Organizational Capacity to Address Co-occurring Substance Use and Psychiatric Disorders: Assessing Variation by Level of Care

From the Department of Psychiatry (CL-H, MPM), Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center (ECS), and Department of Community and Family Medicine (HX), Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH.
Journal of Addiction Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.76). 11/2012; 7(1). DOI: 10.1097/ADM.0b013e318276e7a4
Source: PubMed


There is widespread recognition that services to persons with co-occurring substance use and psychiatric disorders should be accessible, yet most persons with these disorders do not receive care for both problems. Estimates of available services vary widely and have not examined potential variation by level of care.

The present study samples 180 community addiction treatment programs and utilizes a standardized observational assessment of these programs using the dual diagnosis capability of addiction treatment (DDCAT) index. By level of care, the sample consisted of 53 outpatient programs, 50 intensive outpatient programs, and 77 residential programs.

Overall, approximately 81.1% of programs across levels of care offered addiction-only services, 18.3% dual diagnosis capable services, and less than 1% dual diagnosis enhanced services. Relative to residential and intensive outpatient programs, outpatient programs were more likely to have greater dual diagnosis capability (dual diagnosis capable services). Outpatient programs scored significantly higher on the DDCAT dimensions associated with program policies and continuity of care. Specific DDCAT benchmark items revealing detailed differences were found in these dimensions and specific assessment and treatment practices. Access to physician-prescriber or to psychotropic medications did not differ by level of care.

The findings suggest that across levels of care, addiction-treatment systems and programs must continue to improve capacity for patients with co-occurring disorders. The application of a standardized, objective, and observational instrument may be useful to guide and measure the effectiveness of these efforts.

3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To determine mental health service utilization patterns among women treated for substance use disorders (SUD) and identify factors associated with patterns of high mental health service use. Methods: Data were provided by 4,447 women treated for SUD in California during 2000-2002 for whom mental health services utilization records were acquired. A latent class model was fitted to women’s high use of services (>6 services/year over 8 years). Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with utilization patterns. Results: In 8 years after initiating SUD treatment, 50% of women utilized mental health services. High use probability was consistently low for most women (76.9%); for others, however, it decreased immediately following SUD treatment and then increased over time (9.3%), increased immediately following SUD treatment and then decreased (8.7%), or remained consistently high (5.1%). Consistently high services use was negatively associated with marriage (OR 0.60, p<0.05) and employment (OR 0.53, p<0.05) and positively associated with older age (OR 1.04, p<0.001), homelessness (OR 1.68, p<0.05), public assistance (OR 1.76, p<0.01), outpatient SUD treatment (OR 3.69, p<0.01), longer SUD treatment retention (OR 1.00, p<0.01), treatment desire (ORs 1.46, p<0.001), and co-occurring disorder diagnosis (ORs 2.89-44.93, p<0.001). Up to 29% of women with co-occurring mental health disorders at SUD treatment entry did not receive any mental health treatment in the subsequent 8 years. Conclusions: Mental health services utilization patterns among women treated for SUD are hetereogeneous and dynamic. Understanding factors related to women’s utilization patterns may aid efforts to optimize care and ensure appropriate use of mental health services. Full text is online at
    Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 08/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.06.021 · 3.14 Impact Factor