Colonoscopy screening and surveillance disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased barriers to accessing preventive healthcare. This study identifies populations disproportionately underrepresented in screening and surveillance colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this single-center cohort study, colonoscopy procedures were reviewed during 6-month intervals before the pandemic (July 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 and January 1, 2021 - June 30, 2021). 7095 patients were categorized based on procedure indication, demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Statistics performed using VassarStats. RESULTS: 2387 (2019) colonoscopies pre-pandemic and 2585 (2020) and 2123 (2021) during the pandemic were identified. There was a decrease in colonoscopies performed during months when COVID-19 cases peaked. The total number of average CRC risk patients presenting for first colonoscopy declined during the pandemic: 232 (10 %) pre-pandemic to 190 (7 %) in 2020, 145 (7 %) in 2021 (p < 0.001). Fewer of these patients presented from highly vulnerable communities, SVI > 0.8, during the pandemic, 39 in 2019 vs 16 in 2020 and 22 in 2021. Of all screening and surveillance patients, fewer presented from communities with SVI > 0.8 during the pandemic, 106 in 2019 versus 67 in 2020 and 77 in 2021. CONCLUSION: It is important to address the decline in CRC preventive care during this pandemic among average CRC risk first-time screeners and vulnerable community patients. An emphasis on addressing social determinants of health and establishing patients in gastroenterology clinics is imperative to promote future health in these populations.

Multispecialty screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) training in an academic medical center: Resident training experience across specialties.

BACKGROUND: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has recently begun to fund programs that train medical residents on how to utilize an evidence-based validated system known as screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for providing early detection and brief treatment of unhealthy substance use. This paper investigates training outcomes of multispecialty SBIRT training at one such program at Albany Medical Center (AMC), one of the initial SAMHSA grantees. METHODS: Training outcomes were measured across 3 domains of learning: trainee satisfaction, acquired knowledge, and perceived usefulness. The authors explored differences in learning experience by postgraduate year and by specialty. RESULTS: Overall, residents were highly satisfied with the training, and learning outcomes met objectives. Residents' ratings of usefulness did not vary by program year. However, the results indicate that relative to residents in other programs, residents in psychiatry and pediatrics found the training components significantly more useful, whereas emergency medicine residents found training components to have less utility. Residents who found the training relevant to their daily work were more satisfied and more receptive to SBIRT training overall, which may help explain difference scores by program. CONCLUSIONS: Residents were highly satisfied with SBIRT skills training, although ratings of usefulness varied by residency program. Specialization by program and on-site modeling by senior faculty may enhance trainee satisfaction and perceived usefulness.

Residents' experience of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) as a clinical tool following practical application: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT), an evidence-based validated system for providing early detection and brief treatment of substance use disorders, has been widely used in the training of medical residents across specialties at a number of sites. This article investigates the effectiveness of SBIRT training during short-term follow-up at Albany Medical Center, one of the initial Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) grantees. METHODS: Training outcomes were measured by training satisfaction following opportunities to apply SBIRT skills in clinical work, the rate at which these techniques were applied in clinical work, and the degree to which residents felt that the SBIRT training provided skills that were applicable to their practice. We examined differences in learning experience by postgraduate year and by program, and conducted a qualitative analysis in a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to elucidate barriers encountered by residents upon using SBIRT techniques in clinical practice. RESULTS: Residents remained highly satisfied with the training at 4-month follow-up, with 80.1% reporting that they had used SBIRT skills in their clinical work. Use of SBIRT techniques was high at 6-month follow-up as well, with 85.9% of residents reporting that they regularly screened their patients for substance use, 74.4% reporting that they had applied brief intervention techniques, and 78.2% indicating that SBIRT training had made them overall more effective in helping patients with substance use issues. Differences in application rates and satisfaction were found by specialty. Qualitative analyses indicated that residents encountered patient readiness and specific contextual factors, such as time constraints, externally imposed values, and clinical norms, as barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite encountering obstacles such as time constraints and patient readiness, residents utilized many of the skills they had learned during SBIRT training in clinical practice and reported finding these skills useful in their management of patients with substance use issues.