communication among patients in a multi-center randomized study of in-person versus telephone communication of genetic test results for cancer susceptibility Angela R Bradbury, Linda Patrick-Miller, Brian Egleston, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Michael J Hall, Mary B Daly, Linda Fleisher, Generosa Grana, Pamela Ganschow, Dominique Fetzer, Amanda Brandt, Dana Farengo-Clark, Andrea Forman, Rikki S Gaber, Cassandra Gulden, Janice Horte, Jessica Long, Rachelle Lorenz Chambers, Terra Lucas, Shreshtha Madaan, Kristin Mattie, Danielle McKenna, Susan Montgomery, Sarah Nielsen, Jacquelyn Powers, Kim Rainey, Christina Rybak, Michelle Savage, Christina Seelaus, Jessica Stoll, Jill Stopfer, Shirley Yao and Susan Domchek S30 Working towards de-implementation: A mixed methods study in breast cancer surveillance care Erin Hahn, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Jianjin Wang, Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo, Brian Mittman Michael Gould S31Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety-net primary care systems: A multiple case study using the consolidated framework for implementation research Shuting (Lily) Liang, Michelle C. Kegler, Megan Cotter, Emily Phillips, April Hermstad, Rentonia Morton, Derrick Beasley, Jeremy Martinez, Kara Riehman S32 Observations from implementing an mHealth intervention in an FQHC David Gustafson, Lisa Marsch, Louise Mares, Andrew Quanbeck, Fiona McTavish, Helene McDowell, Randall Brown, Chantelle Thomas, Joseph Glass, Joseph Isham, Dhavan Shah S33 A multicomponent intervention to improve primary care provider adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and reduce opioid misuse: A cluster randomized controlled trial protocol Jane Liebschutz, Karen Lasser S34 Implementing collaborative care for substance use disorders in primary care: Preliminary findings from the summit study Katherine Watkins, Allison Ober, Sarah Hunter, Karen Lamp, Brett Ewing S35 Sustaining a task-shifting strategy for blood pressure control in Ghana: A stakeholder analysis Juliet Iwelunmor, Joyce Gyamfi, Sarah Blackstone, Nana Kofi Quakyi, Jacob Plange-Rhule, Gbenga Ogedegbe S36 Contextual adaptation of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) in a tobacco cessation study in Vietnam Pritika Kumar, Nancy Van Devanter, Nam Nguyen, Linh Nguyen, Trang Nguyen, Nguyet Phuong, Donna Shelley S37 Evidence check: A knowledge brokering approach to systematic reviews for policy Sian Rudge S38 Using Evidence Synthesis to Strengthen Complex Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Etienne Langlois S39 Does it matter: timeliness or accuracy of results? The choice of rapid reviews or systematic reviews to inform decision-making Andrea Tricco S40 Evaluation of the veterans choice program using lean six sigma at a VA medical center to identify benefits and overcome obstacles Sherry Ball, Anne Lambert-Kerzner, Christine Sulc, Carol Simmons, Jeneen Shell-Boyd, Taryn Oestreich, Ashley O'Connor, Emily Neely, Marina McCreight, Amy Labebue, Doreen DiFiore, Diana Brostow, P. Michael Ho, David Aron S41 The influence of local context on multi-stakeholder alliance quality improvement activities: A multiple case study Jillian Harvey, Megan McHugh, Dennis Scanlon S42 Increasing physical activity in early care and education: Sustainability via active garden education (SAGE) Rebecca Lee, Erica Soltero, Nathan Parker, Lorna McNeill, Tracey Ledoux S43 Marking a decade of policy implementation: The successes and continuing challenges of a provincial school food and nutrition policy in Canada Jessie-Lee McIsaac, Kate MacLeod, Nicole Ata, Sherry Jarvis, Sara Kirk S44 Use of research evidence among state legislators who prioritize mental health and substance abuse issues Jonathan Purtle, Elizabeth Dodson, Ross Brownson S45 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 1 designs Brian Mittman, Geoffrey Curran S46 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 2 designs Geoffrey Curran S47 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 3 designs Jeffrey Pyne S48 Linking team level implementation leadership and implementation climate to individual level attitudes, behaviors, and implementation outcomes Gregory Aarons, Mark Ehrhart, Elisa Torres S49 Pinpointing the specific elements of local context that matter most to implementation outcomes: Findings from qualitative comparative analysis in the RE-inspire study of VA acute stroke care Edward Miech S50 The GO score: A new context-sensitive instrument to measure group organization level for providing and improving care Edward Miech S51 A research network approach for boosting implementation and improvement Kathleen Stevens, I.S.R.N. Steering Council S52 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - The value of qualitative methods in implementation research Alison Hamilton S53 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Learning evaluation: The role of qualitative methods in dissemination and implementation research Deborah Cohen S54 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Qualitative methods in D&I research Deborah Padgett S55 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Hospital network of sharing patients with acute and chronic diseases in California Alexandra Morshed S56 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - The use of social network analysis to identify dissemination targets and enhance D&I research study recruitment for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) among men who have sex with men Rupa Patel S57 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Network and organizational factors related to the adoption of patient navigation services among rural breast cancer care providers Beth Prusaczyk S58 A theory of de-implementation based on the theory of healthcare professionals’ behavior and intention (THPBI) and the becker model of unlearning David C. Aron, Divya Gupta, Sherry Ball S59 Observation of registered dietitian nutritionist-patient encounters by dietetic interns highlights low awareness and implementation of evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines Rosa Hand, Jenica Abram, Taylor Wolfram S60 Program sustainability action planning: Building capacity for program sustainability using the program sustainability assessment tool Molly Hastings, Sarah Moreland-Russell S61 A review of D&I study designs in published study protocols Rachel Tabak, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Emily Kryzer, Katherine Montgomery, Ericka Lewis, Margaret Padek, Byron Powell, Ross Brownson S62 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Model simulation techniques to estimate the cost of implementing foundational public health services Cezar Brian Mamaril, Glen Mays, Keith Branham, Lava Timsina S63 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Inter-organizational network effects on the implementation of public health services Glen Mays, Rachel Hogg S64 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Implementation fidelity, coalition functioning, and community prevention system transformation using communities that care Abigail Fagan, Valerie Shapiro, Eric Brown S65 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Expanding capacity for implementation of communities that care at scale using a web-based, video-assisted training system Kevin Haggerty, David Hawkins S66 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Effects of communities that care on reducing youth behavioral health problems Sabrina Oesterle, David Hawkins, Richard Catalano S68 When interventions end: the dynamics of intervention de-adoption and replacement Virginia McKay, M. Margaret Dolcini, Lee Hoffer S69 Results from next-d: can a disease specific health plan reduce incident diabetes development among a national sample of working-age adults with pre-diabetes? Tannaz Moin, Jinnan Li, O. Kenrik Duru, Susan Ettner, Norman Turk, Charles Chan, Abigail Keckhafer, Robert Luchs, Sam Ho, Carol Mangione S70 Implementing smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings (STOP): using the interactive systems framework Peter Selby, Laurie Zawertailo, Nadia Minian, Dolly Balliunas, Rosa Dragonetti, Sarwar Hussain, Julia Lecce S71 Testing the Getting To Outcomes implementation support intervention in prevention-oriented, community-based settings Matthew Chinman, Joie Acosta, Patricia Ebener, Patrick S Malone, Mary Slaughter S72 Examining the reach of a multi-component farmers’ market implementation approach among low-income consumers in an urban context Darcy Freedman, Susan Flocke, Eunlye Lee, Kristen Matlack, Erika Trapl, Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, Morgan Taggart, Elaine Borawski S73 Increasing implementation of evidence-based health promotion practices at large workplaces: The CEOs Challenge Amanda Parrish, Jeffrey Harris, Marlana Kohn, Kristen Hammerback, Becca McMillan, Peggy Hannon S74 A qualitative assessment of barriers to nutrition promotion and obesity prevention in childcare Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Wendy Ward S75 Documenting institutionalization of a health communication intervention in African American churches Cheryl Holt, Sheri Lou Santos, Erin Tagai, Mary Ann Scheirer, Roxanne Carter, Janice Bowie, Muhiuddin Haider, Jimmie Slade, Min Qi Wang S76 Reduction in hospital utilization by underserved patients through use of a community-medical home Andrew Masica, Gerald Ogola, Candice Berryman, Kathleen Richter S77 Sustainability of evidence-based lay health advisor programs in African American communities: A mixed methods investigation of the National Witness Project Rachel Shelton, Lina Jandorf, Deborah Erwin S78 Predicting the long-term uninsured population and analyzing their gaps in physical access to healthcare in South Carolina Khoa Truong S79 Using an evidence-based parenting intervention in churches to prevent behavioral problems among Filipino youth: A randomized pilot study Joyce R. Javier, Dean Coffey, Sheree M. Schrager, Lawrence Palinkas, Jeanne Miranda S80 Sustainability of elementary school-based health centers in three health-disparate southern communities Veda Johnson, Valerie Hutcherson, Ruth Ellis S81 Childhood obesity prevention partnership in Louisville: creative opportunities to engage families in a multifaceted approach to obesity prevention Anna Kharmats, Sandra Marshall-King, Monica LaPradd, Fannie Fonseca-Becker S82 Improvements in cervical cancer prevention found after implementation of evidence-based Latina prevention care management program Deanna Kepka, Julia Bodson, Echo Warner, Brynn Fowler S83 The OneFlorida data trust: Achieving health equity through research & training capacity building Elizabeth Shenkman, William Hogan, Folakami Odedina, Jessica De Leon, Monica Hooper, Olveen Carrasquillo, Renee Reams, Myra Hurt, Steven Smith, Jose Szapocznik, David Nelson, Prabir Mandal S84 Disseminating and sustaining medical-legal partnerships: Shared value and social return on investment James Teufe

Single-Item Screens for Prescription and Illicit Drug Misuse Largely Identifies Primary Care Patients With Unrecognized Drug Use

Background/Aims: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends depression and alcohol screening as part of routine primary care, but not drug screening because brief primary care counseling about drug use does not improved outcomes. However, drug screening might be helpful if it led to identification and treatment of patients with unrecognized substance use disorders. The objective was to describe the prevalence of positive drug and marijuana screens in a primary care population and whether patients who screened positive had previously recognized substance use disorders. Methods: We conducted a 3-week feasibility test of universal depression and alcohol misuse screening in one primary care clinic as a prelude to behavioral health integration. Providers asked that we also screen for illicit drug and marijuana use (the latter was legal in Washington state). A total of 409 (61%) of 667 patients who were seen in the primary care clinic for a 3-week period completed a one-page behavioral health questionnaire that included brief depression (PHQ-2), alcohol misuse (AUDIT-C), drug (validated single-item) and marijuana screens. The latter was adapted from the single-item drug screen. Results: Of 409 patients who completed screening (68% women; 10%, 17%, 43% and 31% age \u3c30, 30–44, 45–64 and ≥65 years, respectively), 4% screened positive for past-year prescription or illicit drug use, 13% reported marijuana past-year use (3% daily or almost) and 16% screened positive for alcohol misuse. Among the 16 patients who screened positive for drug misuse, 4 (25%) reported daily drug misuse, and 7 (44%) screened positive for alcohol misuse. Only 1 (6%) of the 16 patients who screened positive for drug misuse had a prior diagnosis of a substance use disorders (but not in the past year). However, 38% had been prescribed opioids and 13% benzodiazepines in the past year (38% either). Providers found drug screening valuable as they had been previously unaware of most patients’ drug use. Discussion: Most patients who screened positive for illicit or prescription drug misuse did not have recognized substance use disorders. Findings suggest that routine screening with single-item drug and marijuana screens provide important clinical information for primary care teams

Frequency of Cannabis Use among Primary Care Patients in Washington State

Background and Objectives—Over 12% of U.S. adults report past-year cannabis use, and among those who use daily, 25% or more have a cannabis use disorder. Use is increasing as legal access expands. Yet, cannabis use is not routinely assessed in primary care, and little is known about use among primary care patients and relevant demographic and behavioral health subgroups. This study describes the prevalence and frequency of past-year cannabis use among primary care patients assessed for use during a primary care visit. Methods—This observational cohort study included adults who made a visit to primary care clinics with annual behavioral health screening, including a single-item question about frequency past-year cannabis use (March 2015-February 2016; n=29,857). Depression, alcohol and other drug use were also assessed by behavioral health screening. Screening results, tobacco use, and diagnoses for past-year behavioral health conditions (e.g., mental health and substance use disorders) were obtained from EHRs. Results—Among patients who completed the cannabis use question (n=22,095; 74% of eligible patients), 15.3% (14.8–15.8%) reported any past-year use: 12.2% (11.8%–12.6%) less than daily and 3.1% (2.9%–3.3%) daily. Among 2,228 patients 18–29 years, 36.0% (34.0%–38.0%) reported any cannabis use and 8.1% (7.0%–9.3%) daily use. Daily cannabis use was common among men 18–29 who used tobacco or screened positive for depression: 25.5% (18.8%–32.1%) and 31.7% (23.3%–40.0%), respectively. Conclusions—Cannabis use was common in adult primary care patients, especially among younger patients and those with behavioral health conditions. Results highlight the need for primary care approaches to address cannabis use

Low Reach of Four Different Alcohol Screening Approaches in the Absence of Population-Based Screening: Results From One Large Integrated Health Care System

Background/Aims: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended for identifying patients who may benefit from brief alcohol interventions. Although few health systems universally screen primary care patients for unhealthy alcohol use, some may offer screening at specific appointments or through online health risk assessments. However, little is known about the reach of various alcohol screening approaches in the absence of universal alcohol screening. The objective was to evaluate the proportion of primary care patients who were: 1) screened for unhealthy alcohol use, and 2) screened positive as a result of four different screening approaches. Methods: This project included 262,616 adults enrolled in Group Health in 2012 who had at least one primary care visit. Electronic medical record documentation of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening results were obtained from four screening approaches: online health risk assessment; progress note documentation through a template completed at preventive visits; paper-based questionnaire completed at mental health visits; and ad-hoc screening when providers had concerns. AUDIT-C results, ranging from 0–12 points, were positive for unhealthy alcohol use at scores of ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 points for women and men, respectively. The percentage of patients screened and the percentage of screened patients who were positive for unhealthy alcohol use were estimated overall and across the four screening approaches. Results: Overall, 14% (36,435) were screened with the AUDIT-C. The approach-specific percentages of patients screened were 8% online, 3% at preventive visits, 1% at mental health visits and 3% by ad-hoc screening. Of those screened, 33% were positive for unhealthy alcohol use and the approach-specific percentages of patients who screened positive were 35% online, 28% at preventive visits, 40% at mental health visits and 45% by ad-hoc screening. Discussion: Despite four approaches to alcohol screening, 86% of primary care patients were not screened for unhealthy alcohol use. Formal implementation of universal screening is likely necessary to achieve high rates of alcohol screening

Low Reach of Four Different Alcohol Screening Approaches in the Absence of Population-Based Screening: Results From One Large Integrated Health Care System

Background/Aims: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended for identifying patients who may benefit from brief alcohol interventions. Although few health systems universally screen primary care patients for unhealthy alcohol use, some may offer screening at specific appointments or through online health risk assessments. However, little is known about the reach of various alcohol screening approaches in the absence of universal alcohol screening. The objective was to evaluate the proportion of primary care patients who were: 1) screened for unhealthy alcohol use, and 2) screened positive as a result of four different screening approaches. Methods: This project included 262,616 adults enrolled in Group Health in 2012 who had at least one primary care visit. Electronic medical record documentation of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening results were obtained from four screening approaches: online health risk assessment; progress note documentation through a template completed at preventive visits; paper-based questionnaire completed at mental health visits; and ad-hoc screening when providers had concerns. AUDIT-C results, ranging from 0–12 points, were positive for unhealthy alcohol use at scores of ≥ 3 and ≥ 4 points for women and men, respectively. The percentage of patients screened and the percentage of screened patients who were positive for unhealthy alcohol use were estimated overall and across the four screening approaches. Results: Overall, 14% (36,435) were screened with the AUDIT-C. The approach-specific percentages of patients screened were 8% online, 3% at preventive visits, 1% at mental health visits and 3% by ad-hoc screening. Of those screened, 33% were positive for unhealthy alcohol use and the approach-specific percentages of patients who screened positive were 35% online, 28% at preventive visits, 40% at mental health visits and 45% by ad-hoc screening. Discussion: Despite four approaches to alcohol screening, 86% of primary care patients were not screened for unhealthy alcohol use. Formal implementation of universal screening is likely necessary to achieve high rates of alcohol screening

Evaluation of a Pilot Implementation to Integrate Alcohol-Related Care within Primary Care

Alcohol use is a major cause of disability and death worldwide. To improve prevention and treatment addressing unhealthy alcohol use, experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC). However, few healthcare systems do so. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington partnered to design a high-quality Program of Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC). Here, we describe the SPARC pilot implementation, evaluate its effectiveness within three large pilot sites, and describe the qualitative findings on barriers and facilitators. Across the three sites (N = 74,225 PC patients), alcohol screening increased from 8.9% of patients pre-implementation to 62% post-implementation (p < 0.0001), with a corresponding increase in assessment for alcohol use disorders (AUD) from 1.2 to 75 patients per 10,000 seen (p < 0.0001). Increases were sustained over a year later, with screening at 84.5% and an assessment rate of 81 patients per 10,000 seen across all sites. In addition, there was a 50% increase in the number of new AUD diagnoses (p = 0.0002), and a non-statistically significant 54% increase in treatment within 14 days of new diagnoses (p = 0.083). The pilot informed an ongoing stepped-wedge trial in the remaining 22 PC sites

Study protocol: a cluster-randomized trial implementing Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC trial)

Abstract Background Experts recommend that alcohol-related care be integrated into primary care (PC) to improve prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. However, few healthcare systems offer such integrated care. To address this gap, implementation researchers and clinical leaders at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) partnered to design a high-quality program of evidence-based care for unhealthy alcohol use: the Sustained Patient-centered Alcohol-related Care (SPARC) program. SPARC implements systems of clinical care designed to increase both prevention and treatment of unhealthy alcohol use. This clinical care for unhealthy alcohol use was implemented using three strategies: electronic health record (EHR) decision support, performance monitoring and feedback, and front-line support from external practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care (“SPARC implementation intervention” hereafter). The purpose of this report is to describe the protocol of the SPARC trial, a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge implementation trial to evaluate whether the SPARC implementation intervention increased alcohol screening and brief alcohol counseling (so-called brief interventions), and diagnosis and treatment of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) in 22 KPWA PC clinics. Methods/Design The SPARC trial sample includes all adult patients who had a visit to any of the 22 primary care sites in the trial during the study period (January 1, 2015–July 31, 2018). The 22 sites were randomized to implement the SPARC program on different dates (in seven waves, approximately every 4 months). Primary outcomes are the proportion of patients with PC visits who (1) screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use and have documented brief interventions and (2) have a newly recognized AUD and subsequently initiate and engage in alcohol-related care. Main analyses compare the rates of these primary outcomes in the pre- and post-implementation periods, following recommended approaches for analyzing stepped-wedge trials. Qualitative analyses assess barriers and facilitators to implementation and required adaptations of implementation strategies. Discussion The SPARC trial is the first study to our knowledge to use an experimental design to test whether practice coaches with expertise in alcohol-related care, along with EHR clinical decision support and performance monitoring and feedback to sites, increase both preventive care—alcohol screening and brief intervention—as well as diagnosis and treatment of AUDs. Trial registration The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT02675777. Registered February 5, 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675777