Randomized trial of enhanced profiling in substance abuse treatment

Interventions to Reduce Hospital and Emergency Department Utilization Among People With Alcohol and Substance Use Disorders: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUDs), prevalent worldwide, are associated with significant morbidity and health care utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To identify interventions addressing hospital and emergency department utilization among people with substance use, to summarize findings for those seeking to implement such interventions, and to articulate gaps that can be addressed by future research.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A scoping review of the literature. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar for any articles published from January 2010 to June 2020. The main search terms included the target population of adults with substance use or SUDs, the outcomes of hospital and emergency department utilization, and interventions aimed at improving these outcomes in the target population.

SUBJECTS

Adults with substance use or SUDs, including alcohol use.

MEASURES

Hospital and emergency department utilization.

RESULTS

Our initial search identified 1807 titles, from which 44 articles were included in the review. Most interventions were implemented in the United States (n=35). Half focused on people using any substance (n=22) and a quarter on opioids (n=12). The tested approaches varied and included postdischarge services, medications, legislation, and counseling, among others. The majority of study designs were retrospective cohort studies (n=31).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found few studies assessing interventions to reduce health care utilization among people with SUDs. The studies that we did identify differed across multiple domains and included few randomized trials. Study heterogeneity limits our ability to compare interventions or to recommend one specific approach to reducing health care utilization among this high-risk population.

Using NIATx strategies to implement integrated services in routine care: a study protocol

Background

Access to integrated services for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders is a long-standing public health issue. Receiving integrated treatment services are both more effective and preferred by patients and families versus parallel or fragmented care. National policy statements and expert consensus guidelines underscore the benefits of integrated treatment. Despite decades of awareness, adequate treatment for individuals with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders occurs infrequently. The underlying disease burden associated with alcohol, illicit and prescription drug problems, as well as mental health disorders, such as depression, posttraumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, is substantial.

Methods

This cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) is designed to determine if the multi-component Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) strategies are effective in implementing integrated services for persons with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders. In this study, 50 behavioral health programs in Washington State will be recruited and then randomized into one of two intervention arms: 1) NIATx implementation strategies, including coaching and learning sessions over a 12-month intervention period to implement changes targeting integrated treatment services; or 2) wait-list control. Primary outcome measures include: 1) fidelity - a standardized organizational assessment of integrated services (Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment [DDCAT] Index); and 2) penetration - proportion of patients screened and diagnosed with co-occurring disorders, proportion of eligible patients receiving substance use and mental health services, and psychotropic or substance use disorder medications. Barriers and facilitators, as determinants of implementation outcomes, will be assessed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Index. Fidelity to and participation in NIATx strategies will be assessed utilizing the NIATx Fidelity Scale and Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC).

Discussion

This study addresses an issue of substantial public health significance: the gap in access to an evidence-based practice for integrated treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. The study utilizes rigorous and reproducible quantitative approaches to measuring implementation determinants and strategies, and may address a longstanding gap in the quality of care for persons with co-occurring disorders.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03007940. Registered 02 January 2017 – Retrospectively Registered

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3241-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Substance Use Disorder Screening Capacity Lags Behind Depression Screening Capacity in Community Health Centers

Despite their prevalence, screening for depression and substance use disorder (SUD) is often not routinely practiced in primary care. This study uses a survey of community health centers to identify characteristics associated with depression and SUD screening. In 2010, 76.9% of federally qualified health centers routinely screened for depression, and about half of health centers (54.1%) routinely screened for SUDs. Higher Medicaid caseload and region were associated with routine screening for both depression and SUDs. SUD screening was also associated with the percent of total staff comprised of behavioral health specialists, electronic health record (EHR) adoption, urban location, and higher uninsured caseload. Implications include the need to build SUD screening capacity, encourage the use of standardized screening tools, and monitor SUD screening capacity in health centers in the future.

A performance measure for continuity of care after detoxification: relationship with outcomes

Administrative data from five states were used to examine whether continuity of specialty substance abuse treatment after detoxification predicts outcomes. We examined the influence of a 14-day continuity of care process measure on readmissions. Across multiple states, there was support that clients who received treatment for substance use disorders within 14-days after discharge from detoxification were less likely to be readmitted to detoxification. This was particularly true for reducing readmissions to another detoxification that was not followed with treatment and when continuity of care was in residential treatment. Continuity of care in outpatient treatment was related to a reduction in readmissions in some states, but not as often as when continuity of care occurred in residential treatment. A performance measure for continuity of care after detoxification is a useful tool to help providers monitor quality of care delivered and to alert them when improvement is needed.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

Adolescent treatment initiation and engagement in an evidence-based practice initiative

This study examined client and program factors predicting initiation and engagement for 2,191 adolescents at 28 outpatient substance abuse treatment sites implementing evidence-based treatments. Using Washington Circle criteria for treatment initiation and engagement, 76% of the sample initiated, with 59% engaging in treatment. Analyses used a 2-stage Heckman probit regression, accounting for within-site clustering, to identify factors predictive of initiation and engagement. Adolescents treated in a pay-for-performance (P4P) group were more likely to initiate, whereas adolescents in the race/ethnicity category labeled other (Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, mixed race/ethnicity), or who reported high truancy, were less likely to initiate. Race/ethnicity groups other than Latinos were equally likely to engage. Among White adolescents, each additional day from first treatment to next treatment reduced likelihood of engagement. Although relatively high initiation and engagement rates were achieved, the results suggest that attention to program and client factors may further improve compliance with these performance indicators.