Increased Rates of Documented Alcohol Counseling in Primary Care: More Counseling or Just More Documentation?

Practice-Level Documentation of Alcohol-Related Problems in Primary Care

Importance

Rates of alcohol-associated deaths increased over the past 20 years, markedly between 2019 and 2020. The highest rates are among individuals aged 55 to 64 years, primarily attributable to alcoholic liver disease and psychiatric disorders due to use of alcohol. This study investigates potential geographic disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems in primary care electronic health records, which could lead to undertreatment of alcohol use disorder.

Objective

To identify disparities in documentation of alcohol-related problems by practice-level social deprivation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study using secondary data from the Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care clinical trial (September 21, 2017, to January 8, 2021) was performed. A national sample of 44 primary care practices with co-located behavioral health services was included in the analysis. Patients with 2 primary care visits within 2 years and at least 1 chronic medical condition and 1 behavioral health condition or at least 3 chronic medical conditions were included.

Exposure

The primary exposure was practice-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a composite measure based on county income, educational level, employment, housing, single-parent households, and access to transportation (scores range from 0 to 100; 0 indicates affluent counties and 100 indicates disadvantaged counties).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Documentation of an alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record was determined by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes or use of medications for alcohol use disorder in past 2 years. Multivariable models adjusted for alcohol consumption, screening for a substance use disorder, urban residence, age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, educational level, and number of chronic health conditions.

Results

A total of 3105 participants (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.0] years; 64.1% female; 11.5% Black, 7.0% Hispanic, 76.7% White, and 11.9% other race or chose not to disclose; 47.8% household income <$30 000; and 80.7% urban residence). Participants had a mean (SD) of 4.0 (1.7) chronic conditions, 9.1% reported higher-risk alcohol consumption, 4% screened positive for substance use disorder, and 6% had a documented alcohol-related problem in the electronic health record. Mean (SD) practice-level SDI score was 45.1 (20.9). In analyses adjusted for individual-level alcohol use, demographic characteristics, and health status, practice-level SDI was inversely associated with the odds of documentation (odds ratio for each 10-unit increase in SDI, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, higher practice-level SDI was associated with lower odds of documentation of alcohol-related problems, after adjusting for individual-level covariates. These findings reinforce the need to address primary care practice-level barriers to diagnosis and documentation of alcohol-related problems. Practices located in high need areas may require more specialized training, resources, and practical evidence-based tools that are useful in settings where time is especially limited and patients are complex.

Integrating Alcohol-Related Prevention and Treatment Into Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial

Importance

Unhealthy alcohol use is common and affects morbidity and mortality but is often neglected in medical settings, despite guidelines for both prevention and treatment.

Objective

To test an implementation intervention to increase (1) population-based alcohol-related prevention with brief interventions and (2) treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in primary care implemented with a broader program of behavioral health integration.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Sustained Patient-Centered Alcohol-Related Care (SPARC) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, including 22 primary care practices in an integrated health system in Washington state. Participants consisted of all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary care visits from January 2015 to July 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2021.

Interventions

The implementation intervention included 3 strategies: practice facilitation; electronic health record decision support; and performance feedback. Practices were randomly assigned launch dates, which placed them in 1 of 7 waves and defined the start of the practice's intervention period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes for prevention and AUD treatment were (1) the proportion of patients who had unhealthy alcohol use and brief intervention documented in the electronic health record (brief intervention) for prevention and (2) the proportion of patients who had newly diagnosed AUD and engaged in AUD treatment (AUD treatment engagement). Analyses compared monthly rates of primary and intermediate outcomes (eg, screening, diagnosis, treatment initiation) among all patients who visited primary care during usual care and intervention periods using mixed-effects regression.

Results

A total of 333 596 patients visited primary care (mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years; 193 583 [58%] female; 234 764 [70%] White individuals). The proportion with brief intervention was higher during SPARC intervention than usual care periods (57 vs 11 per 10 000 patients per month; P < .001). The proportion with AUD treatment engagement did not differ during intervention and usual care (1.4 vs 1.8 per 10 000 patients; P = .30). The intervention increased intermediate outcomes: screening (83.2% vs 20.8%; P < .001), new AUD diagnosis (33.8 vs 28.8 per 10 000; P = .003), and treatment initiation (7.8 vs 6.2 per 10 000; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the SPARC intervention resulted in modest increases in prevention (brief intervention) but not AUD treatment engagement in primary care, despite important increases in screening, new diagnoses, and treatment initiation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675777.

Factors associated with clinician treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

This study examined factors associated with treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD), comparing recommendations for patients with clear signs of OUD versus those with lower likelihood of OUD.

METHODS

The study conducted a retrospective medical chart review in a randomly selected national sample of 520 Veteran Health Administration patients with a new opioid-related electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis from 2012 to 2017. The study categorized patients as having "high likelihood" or "lower likelihood of OUD" based on the presence or absence of clinician documentation in medical records of specific qualifying criteria (e.g., clinician documentation of patient meeting diagnostic criteria for OUD, etc). Analyses examined the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with recommendations for medication and other treatments for OUD.

RESULTS

Among patients with a new diagnosis of OUD, 28.7 % (n = 149) were recommended medication treatment, 52.5 % (n = 273) were recommended specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and 41.9 % (n = 218) were recommended treatment in non-SUD mental health settings. In adjusted models, high likelihood of OUD (AOR 8.31, 95 % CI 4.81-15.03) was strongly associated with the clinician recommending medications for OUD, while age 56-75 (compared to &lt;35, AOR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.18-0.69), stimulant use disorder (AOR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.15-0.53), and rural residence (AOR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.30-0.85) were associated with lower likelihood of being recommended medication treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Differentiating among patients with EHR diagnoses of OUD to identify the subset with higher likelihood of underlying OUD is important to accurately understand OUD treatment rates and disparities. However, even among patients with a clear diagnosis of OUD, medication treatment is still recommended less often than other treatments, suggesting interventions are needed to encourage clinicians to prioritize medication treatment as a first-line treatment, especially for older, rural patients and those with polysubstance use.

Documentation of Behavioral Health Risk Factors in a Large Academic Primary Care Clinic

Objective:

To determine the prevalence of alcohol, smoking, and physical activity status documentation at a family health team in Toronto, Ontario, and to explore the patient characteristics that predict documentation of these lifestyle risk factor statuses.

Design:

Manual retrospective review of electronic medical records (EMRs).

Setting:

Large, urban, academic family health team in Toronto, Ontario.

Participants:

Patients over the age of 18 that had attended a routine clinical appointment in March, 2018.

Main Outcome Measures:

Prevalence and content of risk factor status in electronic medical records for alcohol, smoking, and physical activity.

Results:

The prevalence of alcohol, smoking, and physical activity documentation was 86.4%, 90.4%, and 66.1%, respectively. These lifestyle risk factor statuses were most often documented in the “risk factors” section of the EMR (83.7% for alcohol, 88.1% for smoking, and 47.9% for physical activity). Completion of a periodic health review within 1 year was most strongly associated with documentation (alcohol odds ratio [OR] 9.79, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.12, 45.15; smoking OR 1.77 95% CI 0.51, 6.20; physical activity OR 3.52 95% CI 1.67, 7.40).

Conclusion:

Documentation of lifestyle risk factor statuses is strongly associated with having a recent periodic health review. If “annual physicals” continue to decline, primary care providers should final additional opportunities to address these key determinants of health.

Firearm injuries in children: a missed opportunity for firearm safety education

BACKGROUND

Surgeons frequently care for children who have sustained gunshot wounds (GSWs). However, firearm safety education is not a focus in general surgery training. We hypothesised that firearm safety discussions do not routinely take place when children present to a trauma centre with a GSW.

METHOD

A retrospective review of patients <18 years presenting with GSWs to a level 1 paediatric trauma centre from 2009 to 2019 was performed. The primary outcome was discussion of firearm safety with the patient or family. The secondary outcome was notification of child protective services (CPS).

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients with GSWs were identified, 22% were unintentional and 63% were assault. Firearm safety discussions took place in 10 cases (4.4%). Firearm safety discussions were more likely to occur after unintentional injuries compared with other mechanisms (16.0% vs 1.3%, p<0.001). CPS was contacted in 29 cases (13%). CPS notification was more likely for unintentional injuries compared with other mechanisms (40% vs 3.9%, p<0.001) and for younger patients (7 years vs 15 years, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

At a paediatric trauma centre, firearm safety discussions occurred in 4.4% of cases of children presenting with a GSW. There is a significant room for improvement in providing safety education interventions.

Rates and predictors of brief intervention for women veterans returning from recent wars: Examining gaps in service delivery for unhealthy alcohol use

BACKGROUND

Approximately one in four women veterans accessing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) engage in unhealthy alcohol use. There is substantial evidence for gender-sensitive screening (AUDIT-C = 3) and brief intervention (BI) to reduce risks associated with unhealthy alcohol use in women veterans; however, VA policies and incentives remain gender-neutral (AUDIT-C = 5). Women veterans who screen positive at lower-risk-level alcohol use (AUDIT-C = 3 or 4) may screen out and therefore not receive BI. This study aimed to examine gaps in implementation of BI practice for women veterans through identifying rates of BI at different alcohol risk levels (AUDIT-C = 3-4; =5-7; =8-12), and the role of alcohol risk level and other factors in predicting receipt of BI.

METHODS

From administrative data (2010-2016), we drew a sample of women veterans returning from recent wars who accessed outpatient and/or inpatient care. Of 869 women veterans, 284 screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at or above a gender-sensitive cut-point (AUDIT-C ≥ 3). We used chart review methods to abstract variables from the medical record and then employed logistic regression comparing women veterans who received BI at varying alcohol risk levels to those who did not.

RESULTS

While almost 60% of the alcohol positive-risk sample received BI, among the subset of women veterans who screened positive for lower-risk alcohol use (57%; AUDIT-C = 3 or 4) only 34% received BI. Nurses in primary care programs were less likely to deliver BI than other types of clinicians (e.g., physicians, psychologists, social workers) in mental health programs; further, nurses in women's health programs were less likely to deliver BI than other types of clinicians in mixed-gender programs; Those women veterans with more medical problems were no more likely to receive BI than those with fewer medical problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that women veterans are a rapidly growing veteran population and a VA priority, underuse of BI for women veterans screening positive at a lower-risk level and those with more medical comorbidities requires attention, as do potential gaps in service delivery of BI in primary care and women's health programs. Women veterans health and well-being may be improved by tailoring screening for a younger cohort of women veterans at high-risk for, or with co-occurring disorders and then training providers in best practices for BI implementation.

Documented brief intervention associated with reduced linkage to specialty addictions treatment in a national sample of VA patients with unhealthy alcohol use with and without alcohol use disorders

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Alcohol screening, brief intervention (BI) and referral to treatment is often considered stepped care, such that BI with referral links patients to treatment. A meta-analysis of randomized trials found no evidence that BI increases treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD). This study aimed to determine whether BI is associated with receipt of treatment for AUD among patients receiving BI as part of routine care.

DESIGN

Regression analysis.

SETTING

US Veterans Health Administration (VA), in which BI is supported by performance measurement and electronic clinical reminders.

PARTICIPANTS

VA outpatients with positive Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption screens (≥ 5) (n = 830,825) documented nationally from 1 October 2009 to 30 May 2013.

MEASUREMENTS

Regression models estimated the prevalence of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment within 0-365 days for patients with documented BI (advice to reduce/abstain within 0-14 days) compared to those without. Models clustered on patient and adjusted for demographics and mental health and substance use conditions were fit among all patients and stratified across documented past-year AUD diagnosis. Multiple secondary analyses assessed robustness of findings, including assessing repeated BI as a predictor.

FINDINGS

Among 830,825 VA outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use (1,172,606 positive screens), documented BI was associated with lower likelihood of receiving VA specialty addictions treatment [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-0.84]. Associations were similar for those with and without AUD (aIRR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.82-0.84 and aIRR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.83-0.88, respectively) and in most secondary analyses. However, among patients without AUD, documentation of more than one BI was associated with greater likelihood of treatment relative to no BI (aIRR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.68-1.83).

CONCLUSIONS

In a national sample of US Veterans Health Administration patients with unhealthy alcohol use, documented brief intervention for alcohol use was associated with lower likelihood of receiving specialty addictions treatment regardless of alcohol use disorder diagnosis.

Differences in Receipt of Alcohol-Related Care Across Rurality Among VA Patients Living With HIV With Unhealthy Alcohol Use

PURPOSE

It is unknown whether receipt of evidence-based alcohol-related care varies by rurality among people living with HIV (PLWH) with unhealthy alcohol use-a population for whom such care is particularly important.

METHODS

All positive screens for unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT-C ≥ 5) among PLWH were identified using Veterans Health Administration electronic health record data (10/1/09-5/30/13). Three domains of alcohol-related care were assessed: brief intervention (BI) within 14 days, and specialty addictions treatment or alcohol use disorder (AUD) medications (filled prescription for naltrexone, disulfiram, acamprosate, or topiramate) within 1 year of positive screen. Adjusted Poisson models and recycled predictions were used to estimate predicted prevalence of outcomes across rurality (urban, large rural, small rural), clustered on facility. Secondary analyses assessed outcomes in the subsample with documented AUD.

FINDINGS

4,581 positive screens representing 3,458 PLWH (3,112 urban, 130 large rural, and 216 small rural) were included; 49.1% had diagnosed AUD. PLWH in large rural areas had highest receipt of BI (urban 56.6%, 95% CI: 55.0-58.2; large rural 66.0%, CI: 58.6-73.5; small rural 60.7%, CI: 54.6-67.0). PLWH in urban areas had highest receipt of specialty addictions treatment (urban 28.2%, CI: 26.7-29.8; large rural 19.7%, CI: 13.1-26.2; small rural 19.6%, CI: 14.1-25.0). There was no difference in receipt of AUD medications, although overall receipt was low (3%-4%). Results were similar in the subsample with AUD.

CONCLUSION

Among PLWH with unhealthy alcohol use, those in rural areas may be vulnerable to under-receipt of specialty addictions treatment. Targeted interventions may help ensure PLWH receive recommended care regardless of rurality.

Assessing Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Alcohol Use: A Comparison of Electronic Health Record Documentation and Patient Self-Report

OBJECTIVE

Alcohol screening and brief intervention (BI) are recommended preventive health practices. Veterans Health Administration (VA) uses a performance measure to incentivize BI delivery. Concerns have been raised about the validity of the BI performance measure, which relies on electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Our objective was to assess concordance between EHR-based documentation and patient-reported receipt of BI, and to examine correlates of concordance.

METHOD

Patients with a documented positive screen for unhealthy alcohol use at VA Greater Los Angeles primary care clinics were surveyed (within 15 days on average) in 2013-2014. Documented BI was indicated by an EHR note that the patient was advised to drink within recommended limits or reduce or abstain from drinking. Patient-reported receipt of BI corresponded to an affirmative response to questions on whether a VA provider advised the patient to drink less or abstain. Patient report and documentation were assessed over the same period.

RESULTS

Documented and patient-reported receipt of BI had low concordance. Almost all patients who reported receiving BI had documentation of BI (93%; 95% CI [90%, 95%]), but only 63% [59%, 67%] of patients with documented BI reported receiving it. BI concordance was associated with more severe unhealthy alcohol use and drinking-related consequences, mental health comorbidity, and greater readiness-to-change alcohol use.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies between EHR documentation and patient-reported BI raise concerns about performance measure validity. Patient-reported receipt of BI could be an alternative or complementary measure of BI.

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

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0795-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.