Large-Scale Implementation of Alcohol SBIRT in Adult Primary Care in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System: Lessons From the Field

Background/Aims: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) has been shown to be an efficacious intervention for risky drinkers and is recommended by numerous national organizations (NIH, USPSTF, SAMHSA, CDC). Nevertheless, large-scale implementation of SBIRT has proven to be challenging. Methods: The roll-out of systematic adult alcohol SBIRT in Kaiser Permanente Northern California built on and scaled up the findings from a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism-funded cluster-randomized implementation trial (ADVISe) of different modalities of SBIRT delivery –– primary care provider (PCP)-delivered versus delivery by nonphysician provider. Based on findings from ADVISe, a hybrid SBIRT model was chosen for implementation in which evidence-based alcohol screening instruments and clinical decision support tools were developed for the health system’s electronic health record, medical assistants were trained to screen all patients in adult medicine and PCPs were trained in brief intervention and referral to treatment techniques. Curricula and procedures were developed for medical assistant and PCP training, skills reinforcement and troubleshooting. Structures and protocols were created for communicating provider- and facility-level screening and brief intervention performance. We developed a network of “alcohol champions” across the health system within adult medicine and established collaborative relationships between medicine and chemical dependency programs to facilitate the seamless referral to and receipt of patients in specialty substance abuse treatment. Results: Since the initial roll-out in July 2013, there have been 2,502,455 alcohol screenings on unique adult primary care patients; 3,575,039 total screenings have occurred including follow-up screenings for risky drinkers. The 86% regional rate of alcohol screening has exceeded tobacco and exercise screening. Brief intervention rates across the 15 medical centers in the region range from 31% to 71%, with a current regional mean brief intervention rate of 54%. Conclusion: We will discuss the challenges to and critical stakeholder involvement in the successful large-scale implementation of research findings and make recommendations for structures and approaches that may facilitate adoption of SBIRT within health systems

Alcohol brief intervention in primary care: Blood pressure outcomes in hypertensive patients.

BackgroundIn clinical trials alcohol brief intervention (BI) in adult primary care has been efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption, but we know little about its impact on health outcomes. Hypertension is a prevalent and costly chronic condition in the U.S. and worldwide, and alcohol use is a modifiable hypertension risk factor.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of receiving BI for unhealthy drinking on blood pressure (BP) control among adult hypertensive patients by analyzing secondary data from a clustered, randomized controlled trial on alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) implementation by primary care physicians (PCP intervention arm) and non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP&MA intervention arm) in a large, integrated health care delivery system.DesignObservational, prospective cohort study.Subjects3811 adult hypertensive primary care patients screening positive for past-year heavy drinking at baseline, of which 1422 (37%) had an electronic health record BP measure at baseline and 18-month follow-up.Main outcome measuresChange in BP and controlled BP (systolic/diastolic BP <140/90mmHg).ResultsOverall no significant associations were found between alcohol BI and BP change at 18-month follow-up when analyzing the combined sample of subjects in both intervention arms. However, moderation analyses found that receiving BI for positive past-year unhealthy drinking was positively associated with better BP control at 18months in the PCP intervention arm, and for those with lower heavy drinking frequency and poor BP control at the index screening.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that hypertensive patients may benefit from receiving physician brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care. Findings also highlight potential population-level benefits of alcohol BI if widely applied, suggesting a need for the development of innovative strategies to facilitate SBIRT delivery in primary care settings

Alcohol brief intervention in primary care: Blood pressure outcomes in hypertensive patients.

BackgroundIn clinical trials alcohol brief intervention (BI) in adult primary care has been efficacious in reducing alcohol consumption, but we know little about its impact on health outcomes. Hypertension is a prevalent and costly chronic condition in the U.S. and worldwide, and alcohol use is a modifiable hypertension risk factor.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of receiving BI for unhealthy drinking on blood pressure (BP) control among adult hypertensive patients by analyzing secondary data from a clustered, randomized controlled trial on alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) implementation by primary care physicians (PCP intervention arm) and non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP&MA intervention arm) in a large, integrated health care delivery system.DesignObservational, prospective cohort study.Subjects3811 adult hypertensive primary care patients screening positive for past-year heavy drinking at baseline, of which 1422 (37%) had an electronic health record BP measure at baseline and 18-month follow-up.Main outcome measuresChange in BP and controlled BP (systolic/diastolic BP <140/90mmHg).ResultsOverall no significant associations were found between alcohol BI and BP change at 18-month follow-up when analyzing the combined sample of subjects in both intervention arms. However, moderation analyses found that receiving BI for positive past-year unhealthy drinking was positively associated with better BP control at 18months in the PCP intervention arm, and for those with lower heavy drinking frequency and poor BP control at the index screening.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that hypertensive patients may benefit from receiving physician brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care. Findings also highlight potential population-level benefits of alcohol BI if widely applied, suggesting a need for the development of innovative strategies to facilitate SBIRT delivery in primary care settings

Examination of the Effects of an Intervention Aiming to Link Patients Receiving Addiction Treatment With Health Care: The LINKAGE Clinical Trial.

ImportanceResearch has shown that higher activation and engagement with health care is associated with better self-management. To our knowledge, the linkage intervention (LINKAGE) is the first to engage patients receiving addiction treatment with health care using the electronic health record and a patient activation approach.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of an intervention aiming to link patients receiving addiction treatment with health care.Design, setting, and participantsA nonrandomized clinical trial evaluating the LINKAGE intervention vs usual care by applying an alternating 3-month off-and-on design over 30 months. Participants were recruited from an outpatient addiction treatment clinic in a large health system between April 7, 2011, and October 2, 2013.InterventionsSix group-based, manual-guided sessions on patient engagement in health care and the use of health information technology resources in the electronic health record, as well as facilitated communication with physicians, vs usual care.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes, measured at 6 months after enrollment, were patient activation (by interview using the Patient Activation Measure), patient engagement in health care (by interview and electronic health record), and alcohol, drug, and depression outcomes (by interview using the Addiction Severity Index for alcohol and drug outcomes and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) for depression).ResultsA total of 503 patients were recruited and assigned to the LINKAGE (n = 252) or usual care (n = 251) conditions, with no differences in baseline characteristics between conditions. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 42.5 (11.8) years, 31.0% (n = 156) were female, and 455 (90.5%) completed the 6-month interview. Compared with usual care participants, LINKAGE participants showed an increase in the mean number of log-in days (incidence rate ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.19-1.97; P = .001). Similar results were found across types of patient portal use (communicating by email, viewing laboratory test results and information, and obtaining medical advice). LINKAGE participants were more likely to talk with their physicians about addiction problems (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.52-3.49; P < .001). Although 6-month abstinence rates were high for both conditions (≥70.0% for both) and depression symptoms improved (the proportion with scores ≥15 on the 9-item PHQ dropped from 15.1% [38 of 252] to 8.0% [18 of 225] among LINKAGE participants), there were no differences between conditions. Those who received all intervention components had significantly better alcohol and other drug outcomes than those who received fewer intervention components.Conclusions and relevanceFindings support the feasibility and effectiveness of the LINKAGE intervention in helping patients receiving addiction treatment engage in health care and increase communication with their physicians. The intervention did not affect short-term abstinence or depression outcomes. Understanding if the LINKAGE intervention helps prevent relapse and manage long-term recovery will be important.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01621711

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

BackgroundUnhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports.MethodsThe study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment.ResultsScreening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51 %); followed by the PCP arm (9 %) and the Control arm (3.5 %). Screening increased over the 12 months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44 %) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4 %) or the Control arm (2.7 %). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm.ConclusionFindings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01135654

Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISe cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.

BackgroundUnhealthy alcohol use is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and injury. The US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended alcohol screening and intervention in general medical settings since 2004. Yet less than one in six US adults report health care professionals discussing alcohol with them. Little is known about methods for increasing implementation; different staffing models may be related to implementation effectiveness. This implementation trial compared delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to specialty treatment (SBIRT) by physicians versus non-physician providers receiving training, technical assistance, and feedback reports.MethodsThe study was a cluster randomized implementation trial (ADVISe [Alcohol Drinking as a Vital Sign]). Within a private, integrated health care system, 54 adult primary care clinics were stratified by medical center and randomly assigned in blocked groups of three to SBIRT by physicians (PCP arm) versus non-physician providers and medical assistants (NPP and MA arm), versus usual care (Control arm). NIH-recommended screening questions were added to the electronic health record (EHR) to facilitate SBIRT. We examined screening and brief intervention and referral rates by arm. We also examined patient-, physician-, and system-level factors affecting screening rates and, among those who screened positive, rates of brief intervention and referral to treatment.ResultsScreening rates were highest in the NPP and MA arm (51 %); followed by the PCP arm (9 %) and the Control arm (3.5 %). Screening increased over the 12 months after training in the NPP and MA arm but remained stable in the PCP arm. The PCP arm had higher brief intervention and referral rates (44 %) among patients screening positive than either the NPP and MA arm (3.4 %) or the Control arm (2.7 %). Higher ratio of MAs to physicians was related to higher screening rates in the NPP and MA arm and longer appointment times to screening and intervention rates in the PCP arm.ConclusionFindings suggest that time frames longer than 12 months may be required for full SBIRT implementation. Screening by MAs with intervention and referral by physicians as needed can be a feasible model for increasing the implementation of this critical and under-utilized preventive health service within currently predominant primary care models.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01135654

Patterns of health care use 5 years after an intervention linking patients in addiction treatment with a primary care practitioner.

Importance: Substance use disorders are associated with high rates of emergency department (ED) use and challenges engaging with primary care services. Question: Is an intervention to connect patients undergoing addiction treatment to primary care practitioners associated with long-term improved engagement with primary care? Findings: This post hoc analysis of 5-year follow-up data from a nonrandomized controlled trial with 503 participants found that LINKAGE intervention participants, relative to usual care, were more likely to discuss substance use problems with primary care practitioners, use the electronic patient portal, and have relative annual increases in primary care use and relative annual decreases in substance use–related emergency department utilization. Meaning: In this study, a patient activation intervention provided with addiction treatment was associated with improved long-term health care engagement patterns

Associations between alcohol brief intervention in primary care and drinking and health outcomes in adults with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: a population-based observational study

Objectives To evaluate associations between alcohol brief intervention (BI) in primary care and 12-month drinking outcomes and 18-month health outcomes among adults with hypertension and type 2 diabetes (T2D).Design A population-based observational study using electronic health records data.Setting An integrated healthcare system that implemented system-wide alcohol screening, BI and referral to treatment in adult primary care.Participants Adult primary care patients with hypertension (N=72 979) or T2D (N=19 642) who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use between 2014 and 2017.Main outcome measures We examined four drinking outcomes: changes in heavy drinking days/past 3 months, drinking days/week, drinks/drinking day and drinks/week from baseline to 12-month follow-up, based on results of alcohol screens conducted in routine care. Health outcome measures were changes in measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) and BP reduction ≥3 mm Hg at 18-month follow-up. For patients with T2D, we also examined change in glycohaemoglobin (HbA1c) level and ‘controlled HbA1c’ (HbA1c<8%) at 18-month follow-up.Results For patients with hypertension, those who received BI had a modest but significant additional −0.06 reduction in drinks/drinking day (95% CI −0.11 to −0.01) and additional −0.30 reduction in drinks/week (95% CI −0.59 to −0.01) at 12 months, compared with those who did not. Patients with hypertension who received BI also had higher odds for having clinically meaningful reduction of diastolic BP at 18 months (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09). Among patients with T2D, no significant associations were found between BI and drinking or health outcomes examined.Conclusions Alcohol BI holds promise for reducing drinking and helping to improve health outcomes among patients with hypertension who screened positive for unhealthy drinking. However, similar associations were not observed among patients with T2D. More research is needed to understand the heterogeneity across diverse subpopulations and to study BI’s long-term public health impact

CREATE Wellness: A multi-component behavioral intervention for patients not responding to traditional Cardiovascular disease management

Background/Aims: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the US. Many patients do not benefit from traditional disease management approaches to CVD risk reduction. Here we describe the rationale, development, and implementation of a multi-component behavioral intervention targeting patients who have persistently not met goals of CVD risk factor control. Methods: Informed by published evidence, relevant theoretical frameworks, stakeholder advice, and patient input, we developed a group-based intervention (Changing Results: Engage and Activate to Enhance Wellness; “CREATE Wellness”) to address the complex needs of patients with elevated or unmeasured CVD-related risk factors. We are testing this intervention in a randomized trial among patients with persistent (i.e > 2 years) sub-optimal risk factor control despite being enrolled in an advanced and highly successful CVD disease management program. Results: The CREATE Wellness intervention is designed as a 3 session, group-based intervention combining proven elements of patient activation, health system engagement skills training, shared decision making, care planning, and identification of lifestyle change barriers. Our key learnings in designing the intervention included the value of multi-level stakeholder input and the importance of pragmatic skills training to address barriers to care. Conclusions: The CREATE Wellness intervention represents an evidence-based, patient-centered approach for patients not responding to traditional disease management. The trial is currently underway at three medical facilities within Kaiser Permanente Northern California and next steps include an evaluation of efficacy, adaptation for non-English speaking patient populations, and modification of the curriculum for web- or phone-based versions. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02302612