Disseminating Organizational Screening and Brief Intervention Services (DO-SBIS) for alcohol at trauma centers study design

Stepped collaborative care versus American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma required screening and referral for posttraumatic stress disorder: Clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Each year in the US, approximately 1.5-2.5 million individuals are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospital admissions. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) now requires that trauma centers have in place protocols to identify and refer hospitalized patients at risk injury psychological sequelae. Literature review revealed no investigations that have identified optimal screening, intervention, and referral procedures in the wake of the College requirement.

METHODS

The single-site pragmatic trial investigation will individually randomize 424 patients (212 intervention and 212 control) to a brief stepped care intervention versus College required mental health screening and referral control conditions. Blinded follow-up interviews at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-injury will assess the symptoms of PTSD and related comorbidity for all patients. The emergency department information exchange (EDIE) will be used to capture population-level automated emergency department and inpatient utilization data for the intent-to-treat sample. The investigation aims to test the primary hypotheses that intervention patients will demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and emergency department/inpatient utilization when compared to control patients. The study incorporates a Rapid Assessment Procedure-Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) implementation process assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The overarching goal of the investigation is to advance the sustainable delivery of high-quality trauma center mental health screening, intervention, and referral procedures for diverse injury survivors. An end-of-study policy summit will harness pragmatic trial data to inform the capacity for US trauma centers to implement high-quality acute care mental health screening, intervention and referral services for diverse injured patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.govNCT05632770.

Integrating pragmatic and implementation science randomized clinical trial approaches: a PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods have advanced substantially. Pragmatic and implementation studies have natural areas of overlap, particularly relating to the goal of using clinical trial data to leverage health care system policy changes. Few investigations have addressed pragmatic and implementation science randomized trial methods development while also considering policy impact.

METHODS

The investigation used the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tools to evaluate the design of two multisite randomized clinical trials that targeted patient-level effectiveness outcomes, provider-level practice changes and health care system policy. Seven raters received PRECIS-2 training and applied the tools in the coding of the two trials. Descriptive statistics were produced for both trials, and PRECIS-2 wheel diagrams were constructed. Interrater agreement was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Kappa statistics. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) qualitative approach was applied to understanding integrative themes derived from the PRECIS-2 ratings and an end-of-study policy summit.

RESULTS

The ICCs for the composite ratings across the patient and provider-focused PRECIS-2 domains ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, and the Kappa values ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, reflecting overall fair-to-good interrater agreement for both trials. All four PRECIS-2 wheels were rated more pragmatic than explanatory, with composite mean and median scores ≥ 4. Across trials, the primary intent-to-treat analysis domain was consistently rated most pragmatic (mean = 5.0, SD = 0), while the follow-up/data collection domain was rated most explanatory (mean range = 3.14-3.43, SD range = 0.49-0.69). RAPICE field notes identified themes related to potential PRECIS-2 training improvements, as well as policy themes related to using trial data to inform US trauma care system practice change; the policy themes were not captured by the PRECIS-2 ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The investigation documents that the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS can be simultaneously used to feasibly and reliably characterize clinical trials with patient and provider-level targets. The integration of pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods can be furthered by using common metrics such as the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS. Future study could focus on clinical trial policy research methods development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DO-SBIS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00607620. registered on January 29, 2008. TSOS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354, registered on July 27, 2015.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial Approach to Assessing and Monitoring Suicidal Ideation: Results from A National US Trauma Care System Study

OBJECTIVE

Few investigations have comprehensively described methods for assessing and monitoring suicidal ideation in pragmatic clinical trials of mental health services interventions. This investigation's goal was to assess a collaborative care intervention's effectiveness in reducing suicidal ideation and describe suicide monitoring implementation in a nationwide protocol.

METHOD

The investigation was a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial at 25-Level I trauma centers. Injury survivors (N = 635) were randomized to control (n = 370) and intervention (n = 265) conditions and assessed at baseline hospitalization and follow-up at 3-, 6- and 12-months post-injury. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) item-9 was used to evaluate patients for suicidal ideation. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention versus control group changes in PHQ-9 item-9 scores over time and associations between baseline characteristics and development of suicidal ideation longitudinally. As part of the study implementation process assessment, suicide outreach call logs were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Over 50% of patients endorsed suicidal ideation at ≥1 assessment. Intervention patients relative to control patients demonstrated reductions in endorsements of suicidal ideation that did not achieve statistical significance (F[3,1461] = 0.74, P = .53). The study team completed outreach phone calls, texts or voice messages to 268 patients with PHQ-9 item-9 scores ≥1 (n = 161 control, n = 107 intervention).

CONCLUSIONS

Suicide assessment and monitoring can be feasibly implemented in large-scale pragmatic clinical trials. Intervention patients demonstrated less suicidal ideation over time; however, these comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. Intensive pragmatic trial monitoring may mask treatment effects by providing control patients a supportive intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354.

A comparative effectiveness trial of an information technology enhanced peer-integrated collaborative care intervention versus enhanced usual care for US trauma care systems: Clinical study protocol

Annually approximately 2-3 million Americans are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospitalization. The study team, which includes patients, clinical researchers, front-line provider and policy maker stakeholders, has been working together for over a decade to develop interventions that target improvements for US trauma care systems nationally. This pragmatic randomized trial compares a multidisciplinary team collaborative care intervention that integrates front-line trauma center staff with peer interventionists, versus trauma team notification of patient emotional distress with mental health consultation as enhanced usual care. The peer-integrated collaborative care intervention will be supported by a novel emergency department exchange health information technology platform. A total of 424 patients will be randomized to peer-integrated collaborative care (n = 212) and surgical team notification (n = 212) conditions. The study hypothesizes that patient's randomized to peer integrated collaborative care intervention will demonstrate significant reductions in emergency department health service utilization, severity of patient concerns, post traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and physical limitations when compared to surgical team notification. These four primary outcomes will be followed-up at 1- 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-months after injury for all patients. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) method will be used to assess implementation processes. Data from the primary outcome analysis and implementation process assessment will be used to inform an end-of-study policy summit with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. The policy summit will facilitate acute care practice changes related to patient-centered care transitions over the course of a single 5-year funding cycle. Trial registration: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT03569878).

An effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial study protocol targeting posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Each year in the USA, 1.5-2.5 million Americans are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospitalization. Multiple conditions including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol and drug use problems, depression, and chronic medical conditions are endemic among physical trauma survivors with and without traumatic brain injuries.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trauma survivors outcomes and support (TSOS) effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial is designed to test the delivery of high-quality screening and intervention for PTSD and comorbidities across 24 US level I trauma center sites. The pragmatic trial aims to recruit 960 patients. The TSOS investigation employs a stepped wedge cluster randomized design in which sites are randomized sequentially to initiate the intervention. Patients identified by a 10-domain electronic health record screen as high risk for PTSD are formally assessed with the PTSD Checklist for study entry. Patients randomized to the intervention condition will receive stepped collaborative care, while patients randomized to the control condition will receive enhanced usual care. The intervention training begins with a 1-day on-site workshop in the collaborative care intervention core elements that include care management, medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational-interviewing elements targeting PTSD and comorbidity. The training is followed by site supervision from the study team. The investigation aims to determine if intervention patients demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, alcohol consumption, and improvements in physical function when compared to control patients. The study uses implementation science conceptual frameworks to evaluate the uptake of the intervention model. At the completion of the pragmatic trial, results will be presented at an American College of Surgeons' policy summit. Twenty-four representative US level I trauma centers have been selected for the study, and the protocol is being rolled out nationally.

DISCUSSION

The TSOS pragmatic trial simultaneously aims to establish the effectiveness of the collaborative care intervention targeting PTSD and comorbidity while also addressing sustainable implementation through American College of Surgeons' regulatory policy. The TSOS effectiveness-implementation hybrid design highlights the importance of partnerships with professional societies that can provide regulatory mandates targeting enhanced health care system sustainability of pragmatic trial results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354 . Registered 27 July 2015.

The comparative effectiveness of individual and group brief motivational interventions for mandated college students

Individual brief motivational intervention (iBMI) is an efficacious strategy to reduce heavy drinking by students who are mandated to receive an alcohol intervention following an alcohol-related event. However, despite the strong empirical support for iBMI, it is unknown if the results from rigorously controlled research on iBMI translate to real-world settings. Furthermore, many colleges lack the resources to provide iBMI to mandated students. Therefore, group-delivered BMI (gBMI) might be a cost-effective alternative that can be delivered to a large number of individuals. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative effectiveness evaluation of iBMI and gBMI as delivered by staff at a university health services center. Participants (N = 278) were college students who were mandated to receive an alcohol intervention following an alcohol-related incident. Participants were randomized to receive an individual (iBMI; n = 133) or a Group BMI (gBMI; n = 145). Results indicated that both iBMI and gBMI participants reduced their peak estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and the number of negative alcohol-related consequences at 1-, 3-, and 6-months postintervention. The iBMI and gBMI conditions were not significantly different at follow-up. These findings provide preliminary support for the use of iBMI and gBMIs for college students in real-world settings.

A Randomized Evaluation of Motivational Interviewing Training for Mandated Implementation of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Trauma Centers

The American College of Surgeons has mandated that level I and level II trauma centers implement universal alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) for injured patients. This study was a secondary analysis of a national, 20-hospital, cluster-randomized implementation trial focusing on practical issues of training and supervising alcohol SBI providers in motivational interviewing (MI). The purpose of this study was to examine whether real-world trauma center providers can be trained to provide higher quality counseling using MI as part of brief interventions for alcohol and whether MI skills can be maintained over time. Sites were randomly assigned to receive a 1day workshop training in MI for alcohol SBI or not, and all providers regardless of training completed up to seven standardized patient assessments of MI fidelity over 27months. Six domains on the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) coding system were assessed and compared to proficiency criteria. Providers in the intervention training group showed substantially improved MITI scores over the course of the 27-month time period. Domains that had particularly strong improvement were MI spirit and empathy; however, despite the overall improvement in the intervention group scores, expert-derived proficiency criteria were attained only for the global scores. Routine trauma center providers who receive MI training can deliver higher quality counseling in alcohol brief interventions, but may not, however, attain previously derived proficiency standards. Future implementation efforts in real-world acute care medical settings could further elucidate provider characteristics that predict training response and also strive to demonstrate that higher quality alcohol SBI implementation is associated with improved patient-level outcomes.

Traumatic Life Events Prior to Alcohol-Related Admission of Injured Acute Care Inpatients: A Brief Report

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 30 million Americans present to acute care medical settings annually after incurring traumatic injuries. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms are endemic among injury survivors. Our article is a replication and extension of a previous report documenting a pattern of multiple traumatic life events across patients admitted to Level I trauma centers for an alcohol-related injury.

METHOD

This study is a secondary analysis of a nationwide 20-site randomized trial of an alcohol brief intervention with 660 traumatically injured inpatients. Pre-injury trauma history was assessed using the National Comorbidity Survey trauma history screen at the six-month time point.

RESULTS

Most common traumatic events experienced by our population of alcohol-positive trauma survivors were having had someone close unexpectedly die, followed by having seen someone badly beaten or injured. Of particular note, there is high reported prevalence of rape/sexual assault, and childhood abuse and neglect among physically injured trauma survivors. Additional trauma histories are increasingly common among alcohol-positive patients admitted for a traumatic injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the high rate of experienced multiple traumatic events among acutely injured inpatients, the trauma history screen could be productively integrated into screening and brief intervention procedures developed for acute care settings.

Disseminating alcohol screening and brief intervention at trauma centers: a policy-relevant cluster randomized effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In 2005 the American College of Surgeons passed a mandate requiring that level I trauma centers have mechanisms to identify and intervene with problem drinkers. The aim of this investigation was to determine if a multi-level trauma center intervention targeting both providers and patients would lead to higher-quality alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) when compared with trauma center mandate compliance without implementation enhancements.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized trial in which intervention site (site n = 10, patient n = 409) providers received 1-day workshop training on evidence-based motivational interviewing (MI) alcohol interventions and four 30-minute feedback and coaching sessions; control sites (site n = 10, patient n = 469) implemented the mandate without study team training enhancements.

SETTING

Trauma centers in the United States of America.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 878 blood alcohol-positive in-patients with and without traumatic brain injury (TBI).

MEASUREMENTS

MI skills of providers were assessed with fidelity coded standardized patient interviews. All patients were interviewed at baseline and 6- and 12-months post-injury with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).

FINDINGS

Intervention site providers consistently demonstrated enhanced MI skills compared with control providers. Intervention patients demonstrated an 8% reduction in AUDIT hazardous drinking relative to controls over the course of the year after injury (relative risk = 0.88, 95%, confidence interval = 0.79, 0.98). Intervention patients were more likely to demonstrate improvements in alcohol use problems in the absence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Trauma center providers can be trained to deliver higher-quality alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) than untrained providers, which is associated with modest reductions in alcohol use problems, particularly among patients without TBI.

The development of a population-based automated screening procedure for PTSD in acutely injured hospitalized trauma survivors

OBJECTIVE

This investigation aimed to advance posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) risk prediction among hospitalized injury survivors by developing a population-based automated screening tool derived from data elements available in the electronic medical record (EMR).

METHOD

Potential EMR-derived PTSD risk factors with the greatest predictive utilities were identified for 878 randomly selected injured trauma survivors. Risk factors were assessed using logistic regression, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.

RESULTS

Ten EMR data elements contributed to the optimal PTSD risk prediction model including International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) PTSD diagnosis, other ICD-9-CM psychiatric diagnosis, other ICD-9-CM substance use diagnosis or positive blood alcohol on admission, tobacco use, female gender, non-White ethnicity, uninsured, public or veteran insurance status, E-code identified intentional injury, intensive care unit admission and EMR documentation of any prior trauma center visits. The 10-item automated screen demonstrated good area under the ROC curve (0.72), sensitivity (0.71) and specificity (0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated EMR screening can be used to efficiently and accurately triage injury survivors at risk for the development of PTSD. Automated EMR procedures could be combined with stepped care protocols to optimize the sustainable implementation of PTSD screening and intervention at trauma centers nationwide.