Sustainability of Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention Services in Primary Care After Removal of Implementation Supports.

OBJECTIVE: Although many health care organizations have sought to increase the integration of substance use services into clinical practice, such practice changes can prove difficult to sustain. METHOD: Seven primary care clinics participated in an implementation study of screening and brief intervention (BI) services for adolescent patients (ages 12-17). All sites delivered screening and brief advice (BA) for low-risk use using a uniform protocol. Clinics were randomized to deliver BI using generalist (provider-delivered) or specialist (behavioral health clinician-delivered) models. Implementation was facilitated by multiple supporting activities (e.g., trainings, local "champion," electronic health record [EHR] integration of screening and documentation, individualized feedback, project-specific materials, etc.). Data on the penetration of screening, BA, and BI delivery (N = 14,486 adolescent patient visits) were abstracted from the EHR for the 20-month implementation phase and a 12-month sustainability phase (during which implementation supports were removed). RESULTS: Penetration of screening continued to slowly increase across the implementation-to-sustainability phases (62% vs. 70%; p = .04). Although uptake during implementation was low for BA (29%) and BI (22%), there was no significant decrease in service provision during the sustainability phase. Although overall delivery of BI was significantly higher in generalist compared with specialist sites (p < .001), sustainability did not differ by generalist versus specialist conditions. There were considerable differences in penetration across clinic sites. CONCLUSIONS: Clinics sustained a high level of substance use screening. Uptake of intervention services was low but did not decrease further following the cessation of implementation supports. This study illustrates the challenges of successfully implementing and sustaining substance use services in adolescent primary care.

Costs and Implementation Effectiveness of Generalist Versus Specialist Models for Adolescent Screening and Brief Intervention in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the marginal service and program costs, and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two models of implementation of adolescent substance screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster-randomized trial, through a Specialist model (behavioral health counselor-delivered brief intervention), and a Generalist model (primary care provider-delivered brief intervention). The CEA calculated marginal costs using an activity-based costing methodology for direct SBIRT services, and effectiveness was measured by the proportion of brief interventions delivered among patients who screened positive for alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. Site-level program costs comprised start-up and maintenance (training and technical assistance). Costs were estimated in 2017 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: The marginal cost of SBIRT per patient with a positive screen for brief intervention was $6.72 in the Specialist model and $6.05 in the Generalist model. Implementation effectiveness was 7.2% (SE = 2.9%) in the Specialist model and 37.7% (SE = 5.6%) in the Generalist model. The program costs to provide SBIRT for 1 year per site were $13,548 for the Specialist site and $12,081 for the Generalist. CONCLUSIONS: The Generalist model was more effective in implementing brief intervention and less expensive than the Specialist model. Results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Brief intervention delivered by primary care providers rather than by handoff to a behavioral health counselor may ensure greater penetration and a lower cost of these services in primary care settings.

Organizational Acceptability of Implementing SBIRT for Adolescents in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescent illicit drug, tobacco, and alcohol use can result in sudden and long-term negative health consequences. Primary care environments present the optimal opportunity for screening and brief interventions that target prevention and curtailing use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a service delivery method that could potentially be well-integrated into primary care settings and used to serve a high volume of adolescents. Methods: This qualitative analysis of clinic staff interviews (N = 20), collected during a large cluster-randomized trial to implement two models of adolescent SBIRT, examined barriers and facilitating factors to overall acceptability of SBIRT. This study was conducted in a large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) at 7 sites throughout Baltimore City, Maryland, USA. Participants from each clinic included a range of various roles and responsibilities including: medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), primary care providers (n = 4), behavioral health counselors (n = 4), and administrators (n = 6). Results: Results indicate both barriers and facilitating factors for acceptability of SBIRT in terms of (1) universal screening, (2) provider time demands, (3) behavioral health collaboration, and (4) behavioral health caseloads. Discussion: Universal screening was acceptable to participants across organizational roles, but brief interventions and referrals to treatment were found substantially less acceptable.

One million screened: Scaling up SBIRT and buprenorphine treatment in hospital emergency departments across Maryland.

PURPOSE: Identification of problematic alcohol use and substance use in the population has been a clinical challenge, especially during the heightened years of the opioid epidemic. Bringing Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) to scale in medical settings, such as hospital emergency departments (EDs) could facilitate broad identification of substance use disorders, timely delivery of brief interventions, and successful linkages to treatment. PROCEDURES: This large-scale data analysis pulled electronic health record (EHR) data from 23 hospitals in the state of Maryland for over 1 million patient visits between July 2014 and November 2018. FINDINGS: Of the 1,097,142 ED patients screened, 17.2% screened positive for problematic alcohol or any drug use in the previous 12 months. During this same period, 79,899 brief interventions were delivered, 15,961 referrals to outpatient treatment were made and 38.3% of those were successfully linked to treatment. Of the 950 patients exhibiting withdrawal symptoms, over two-thirds patients (70.1%; n = 666) were administered buprenorphine, 94.6% (n = 630) accepted a referral to buprenorphine treatment in the community, and 64.6% (n = 430) attended their first outpatient buprenorphine treatment visit. A total of 2382 patients presented to the ED with a suspected opioid overdose, over half were referred to the intervention program (53.8%) and 63.2% were successfully engaged by the PRCs in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports the scalability of SBIRT in hospital EDs and presents an implementation model that can be replicated in EDs nationwide.

Implementation of emergency department-initiated buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in a rural southern state.

AIM: The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Clinical Trials Network (CTN), an entity aimed at bridging researchers and community-based substance abuse treatment providers to develop new treatment approaches, has taken an interest in the dissemination of findings from a randomized clinical trial by D'Onofrio demonstrating that initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department (ED) enhances linkage to treatment [JAMA 2015; 313 (16): 1636-1644]. In the Southern Consortium Node of the CTN, the authors have taken an implementation science approach to expand on the D'Onofrio study by implementing an ED-based buprenorphine initiation program in three diverse South Carolina EDs utilizing a predominantly peer recovery coach model. The aim of this pilot program was to foundationally integrate universal screening, brief interventions and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in hospital EDs to identify patients with at-risk substance use. Through brief interventions, patient navigators assessed readiness to change and motivation for treatment of patients. Patients willing to engage in treatment were referred to appropriate community resources. Patients identified to have opioid use disorder (OUD) and willing to engage in treatment were eligible for ED-initiated buprenorphine and peer recovery coaches assisted in arranging next day follow up with a community treatment program or other local provider for ongoing treatment. METHOD: Hospital partner sites included a large academic medical center, a large private hospital, and a small community hospital. Prior to implementing this quality improvement initiative, the authors completed an ED workflow analysis at each site, developed internal planning committees including identification of a "hospital champion," facilitated electronic health record modifications, educated more than 200 ED nurses and providers, and identified a network of local community "fast-track" providers able to accept patients for next-day appointments. RESULTS: Within 14 months, all three sites were fully operationalized and project staff in 3 ED sites screened 6523 patients for substance misuse with 33.0% screened positive for at-risk substance use. Positive screening results were as follows by substance: 907 alcohol, 100 cocaine, 40 methamphetamine, 7 amphetamines, 96 marijuana, 12 benzodiazepines, 3 Ecstasy/MDMA/Molly, 10 other/unknown substance, 274 heroin, 90 prescription opioids, 32 other/unknown opioid, 254 undetermined polysubstance use without opioids, and 331 polysubstance use with opioids. Of the 727 positive screened patients for non-medical opioid use, 70.0% were determined potentially eligible to receive buprenorphine initiation. Two-hundred thirty-one patients were initiated with one dose of 8 mg sublingual buprenorphine or 8-2 mg sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone; 76.6% of those initiated arrived to next-day appointments for continued medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD); and 59.9% of those patients were retained in treatment at 30 days. Of referred patients, payor at time of ED visit were as follows: 71.1% uninsured, 21.4% state Medicaid, 1.6% Medicare, and 5.9% private health insurance. CONCLUSION: With adequate resources and institutional support, implementation of evidence-based quality improvement initiatives focused on OUDs are feasible and enhance linkage to evidence-based treatment in a rural Southern state. Lessons learned from this implementation study can be used to guide future CTN studies focused on ED settings. PROJECT SUPPORT: Financially supported by South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services with consultation and guidance from Mosaic Group and South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Services.

Adolescent SBIRT implementation: Generalist vs. Specialist models of service delivery in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among adolescents pose significant short- and long-term health consequences and are associated with more severe use as adults. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in primary care settings has the potential to deliver preventive interventions to a diverse range of adolescents, but optimal implementation of these services needs to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare implementation of two different SBIRT service delivery models in primary care settings. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial assigned 7 primary care clinics of a federally qualified health center to implement brief interventions (BI) using a Generalist model (4 sites), in which BIs were delivered by the primary care provider (PCP), or a Specialist model (3 sites), in which BIs were delivered by a behavioral health counselor (BHC) for adolescent patients ages 12-17 years. Implementation was tracked through the clinic's electronic health record, spanning 9639 clinic visits over 20 months. Multilevel logistic regression modeling was used to compare Generalist and Specialist strategies on penetration of BI for patients scoring ≥2 on the CRAFFT substance use screen, delivered by the PCP in the Generalist sites, and via warm hand-off to a BHC in the Specialist sites. RESULTS: Approximately 62% of adolescent patient visits were screened with the CRAFFT (with <4% screening positive with a CRAFFT score ≥ 2). The Generalist Condition had significantly higher self-reported penetration of BI delivery than the Specialist Condition (38% vs. 8%; Adjusted Odds Ratio = 6.53; p = .005). DISCUSSION: Despite having co-located behavioral health services at all sites, a Specialist approach to providing BI was less effectively implemented than a Generalist approach in this FQHC. BI delivered by PCPs rather than by hand-off to a BHC may ensure greater penetration of these services in primary care settings. Both implementation models provided a framework for identifying and intervening with adolescent primary care patients whose substance use might have otherwise gone undetected.

Application of System Dynamics to Inform a Model of Adolescent SBIRT Implementation in Primary Care Settings.

System dynamics (SD) modeling is used to compare and contrast strategies for effective implementation of an evidence-based adolescent behavioral health treatment in primary care settings. With qualitative and quantitative data from an on-going cluster-randomized trial in 7 federally qualified health center sites, two implementation conditions were compared: generalist vs. specialist. In the generalist approach, the primary care provider (PCP) delivered brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse (n = 4 clinics). In the specialist approach, BIs were delivered by behavioral health counselors (BHCs) (n = 3 clinics). The resultant SD model compared 'basecase' dynamics to strategic approaches to deploying continuous technical assistance (TA) and performance feedback reporting (PFR). The basecase effectively represented the SBIRT intervention, which reflected actual monthly volume of adolescent primary care visits (N = 9639), screenings (N = 5937), positive screenings (N = 246), and brief interventions (BIs; N = 50) over the 20-month implementation period. Insights gained suggest that implementation outcomes are sensitive to frequency of PFR, with bimonthly events generating the most rapid and sustained screening results. Simulated trends indicated that availability of the BHC directly impacts success of the specialist model. Similarly, understanding PCPs' perception of severity of need for intervention is key to outcomes in either condition.

Adaptation of the Drug and Drug Problems Perception Questionnaire to assess healthcare provider attitudes toward adolescent substance use.

Although preventive screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment for adolescent substance use is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, primary care providers inconsistently address substance use with their pediatric patients (AAP Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and AAP Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup, 2017). Further research on provider perceptions about addressing adolescent substance use may help identify and address some barriers to screening. However, there are few validated measures of provider perceptions toward patient substance, and none are specific to pediatric patients. This study (conducted in Maryland, 2015-2017) examines the internal consistency and factor structure of an adapted measure to assess perceptions of adolescent substance use. Internal consistency was assessed using responses from a sample of 276 healthcare practitioners (87.7% women, 12.3% men). Their professions included the following: Certified Medical Assistants (10.9%), Registered Nurses (17.8%), Nurse Practitioners (8.3%), Physician Assistants (3.6%), Medical Doctors (13.8%), Clinical Therapists (10.9%) and Other (21.0%). A four-factor solution was identified and initial evidence suggests the adapted measure is appropriate for use with health care providers. A subsample of 181 participants who reported direct interaction with adolescent patients in a provider role was also used to assess convergent validity with self-reported screening practices and effectiveness. Provider-reported frequency of alcohol and drug use assessment for pediatric patients was significantly related to positive perceptions about adolescent substance use on all subscales. The adapted measure could prove useful for assessing provider readiness to receive adolescent substance use screening training and could be further adapted to include items unique to adolescent care, including parental involvement.

A Comparison of Screening Practices for Adolescents in Primary Care After Implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening adolescents for substance use at all well-child and appropriate acute-care visits. However, many pediatric practices aim for such screenings annually at well-child visits. METHODS: As part of a larger study, 7 urban Federally Qualified Health Center clinics implemented universal screening for risky alcohol and drug use using the Car, Relax, Alone, Forget, Friends, Trouble (CRAFFT) screening tool. The present study compared uptake of screening and screening results at well-child versus acute-care visits. RESULTS: Over a period of 13 months for which encounter-level electronic medical records data were available, there were 6,346 clinic visits by 3,475 unique patients aged 12-17 years, at which 76.6% (n = 4,865) of visits had a screening for problematic substance use conducted. Rates of screening were 95.1% (2,750/2,891 involving 2,629 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 61.2% (2,115/3,455 involving 1,535 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Rates of positive screening results were 9.0% (248/2,750 involving 245 unique adolescents) for well-child visits and 7.8% (164/2,115 involving 126 unique adolescents) for acute-care visits. Of the 469 unique adolescents screened only during an acute-care visit during that same period, 40 unique adolescents had positive screening results for a positive screening rate of 8.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 10% of adolescent patients screened only at acute-care visits would not have been screened if screening was implemented solely at well-child visits, and 40 adolescents reporting substance use would have been missed. The findings highlight the benefits of screening adolescents at every primary care visit to better detect and intervene in adolescents' substance use.

Disclosure of Adolescent Substance Use in Primary Care: Comparison of Routine Clinical Screening and Anonymous Research Interviews.

PURPOSE: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends substance use screening in adolescent primary care. Many studies of substance use prevalence and screening tool validation are conducted under research protocols that differ from routine clinical screening in context, consequences, and privacy implications. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis drawing from two projects focused on adolescent primary care patients, aged 12-17, conducted nearly contemporaneously in a Federally Qualified Health Center system. The first project conducted anonymous research interviews with patients (N = 525), while the other tracked routine clinical screening as part of a larger service implementation project (N = 5,971). Both projects assessed substance use with the CRAFFT screening tool. RESULTS: Rates of substance use disclosure and substance use problems were over three and four times higher, respectively, in the anonymous research interview sample compared to rates found in routine clinical screening (p values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Routine clinical screening may underestimate substance use among adolescents.

Start-Up Costs of SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban U.S. Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the costs to implement Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent substance use in primary care settings is important for providers in planning for services and for decision makers considering dissemination and widespread implementation of SBIRT. We estimated the start-up costs of two models of SBIRT for adolescents in a multisite U.S. Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In both models, screening was performed by a medical assistant, but models differed on delivery of brief intervention, with brief intervention delivered by a primary care provider in the generalist model and a behavioral health specialist in the specialist model. METHOD: SBIRT was implemented at seven clinics in a multisite, cluster randomized trial. SBIRT implementation costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology. Start-up activities were defined as (a) planning activities (e.g., changing existing electronic medical record system and tailoring service delivery protocols); and (b) initial staff training. Data collection instruments were developed to collect staff time spent in start-up activities and quantity of nonlabor resources used. RESULTS: The estimated average costs to implement SBIRT were $5,182 for the specialist model and $3,920 for the generalist model. Planning activities had the greatest impact on costs for both models. Overall, more resources were devoted to planning and training activities in specialist sites, making the specialist model costlier to implement. CONCLUSIONS: The initial investment required to implement SBIRT should not be neglected. The level of resources necessary for initial implementation depends on the delivery model and its integration into current practice.

SBIRT Implementation for Adolescents in Urban Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use remains highly prevalent among US adolescents and is a threat to their well-being and to the public health. Evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses supports the effectiveness of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for adolescents with substance misuse but primary care providers have been slow to adopt this evidence-based approach. The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretically informed methodology of an on-going implementation study. METHODS: This study protocol is a multi-site, cluster randomized trial (N=7) guided by Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research and comparing two principal approaches to SBIRT delivery within adolescent medicine: Generalist vs. Specialist. In the Generalist Approach, the primary care provider delivers brief intervention (BI) for substance misuse. In the Specialist Approach, BIs are delivered by behavioral health counselors. The study will also examine the effectiveness of integrating HIV risk screening within an SBIRT model. Implementation Strategies employed include: integrated team development of the service delivery model, modifications to the electronic medical record, regular performance feedback and supervision. Implementation outcomes, include: Acceptability, Appropriateness, Adoption, Feasibility, Fidelity, Costs/Cost-Effectiveness, Penetration, and Sustainability. DISCUSSION: The study will fill a major gap in scientific knowledge regarding the best SBIRT implementation strategy at a time when SBIRT is poised to be brought to scale under health care reform. It will also provide novel data to inform the expansion of the SBIRT model to address HIV risk behaviors among adolescents. Finally, the study will generate important cost data that offer guidance to policymakers and clinic directors about the adoption of SBIRT in adolescent health care.

The Baltimore Buprenorphine Initiative: understanding the role of buprenorphine in addressing heroin addiction in an urban-based community.

Adequate drug treatment for substance users continues to be a challenge for most U.S. cities. To address heroin addiction in Baltimore, the Baltimore Buprenorphine Initiative was implemented as a joint project to promote individualized, patient-centered buprenorphine therapy in conjunction with behavioral treatment to accelerate recovery from opioid addiction. The purpose of this analysis was to explore differences in recovery trajectories predicting length of stay and use this information to predict characteristics that influence an individual's ability to remain in the Baltimore Buprenorphine Initiative program. The sample consisted of 1,039 subjects enrolled in the program between January 2008 and June 2009. The regression modeling determined that age, income, employment, and higher level of treatment were significant predictors of length of stay in the recovery program. The findings of this study have practical implications for the design and implementation of heroin addiction programs. The research indicates that focusing on these specific predictive variables early in the program design phase could increase recovery success rates as measured by length of stay.

Can Substance Use Disorders be Managed Using the Chronic Care Model? Review and Recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group.

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Advancing performance measures for use of medications in substance abuse treatment.

Performance measures have the potential to drive high-quality health care. However, technical and policy challenges exist in developing and implementing measures to assess substance use disorder (SUD) pharmacotherapy. Of critical importance in advancing performance measures for use of SUD pharmacotherapy is the recognition that different measurement approaches may be needed in the public and private sectors and will be determined by the availability of different data collection and monitoring systems. In 2009, the Washington Circle convened a panel of nationally recognized insurers, purchasers, providers, policy makers, and researchers to address this topic. The charge of the panel was to identify opportunities and challenges in advancing use of SUD pharmacotherapy performance measures across a range of systems. This article summarizes those findings by identifying a number of critical themes related to advancing SUD pharmacotherapy performance measures, highlighting examples from the field, and recommending actions for policy makers.