Search

Background: Valid, single-item cannabis screens for the frequency of past-year use (SIS-C) can identify patients at risk for cannabis use disorder (CUD); however, the prevalence of CUD for patients who report varying frequencies of use in the clinical setting remains unexplored., Objective: Compare clinical responses about the frequency of past-year cannabis use to typical use and CUD severity reported on a confidential survey., Participants: Among adult patients in an integrated health system who completed the SIS-C as part of routine care (3/28/2019-9/12/2019; n = 108,950), 5000 were selected for a confidential survey using stratified random sampling. Among 1688 respondents (34% response rate), 1589 who reported past-year cannabis use on the SIS-C were included., Main Measures: We compared patients with varying frequency of cannabis use on the SIS-C (< monthly, monthly, weekly, daily) to survey responses on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Substance Abuse Module for CUD (any and moderate-severe CUD) and cannabis exposure measures (typical use per-week, per-day). Adjusted multinomial (categorical) and logistic regression (binary), weighted for population estimates, estimated the prevalence of outcomes across frequencies., Key Results: Patients were predominantly middle-aged (mean = 43.3 years [SD = 16.9]), male (51.8%), white (78.2%), non-Hispanic (94.0%), and commercially insured (68.9%). The prevalence of any and moderate-severe CUD increased with greater frequency of past-year cannabis use reported on the SIS-C (p-values < 0.001) and ranged from 12.7% (6.3-19.2%) and 0.9% (0.0-2.7%) for < monthly to 44.6% (41.4-47.7%) and 20.3% (17.8-22.9%) for daily use, respectively. Greater frequency of use on the SIS-C in the clinical setting corresponded with greater per-week and per-day use on the confidential survey., Conclusions: Among patients who reported past-year cannabis use as part of routine screening, the prevalence of CUD and other cannabis exposure measures increased with greater frequency of cannabis use, underscoring the utility of brief cannabis screens for identifying patients at risk for CUD., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Hepatitis C and HIV are associated with opioid use disorders (OUD) and injection drug use. Medications for OUD can prevent the spread of HCV and HIV., Objective: To describe the prevalence of documented OUD, as well as receipt of office-based medication treatment, among primary care patients with HCV or HIV., Design: Retrospective observational cohort study using electronic health record and insurance data., Participants: Adults ≥ 18 years with ≥ 2 visits to primary care during the study (2014-2016) at 6 healthcare systems across five states (CO, CA, OR, WA, and MN)., Main Measures: The primary outcome was the diagnosis of OUD; the secondary outcome was OUD treatment with buprenorphine or oral/injectable naltrexone. Prevalence of OUD and OUD treatment was calculated across four groups: HCV only; HIV only; HCV and HIV; and neither HCV nor HIV. In addition, adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of OUD treatment associated with HCV and HIV (separately) were estimated, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and site., Key Results: The sample included 1,368,604 persons, of whom 10,042 had HCV, 5821 HIV, and 422 both. The prevalence of diagnosed OUD varied across groups: 11.9% (95% CI: 11.3%, 12.5%) for those with HCV; 1.6% (1.3%, 2.0%) for those with HIV; 8.8% (6.2%, 11.9%) for those with both; and 0.92% (0.91%, 0.94%) among those with neither. Among those with diagnosed OUD, the prevalence of OUD medication treatment was 20.9%, 16.0%, 10.8%, and 22.3%, for those with HCV, HIV, both, and neither, respectively. HCV was not associated with OUD treatment (AOR = 1.03; 0.88, 1.21), whereas patients with HIV had a lower probability of OUD treatment (AOR = 0.43; 0.26, 0.72)., Conclusions: Among patients receiving primary care, those diagnosed with HCV and HIV were more likely to have documented OUD than those without. Patients with HIV were less likely to have documented medication treatment for OUD.

Background: Most patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) never receive treatment and SUDs are under-recognized in primary care (PC) where patients can be treated or linked to treatment. Asking PC patients to directly report SUD symptoms on questionnaires might help identify SUDs but to our knowledge, this approach is previously untested., Objective: To describe the prevalence and severity of DSM-5 SUD symptoms reported by PC patients as part of routine care., Design: Cross-sectional study using secondary data., Participants: A total of 241,265 adult patients who visited one of 25 PC sites in an integrated health system in Washington state and had alcohol, cannabis, or other drug use screening documented in their EHRs (March 2015-July 2018) were included in main analyses if they had a positive screen for high-risk substance use defined as AUDIT-C score 7-12 points, or report of past-year daily cannabis use or any other drug use., Main Measures: The main outcome was number of SUD symptoms based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 5th edition (DSM-5), reported on Symptom Checklists (0-11) for alcohol or other drugs: 2-3 mild; 4-5 moderate; 6-11 severe., Results: Of screened patients, 16,776 (5.7%) reported high-risk use of alcohol (2.4%), cannabis (3.9%), and/or other drugs (1.7%), and 65.0-69.9% of those completed Symptom Checklists. Of those with high-risk alcohol use, 52.5% (95% CI 50.9-54.0%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe alcohol use disorders. Of those reporting daily cannabis use, 29.8% (28.6-30.9%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs. Of those reporting any other drug use, 37.5% (35.7-39.3%) reported ≥ 2 symptoms consistent with mild-severe SUDs., Conclusions and Relevance: Many PC patients who screened positive for high-risk substance use reported symptoms consistent with DSM-5 SUDs on self-report Symptom Checklists. Use of SUD Symptom Checklists could support PC providers in making SUD diagnoses and initiating discussions of substance use.

Background: The CHOICE care management intervention did not improve drinking relative to usual care (UC) for patients with frequent heavy drinking at high risk of alcohol use disorders. Patients with alcohol dependence were hypothesized to benefit most. We conducted preplanned secondary analyses to test whether the CHOICE intervention improved drinking relative to UC among patients with and without baseline DSM-IV alcohol dependence., Methods: A total of 304 patients reporting frequent heavy drinking from 3 VA primary care clinics were randomized (stratified by DSM-IV alcohol dependence, sex, and site) to UC or the patient-centered, nurse-delivered, 12-month CHOICE care management intervention. Primary outcomes included percent heavy drinking days (%HDD) using 28-day timeline follow-back and a "good drinking outcome" (GDO)-abstaining or drinking below recommended limits and no alcohol-related symptoms on the Short Inventory of Problems at 12 months. Generalized estimating equation binomial regression models (clustered on provider) with interaction terms between dependence and intervention group were fit., Results: At baseline, 59% of intervention and UC patients had DSM-IV alcohol dependence. Mean drinking outcomes improved for all subgroups. For participants with dependence, 12-month outcomes did not differ for intervention versus UC patients (%HDD 37% versus 38%, p = 0.76 and GDO 16% versus 16%, p = 0.77). For participants without dependence, %HDD did not differ between intervention (41%) and UC (31%) patients (p = 0.12), but the proportion with GDO was significantly higher among UC participants (26% versus 13%, p = 0.046). Neither outcome was significantly modified by dependence (interaction p values 0.19 for %HDD and 0.10 for GDO)., Conclusions: Among participants with frequent heavy drinking, care management had no benefit relative to UC for patients with dependence, but UC may have had benefits for those without dependence., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01400581.

Background: Clinical performance measures often require documentation of patient counseling by healthcare providers. Little is known about whether such measures encourage delivery of counseling or merely its documentation., Objective: To assess changes in provider documentation of alcohol counseling and patient report of receiving alcohol counseling in the Veterans Administration (VA) from 2009 to 2012., Design: Retrospective time-series analysis., Participants: A total of 5413 men who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at an outpatient visit and responded to a confidential mailed survey regarding alcohol counseling from a VA provider in the prior year., Main Measures: Rates of provider documentation of alcohol counseling in the electronic health record and patient report of such counseling on the survey were assessed over 4 fiscal years. Annual rates were calculated overall and with patients categorized into four mutually exclusive groups based on their own reports of alcohol counseling (yes/no) and whether alcohol counseling was documented by a provider (yes/no)., Key Results: Provider documentation of alcohol counseling increased 23.6% (95% CI: 17.0, 30.2), from 59.4% to 83.0%, while patient report of alcohol counseling showed no significant change (4.0%, 95% CI: -2.3, 10.3), increasing from 66.1% to 70.1%. An 18.7% (95% CI: 11.7, 25.7) increase in the proportion of patients who reported counseling that was documented by a provider largely reflected a 14.7% decline (95% CI: 8.5, 20.8) in the proportion of patients who reported alcohol counseling that was not documented by a provider. The proportion of patients who did not report counseling but whose providers documented it did not show a significant change (4.9%, 95%CI: 0.0, 9.9)., Conclusions: If patient report is accurate, increased rates of documented alcohol counseling in the VA from 2009 to 2012 predominantly reflected improved documentation of previously undocumented counseling rather than delivery of additional counseling or increased documentation of counseling that did not meaningfully occur.

Background: Three medications are FDA-approved and recommended for treating alcohol use disorders (AUD) but they are not offered to most patients with AUD. Primary care (PC) may be an optimal setting in which to offer and prescribe AUD medications, but multiple barriers are likely., Objective: This qualitative study used social marketing theory, a behavior change approach that employs business marketing techniques including "segmenting the market," to describe (1) barriers and facilitators to prescribing AUD medications in PC, and (2) beliefs of PC providers after they were segmented into groups more and less willing to prescribe AUD medications., Design: Qualitative, interview-based study., Participants: Twenty-four providers from five VA PC clinics., Approach: Providers completed in-person semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using social marketing theory and thematic analysis. Providers were divided into two groups based on consensus review., Key Results: Barriers included lack of knowledge and experience, beliefs that medications cannot replace specialty addiction treatment, and alcohol-related stigma. Facilitators included training, support for prescribing, and behavioral staff to support follow-up. Providers more willing to prescribe viewed prescribing for AUD as part of their role as a PC provider, framed medications as a potentially effective "tool" or "foot in the door" for treating AUD, and believed that providing AUD medications in PC might catalyze change while reducing stigma and addressing other barriers to specialty treatment. Those less willing believed that medications could not effectively treat AUD, and that treating AUD was the role of specialty addiction treatment providers, not PC providers, and would require time and expertise they do not have., Conclusions: We identified barriers to and facilitators of prescribing AUD medications in PC, which, if addressed and/or capitalized on, may increase provision of AUD medications. Providers more willing to prescribe may be the optimal target of a customized implementation intervention to promote changes in prescribing.

Background: Brief alcohol intervention, including advice to reduce or abstain from drinking, is widely recommended for general medical outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use, but it is challenging to implement. Among other implementation challenges, providers report reluctance to deliver such interventions, citing concerns about negatively affecting their patient relationships., Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient-reported receipt of brief intervention was associated with patient-reported indicators of high-quality care among veteran outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use., Design: Cross-sectional secondary data analysis was performed using the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP)., Participants: The study included veteran outpatients who (1) responded to the outpatient long-form SHEP (2009-2011), (2) screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaire score ≥ 3 for women, ≥ 4 for men), and (3) responded to questions assessing receipt of brief intervention and quality of care., Main Measures: We used logistic regression models to estimate the adjusted predicted prevalence of reporting two indicators of high-quality care--patient ratings of their VA provider and of overall VA healthcare (range 0-10, dichotomized as ≥ 9 indicating high quality)--for both patients who did and did not report receipt of brief intervention (receiving alcohol-related advice from a provider) within the previous year., Key Results: Among 10,612 eligible veterans, 43.8% reported having received brief intervention, and 84.2% and 79.1% rated their quality of care as high from their provider and the VA healthcare system, respectively. In adjusted analyses, compared to veterans who reported receiving no brief intervention, a higher proportion of veterans reporting receipt of brief intervention rated the quality of healthcare from their provider (86.9% vs. 82.0%, p < 0.01) and the VA overall (82.7% vs. 75.9%, p < 0.01) as high., Conclusions: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans with unhealthy alcohol use, a higher proportion of those who reported receipt of brief intervention reported receiving high-quality care compared to those who reported having received no such intervention. These findings do not support provider concerns that delivering brief intervention adversely affects patients' perceptions of care.

Background: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics., Objective: We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening., Design: This was an observational, qualitative study., Participants: Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S., Approach: Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes., Key Results: We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort., Conclusions: This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.

Background: Alcohol screening questionnaires have typically been validated when self- or researcher-administered. Little is known about the performance of alcohol screening questionnaires administered in clinical settings., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the results of alcohol screening conducted as part of routine outpatient clinical care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System to the results on the same alcohol screening questionnaire completed on a mailed survey within 90 days and identify factors associated with discordant screening results., Design: Cross sectional., Participants: A national sample of 6,861 VA outpatients (fiscal years 2007-2008) who completed the AUDIT-C alcohol screening questionnaire on mailed surveys (survey screen) within 90 days of having clinical AUDIT-C screening documented in their medical records (clinical screen)., Main Measures: Alcohol screening results were considered discordant if patients screened positive (AUDIT-C ≥ 5) on either the clinical or survey screen but not both. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the prevalence of discordance in different patient subgroups based on demographic and clinical characteristics, VA network and temporal factors (e.g. the order of screens)., Key Results: Whereas 11.1% (95% CI 10.4-11.9%) of patients screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use on the survey screen, 5.7% (5.1- 6.2%) screened positive on the clinical screen. Of 765 patients who screened positive on the survey screen, 61.2% (57.7-64.6%) had discordant results on the clinical screen, contrasted with 1.5% (1.2-1.8%) of 6096 patients who screened negative on the survey screen. In multivariable analyses, discordance was significantly increased among Black patients compared with White, and among patients who had a positive survey AUDIT-C screen or who received care at 4 of 21 VA networks., Conclusion: Use of a validated alcohol screening questionnaire does not-by itself-ensure the quality of alcohol screening. This study suggests that the quality of clinical alcohol screening should be monitored, even when well-validated screening questionnaires are used.