Providing competency-based family medicine residency training in substance abuse in the new millennium: a model curriculum

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This article, developed for the Betty Ford Institute Consensus Conference on Graduate Medical Education (December, 2008), presents a model curriculum for Family Medicine residency training in substance abuse.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The authors reviewed reports of past Family Medicine curriculum development efforts, previously-identified barriers to education in high risk substance use, approaches to overcoming these barriers, and current training guidelines of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and their Family Medicine Residency Review Committee. A proposed eight-module curriculum was developed, based on substance abuse competencies defined by Project MAINSTREAM and linked to core competencies defined by the ACGME. The curriculum provides basic training in high risk substance use to all residents, while also addressing current training challenges presented by U.S. work hour regulations, increasing international diversity of Family Medicine resident trainees, and emerging new primary care practice models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This paper offers a core curriculum, focused on screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment, which can be adapted by residency programs to meet their individual needs. The curriculum encourages direct observation of residents to ensure that core skills are learned and trains residents with several "new skills" that will expand the basket of substance abuse services they will be equipped to provide as they enter practice.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Broad-based implementation of a comprehensive Family Medicine residency curriculum should increase the ability of family physicians to provide basic substance abuse services in a primary care context. Such efforts should be coupled with faculty development initiatives which ensure that sufficient trained faculty are available to teach these concepts and with efforts by major Family Medicine organizations to implement and enforce residency requirements for substance abuse training.</p

Effects of Screening and Brief Intervention Training on Resident and Faculty Alcohol Intervention Behaviours: A Pre- Post-Intervention Assessment

Background: Many hazardous and harmful drinkers do not receive clinician advice to reduce their drinking. Previous studies suggest under-detection and clinician reluctance to intervene despite awareness of problem drinking (PD). The Healthy Habits Project previously reported chart review data documenting increased screening and intervention with hazardous and harmful drinkers after training clinicians and implementing routine screening. This report describes the impact of the Healthy Habits training program on clinicians\u27 rates of identification of PD, level of certainty in identifying PD and the proportion of patients given advice to reduce alcohol use, based on self-report data using clinician exit questionnaires. Methods: 28 residents and 10 faculty in a family medicine residency clinic completed four cycles of clinician exit interview questionnaires before and after screening and intervention training. Rates of identifying PD, level of diagnostic certainty, and frequency of advice to reduce drinking were compared across intervention status (pre vs. post). Findings were compared with rates of PD and advice to reduce drinking documented on chart review. Results: 1,052 clinician exit questionnaires were collected. There were no significant differences in rates of PD identified before and after intervention (9.8% vs. 7.4%, p = .308). Faculty demonstrated greater certainty in PD diagnoses than residents (p = .028) and gave more advice to reduce drinking (p = .042) throughout the program. Faculty and residents reported higher levels of diagnostic certainty after training (p = .039 and .030, respectively). After training, residents showed greater increases than faculty in the percentage of patients given advice to reduce drinking (p = .038), and patients felt to be problem drinkers were significantly more likely to receive advice to reduce drinking by all clinicians (50% vs. 75%, p = .047). The number of patients receiving advice to reduce drinking after program implementation exceeded the number of patients felt to be problem drinkers. Recognition rates of PD were four to eight times higher than rates documented on chart review (p = .028). Conclusion: This program resulted in greater clinician certainty in diagnosing PD and increases in the number of patients with PD who received advice to reduce drinking. Future programs should include booster training sessions and emphasize documentation of PD and brief intervention

Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Though screening and intervention for alcohol and tobacco misuse are effective, primary care screening and intervention rates remain low. Previous studies have increased intervention rates using vital signs screening for tobacco misuse and clinician prompts for screen-positive patients for both alcohol and tobacco misuse. This pilot study's aims were: (1) To determine the feasibility of combined vital signs screening for tobacco and alcohol misuse, (2) To assess the impact of vital signs screening on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates, and (3) To assess the additional impact of tobacco assessment prompts on intervention rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In five outpatient practices, nurses measuring vital signs were trained to routinely ask a single tobacco question, a prescreening question that identified current drinkers, and the single alcohol screening question for current drinkers. After 4-8 weeks, clinicians were trained in tobacco intervention and nurses were trained to give tobacco abusers a tobacco questionnaire which also served as a clinician intervention prompt. Screening and intervention rates were measured using patient exit interviews (n = 622) at baseline, during the "screening only" period, and during the tobacco prompting phase. Changes in screening and intervention rates were compared using chi square analyses and test of linear trends. Clinic staff were interviewed regarding patient and staff acceptability. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of nurse screening on clinician intervention, the impact of alcohol intervention on concurrent tobacco intervention, and the impact of tobacco intervention on concurrent alcohol intervention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Alcohol and tobacco screening rates and alcohol intervention rates increased after implementing vital signs screening (p < .05). During the tobacco prompting phase, clinician intervention rates increased significantly for both alcohol (12.4%, p < .001) and tobacco (47.4%, p = .042). Screening by nurses was associated with clinician advice to reduce alcohol use (OR 13.1; 95% CI 6.2-27.6) and tobacco use (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.2). Acceptability was high with nurses and patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Vital signs screening can be incorporated in primary care and increases alcohol screening and intervention rates. Tobacco assessment prompts increase both alcohol and tobacco interventions. These simple interventions show promise for dissemination in primary care settings.</p

Implementing Screening and Brief Intervention in a Family Medicine Residency Clinic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of simultaneous systems interventions and clinician training on management of hazardous and harmful drinking in a residency clinic. Systems interventions included forming a multi-disciplinary implementation team, training registration clerks to distribute health risk questionnaires using the AUDIT-C alcohol screen, and training nurses to score the AUDIT-C and administer the AUDIT to screen-positive patients. Clinicians were trained to perform brochure-based interventions on screen-positive patients. Research staff provided compliance feedback. Over 12 months, 8.0% (241/3014) of patients screened positive and 3.8% (115/3014) received brief interventions. For screen-positive patients, comparisons with baseline measurements found increased rates of alcohol assessment (50% vs. 0%, p \u3c .0001) and intervention (48.1% vs. 9.4%, p \u3c .0001). Clinicians intervened more often when prompted with completed AUDITs (72% vs. 23%, p \u3c .0001). Program modifications resulted in progressive increases in numbers of patients screened. This model shows promise for use in other residency programs

Implementing Alcohol Screening and Intervention in a Family Practice Clinic

This presentation was given at the Mercer University Health Sciences Research Conference

Implementing Alcohol Screening and Intervention in a Family Medicine Residency Clinic

This presentation was given at the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse Annual Conference (AMERSA)