"The Only Reason I Am Willing to Do It at All": Evaluation of VA's SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center.

OBJECTIVES: Medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective and recommended for outpatient settings. We implemented and evaluated the SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) Center-a quality improvement partnership to implement stepped care for MOUD in 2 Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care (PC) clinics. METHODS: SUPPORT provided a dedicated clinical team (nurse practitioner prescriber and social worker) and stepped care ([1] identification, assessment, referral; [2] MOUD induction; [3] stabilization; and [4] maintenance supporting PC providers [PCPs] to initiate and/or sustain treatment) coupled with ongoing internal facilitation (consultation, trainings, informatics support). Qualitative interviews with stakeholders (PCPs and patients) and meeting notes identified barriers and facilitators to implementation. Electronic health record and patient tracking data measured reach, adoption, and implementation outcomes descriptively. RESULTS: SUPPORT's implementation barriers included the need for an X-waiver, VA's opioid tapering policies, patient and PCP knowledge gaps and PCP discomfort, and logistical compatibility and sustainability challenges for clinics. SUPPORT's dedicated clinical staff, ongoing internal facilitation, and high patient and PCP satisfaction were key facilitators. SUPPORT (January 2019 to September 2021) trained 218 providers; 63 received X-waivers, and 23 provided MOUD (10.5% of those trained). SUPPORT provided care to 167 patients, initiated MOUD for 33, and provided education and naloxone to 72 (all = 0 in year before launch). CONCLUSIONS: SUPPORT reached many PCPs and patients and resulted in small increases in MOUD prescribing and high levels of stakeholder satisfaction. Dedicated clinical staff was key to observed successes. Although resource-intensive, SUPPORT offers a potential model for outpatient MOUD provision.

Treating opioid use disorder in veterans with co-occurring substance use: a qualitative study with buprenorphine providers in primary care, mental health, and pain settings.

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) have co-occurring substance use, which is associated with lower receipt of OUD medications (MOUD). Expanding MOUD provision and care linkage outside of substance use disorder (SUD) specialty settings is a key strategy to increase access. Therefore, it is important to understand how MOUD providers in these settings approach care for patients with co-occurring substance use. This qualitative study of Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians providing buprenorphine care in primary care, mental health, and pain settings aimed to understand (1) their approach to addressing OUD in patients with co-occurring substance use, (2) perspectives on barriers/facilitators to MOUD receipt for this population, and (3) support needed to increase MOUD receipt for this population. METHODS: We interviewed a purposive sample of 27 clinicians (12 primary care, 7 mental health, 4 pain, 4 pharmacists) in the VA northwest network. The interview guide assessed domains of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases Checklist. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported varied approaches to identifying co-occurring substance use and addressing OUD in this patient population. Although they reported that this topic was not clearly addressed in clinical guidelines or training, participants generally felt that patients with co-occurring substance use should receive MOUD. Some viewed their primary role as providing this care, others as facilitating linkage to OUD care in SUD specialty settings. Participants reported multiple barriers and facilitators to providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use and linking them to SUD specialty care, including provider, patient, organizational, and external factors. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts are needed to support clinicians outside of SUD specialty settings in providing buprenorphine care to patients with co-occurring substance use. These could include clearer guidelines and policies, more specific training, and increased care integration or cross-disciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously, efforts are needed to improve linkage to specialty SUD care for patients who would benefit from and are willing to receive this care, which could include increased service availability and improved referral/hand-off processes. These efforts may increase MOUD receipt and improve OUD care quality for patients with co-occurring substance use.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care: Interviews with Veterans Health Administration primary care patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management intervention trial.

Background: Most people with alcohol use disorder do not receive treatment, and primary care (PC)-based management of alcohol use disorder is a key strategy to close this gap. Understanding PC patients' perspectives on changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care is important for this goal, particularly among those who decline alcohol-related care. This study examined perspectives on barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among Veterans Health Administration (VA) PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in the Choosing Healthier drinking Options In primary CarE trial (CHOICE), which tested a PC-based alcohol care management intervention. Methods: VA PC patients with frequent heavy drinking who indicated interest in CHOICE but did not enroll were invited to participate. Twenty-seven patients completed in-person, semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analyzed using iterative deductive and inductive content analysis. Results: Participants were mostly men (96%) and White (59%), and the mean age was 48. Seventy-four percent met criteria for alcohol use disorder, and the median number of past-week standard drinks was 41.5. Participants reported fewer alcohol-related problems, lower importance of/readiness to change drinking, and higher confidence in their ability to change than patients who enrolled in the CHOICE trial. Barriers fell into 5 domains: drinking fulfills need(s); reducing drinking or treatment is not needed; treatment is not effective/not acceptable; alcohol-related stigma; and practical barriers. Facilitators fell into 4 domains: reasons to change drinking; social support; treatment is acceptable/meets patients' needs; and practical facilitators. Participants discussed how Veteran identity and military experiences impacted drinking and willingness to receive care, which amplified multiple barriers/facilitators. Conclusions: This study identified barriers and facilitators to changing drinking and receiving alcohol-related care among VA PC patients who indicated interest but did not enroll in an alcohol care management trial. Findings can inform patient-centered interventions and support clinicians in engaging patients in care.

Opioid use disorder from poppy seed tea successfully treated with buprenorphine in primary care: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Poppy seeds contain morphine and other opioid alkaloids and are commercially available in the United States. Users of poppy seed tea (PST) can consume several hundred morphine milligram equivalents per day, and opioid dependence from PST use can develop. We report a case of a patient with chronic pain and PST use leading to opioid use disorder (OUD). This case represents the first published report of OUD from PST successfully treated with buprenorphine (BUP) in a primary care setting. The provider in this case used a unique model of care with an opioid prescribing support team to deliver safe and effective care. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old man with chronic pain and prescription opioid use presented to primary care to discuss a flare of shoulder pain, and revealed in subsequent conversation a long-standing use of PST to supplement pain control. Attempts at cessation resulted in severe withdrawal symptoms, leading to return to PST use. The primary care provider consulted the VA Puget Sound SUpporting Primary care Providers in Opioid Risk reduction and Treatment (SUPPORT) team to evaluate the patient for OUD. The patient discontinued all opioids, and initiated BUP under the supervision of the primary care provider. He remained on a stable dosage, without relapse, 24 months later. CONCLUSIONS: PST, which can be made through purchase of readily available poppy pods, carries risk for development of OUD and overdose. Herein we highlight the utility of a primary care opioid prescribing support team in empowering a primary care provider to prescribe BUP to treat a patient with complex OUD.

Alcohol-Related Nurse Care Management in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear. Objective: To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (≥4 drinks per day for women and ≥5 drinks per day for men). Interventions: Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems. Results: Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n = 150) and usual care (n = 154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P = .32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.

Differences in Perceptions of and Practices Regarding Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders Among VA Primary Care Providers in Urban and Rural Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Effective behavioral and pharmacological treatments are available and recommended for patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) but rarely received. Barriers to receipt and provision of evidence-based AUD treatments delivered by specialists may be greatest in rural areas. METHODS: A targeted subanalysis of qualitative interview data collected from primary care providers at 5 Veterans Affairs clinics was conducted to identify differences in provider perceptions and practices regarding AUD treatment across urban and rural clinics. Key contacts were used to recruit 24 providers from 3 "urban" clinics at medical centers and 2 "rural" community-based outpatient clinics. Providers completed 30-minute semistructured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen urban and 11 rural providers participated. Urban and rural providers differed regarding referral practices and in perceptions of availability and utility of specialty addictions treatment. Urban providers described referral to specialty treatment as standard practice, while rural providers reported substantial barriers to specialty care access and infrequent specialty care referral. Urban providers viewed specialty addictions treatment as accessible and comprehensive, and perceived addictions providers as "experts" and collaborators, whereas rural providers perceived inadequate support from the health care system for AUD treatment. Urban providers desired greater integration with specialty addictions care while rural providers wanted access to local addictions treatment resources. CONCLUSIONS: Providers in rural settings view referral to specialty addictions treatment as impractical and resources inadequate to treat AUD. Additional work is needed to understand the unique needs of rural clinics and decrease barriers to AUD treatment.

Electronic Medical Record Alert Associated With Reduced Opioid and Benzodiazepine Coprescribing in High-risk Veteran Patients.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, overdoses involving opioids and benzodiazepines have risen at alarming rates, making reductions in coprescribing of these medications a priority, particularly among patients who may be susceptible to adverse events due to high-risk conditions. OBJECTIVES: This quality improvement project evaluated the effectiveness of a medication alert designed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among Veterans with known high-risk conditions (substance use, sleep apnea, suicide-risk, age 65 and above) at 1 Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: Prescribers were exposed to the point-of-prescribing alert for 12 months. For each high-risk cohort we used interrupted time series design to examine population trends in coprescribing 12 months after alert launch adjusting for coprescribing 12 months before launch, demographics and clinical covariates. Trends at the alert site were compared with those of a similar VA health care system without the alert. Secondary analyses examined population trends in opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing separately. RESULTS: Over 12 months, the alert activated for 1332 patients. Proportions of patients with concurrent prescriptions decreased significantly postalert launch among substance use [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.96-0.99; 12-month decrease=25.0%], sleep apnea (AOR=0.97, 95% CI=0.95-0.98, 12-month decrease=38.5%), and suicide-risk (AOR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91-0.98, 12-month decrease=61.5%) cohorts at the alert site. Decreases in coprescribing were significantly different from the comparison site among suicide-risk (AOR=0.92, 95% CI=0.86-0.97) and sleep apnea (AOR=0.98, 95% CI=0.96-1.00) cohorts. Significant decreases in benzodiazepine prescribing trends were observed at the alert site only. CONCLUSIONS: Medication alerts hold promise as a means of reducing opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing among certain high-risk groups.

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

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.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Alcohol Use Disorder Pharmacotherapy in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study in Five VA Clinics.

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.

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample. METHODS: The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs. RESULTS: A total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale. CONCLUSION: The CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Survey of Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers' Perspectives on Reducing Opioid and Benzodiazepine Co-Prescribing Among Veterans.

Background: Due to the involvement of opioids and benzodiazepines in rising pharmaceutical overdoses, a reduction in coprescribing of these medications is a national priority, particularly among patients with substance use disorders and other high-risk conditions. However, little is known about primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) prescribers' perspectives on these medications and efforts being implemented to reduce coprescribing. Design: An anonymous survey. Setting: One multisite VA health care system. Subjects: Participants were 55 PC and 31 MH prescribers. Methods: Survey development was guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) conceptual framework. PC and MH prescribers of opioids or benzodiazepines were invited to complete an anonymous electronic survey. Responses were collapsed to highlight agreement, disagreement, and neutrality and summarized with means and percentages. Results: Over 80% of both prescriber groups reported concern about concurrent use and > 75% strongly agreed with clinical practice guidelines (CPG) that recommend caution in coprescribing among patients with high-risk conditions. More than 40% of both prescriber groups indicated that coprescribing continues because of beliefs that patients appear stable without adverse events and tapering/discontinuation is too difficult. Over 70% of prescribers rated strategies for addressing patients who refuse to discontinue, more time with patients, and identification of high-risk patients as helpful in reducing coprescribing. Conclusion: Despite strong agreement with CPGs, prescribers reported several barriers that contribute to coprescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines and challenge their ability to taper these medications. Multiple interventions are likely needed to reduce opioid and benzodiazepine coprescribing.

Primary Care Providers' Interest in Using a Genetic Test to Guide Alcohol Use Disorder Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to identify genetic moderators of pharmacotherapy response have generated interest in clinical applications of pharmacogenetic tests in alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment. To date, no research on providers' interest in using pharmacogenetic tests in the context of AUD treatment has been reported. We conducted qualitative interviews with primary care providers from 5 clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to assess their interest in using a hypothetical genetic test to inform treatment of AUD with pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Key contacts were used to recruit 24 providers from 5 primary care clinics associated with a single large VA medical facility. Participants completed 30-minute in-person semi-structured interviews focused on barriers and facilitators to provision of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Interviews included a hypothetical scenario regarding the availability of a genetic test to inform AUD pharmacotherapy provision and/or selection. Provider responses to the hypothetical scenario were recorded, transcribed and analyzed qualitatively using inductive content analysis. Data were independently coded by three investigators, and themes were identified via consensus. RESULTS: Participants were generally interested in a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning. Five common themes were identified, including: perceived benefits of a pharmacogenetic test (e.g., aiding with therapeutic choice, positively impacting patient motivation for and engagement with AUD treatment), perceived drawbacks (e.g., limiting potential benefits of pharmacotherapy by reducing the target population for its receipt, adverse impacts of "negative" results), caveats to clinical utility (e.g., utility would depend on prognostic accuracy and/or medication characteristics), uncertainty as to whether such a test would impact clinical decision-making, and pragmatic barriers to use (costs and other resources, such as laboratory facilities). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers in this study generally believed a genetic test to aid in AUD treatment planning would be useful, due to its potential to hone treatment choice as well as to influence patient motivation and adherence to treatment. However, providers acknowledged that a test's utility would depend on the strength of its prognostic characteristics, its other benefits relative to standard care, and lack of pragmatic barriers.

Local Implementation of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention at Five Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Clinics: Perspectives of Clinical and Administrative Staff.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Population-based alcohol screening, followed by brief intervention for patients who screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use, is widely recommended for primary care settings and considered a top prevention priority, but is challenging to implement. However, new policy initiatives in the U.S., including the Affordable Care Act, may help launch widespread implementation. While the nationwide Veterans Health Administration (VA) has achieved high rates of documented alcohol screening and brief intervention, research has identified quality problems with both. We conducted a qualitative key informant study to describe local implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention from the perspectives of frontline adopters in VA primary care in order to understand the process of implementation and factors underlying quality problems. METHODS: A purposive snowball sampling method was used to identify and recruit key informants from 5 VA primary care clinics in the northwestern U.S. Key informants completed 20-30 minute semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using template analysis. RESULTS: Key informants (N=32) included: clinical staff (n=14), providers (n=14), and administrative informants (n=4) with varying participation in implementation of and responsibility for alcohol screening and brief intervention at the medical center. Ten inter-related themes (5 a priori and 5 emergent) were identified and grouped into 3 applicable domains of Greenhalgh's conceptual framework for dissemination of innovations, including values of adopters (theme 1), processes of implementation (themes 2 and 3), and post-implementation consequences in care processes (themes 4-10). While key informants believed alcohol use was relevant to health and important to address, the process of implementation (in which no training was provided and electronic clinical reminders "just showed up") did not address critical training and infrastructure needs. Key informants lacked understanding of the goals of screening and brief intervention, believed referral to specialty addictions treatment (as opposed to offering brief intervention) was the only option for following up on a positive screen, reported concern regarding limited availability of treatment resources, and lacked optimism regarding patients' interest in seeking help. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the local process of implementing alcohol screening and brief intervention may have inadequately addressed important adopter needs and thus may have ultimately undermined, instead of capitalized on, staff and providers' belief in the importance of addressing alcohol use as part of primary care. Additional implementation strategies, such as training or academic detailing, may address some unmet needs and help improve the quality of both screening and brief intervention. However, these strategies may be resource-intensive and insufficient for comprehensively addressing implementation barriers.

Factors Underlying Quality Problems with Alcohol Screening Prompted by a Clinical Reminder in Primary Care: A Multi-site Qualitative Study.

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.

An early evaluation of implementation of brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in the US Veterans Health Administration.

AIMS: The US Veterans Health Administration [Veterans Affairs (VA)] used performance measures and electronic clinical reminders to implement brief intervention for unhealthy alcohol use. We evaluated whether documented brief intervention was associated with subsequent changes in drinking during early implementation. DESIGN: Observational, retrospective cohort study using secondary clinical and administrative data. SETTING: Thirty VA facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use [Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C ≥ 5)] in the 6 months after the brief intervention performance measure (n = 22 214) and had follow-up screening 9-15 months later (n = 6210; 28%). MEASUREMENTS: Multi-level logistic regression estimated the adjusted prevalence of resolution of unhealthy alcohol use (follow-up AUDIT-C <5 with ≥2 point reduction) for patients with and without documented brief intervention (documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking). FINDINGS: Among 6210 patients with follow-up alcohol screening, 1751 (28%) had brief intervention and 2922 (47%) resolved unhealthy alcohol use at follow-up. Patients with documented brief intervention were older and more likely to have other substance use disorders, mental health conditions, poor health and more severe unhealthy alcohol use than those without (P-values < 0.05). Adjusted prevalences of resolution were 47% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 42-52%] and 48% (95% CI = 42-54%) for patients with and without documented brief intervention, respectively (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: During early implementation of brief intervention in the US Veterans Health Administration, documented brief intervention was not associated with subsequent changes in drinking among outpatients with unhealthy alcohol use and repeat alcohol screening.

When quality indicators undermine quality: bias in a quality indicator of follow-up for alcohol misuse.

OBJECTIVE: Valid quality indicators are needed to monitor and encourage identification and management of mental health and substance use conditions (behavioral conditions). Because behavioral conditions are frequently underidentified, quality indicators often evaluate the proportion of patients who screen positive for a condition who also have appropriate follow-up care documented. However, these "positive-screen-based" quality indicators of follow-up for behavioral conditions could be biased by differences in the denominator due to differential screening quality ("denominator bias") and could reward identification of fewer patients with the behavioral conditions of interest. This study evaluated denominator bias in the performance of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) networks on a quality indicator of follow-up for alcohol misuse that used the number of patients with positive alcohol screens as the denominator. METHODS: Two quality indicators of follow-up for alcohol misuse--a positive-screen-based quality indicator and a population-based quality indicator-were compared among 21 VHA networks by review of 219,119 medical records. RESULTS: Results for the two quality indicators were inconsistent. For example, two networks performed similarly on the quality indicators (64.7% and 65.4% follow-up) even though one network identified and documented follow-up for almost twice as many patients (5,411 and 2,899 per 100,000 eligible, respectively). Networks that performed better on the positive-screen-based quality indicator identified fewer patients with alcohol misuse than networks that performed better on the population-based quality indicator (mean 4.1% versus 7.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A positive-screen-based quality indicator of follow-up for alcohol misuse preferentially rewarded networks that identified fewer patients with alcohol misuse.

Feedback from recently returned veterans on an anonymous web-based brief alcohol intervention.

BACKGROUND: Veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) are at increased risk for alcohol misuse, and innovative methods are needed to improve their access to alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study adapted an electronic SBI (e-SBI) website shown to be efficacious in college students for OEF/OIF veterans and reported findings from interviews with OEF/OIF veterans about their impressions of the e-SBI. METHODS: Outpatient veterans of OEF/OIF who drank ≥3 days in the past week were recruited from a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Deployment Health Clinic waiting room. Veterans privately pretested the anonymous e-SBI then completed individual semistructured audio-recorded interviews. Their responses were analyzed using template analysis to explore domains identified a priori as well as emergent domains. RESULTS: During interviews, all nine OEF/OIF veterans (1 woman and 8 men) indicated they had received feedback for risky alcohol consumption. Participants generally liked the standard-drinks image, alcohol-related caloric and monetary feedback, and the website's brevity and anonymity (a priori domains). They also experienced challenges with portions of the e-SBI assessment and viewed feedback regarding alcohol risk and normative drinking as problematic, but described potential benefits derived from the e-SBI (emergent domains). The most appealing e-SBIs would ensure anonymity and provide personalized transparent feedback about alcohol-related risk, consideration of the context for drinking, strategies to reduce drinking, and additional resources for veterans with more severe alcohol misuse. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this qualitative exploratory study suggest e-SBI may be an acceptable strategy for increasing OEF/OIF veteran access to evidenced-based alcohol SBI.

Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol screening and brief interventions (BIs) are ranked the third highest US prevention priority, but effective methods of implementing BI into routine care have not been described. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prevalence of documented BI among Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatients with alcohol misuse before, during, and after implementation of a national performance measure (PM) linked to incentives and dissemination of an electronic clinical reminder (CR) for BI. METHODS: VA outpatients were included in this study if they were randomly sampled for national medical record reviews and screened positive for alcohol misuse (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption score ≥5) between July 2006 and September 2008 (N=6788). Consistent with the PM, BI was defined as documented advice to reduce or abstain from drinking plus feedback linking drinking to health. The prevalence of BI was evaluated among outpatients who screened positive for alcohol misuse during 4 successive phases of BI implementation: baseline year (n=3504), after announcement (n=753) and implementation (n=697) of the PM, and after CR dissemination (n=1834), unadjusted and adjusted for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among patients with alcohol misuse, the adjusted prevalence of BI increased significantly over successive phases of BI implementation, from 5.5% (95% CI 4.1%-7.5%), 7.6% (5.6%-10.3%), 19.1% (15.4%-23.7%), to 29.0% (25.0%-33.4%) during the baseline year, after PM announcement, PM implementation, and CR dissemination, respectively (test for trend P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A national PM supported by dissemination of an electronic CR for BI was associated with meaningful increases in the prevalence of documented brief alcohol interventions.

Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.

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.