Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.

Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D), Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System, 1100 Olive Way, Suite 1400, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 03/2011; 26(3):299-306. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1509-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
Cross sectional.
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).
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).
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.
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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Alcohol use is a significant part of a patient's history, but details about consumption are not always documented. Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems have the potential to improve assessment of alcohol use and misuse; however, a challenge is that critical information may be primarily in free-text rather than in a structured and standardized format, thereby limiting its use. Objective: To characterize the use and contents of free-text documentation for alcohol use in the social history module of an EHR. Methods: This study involved a retrospective analysis of 500 alcohol use entries that include structured fields as well as a free-text comment field. Two coding schemes were developed and used to analyze these entries for: (1) quantifying the reasons for using free-text comments and (2) categorizing information in the free-text into separate elements. In addition, for entries indicating possible alcohol misuse, a preliminary review of other structured parts of the EHR was conducted to determine if this was also documented elsewhere. Results: The top three reasons for using free-text were limited ability to describe alcohol use frequency (75%), amount (22%), and status (18%) with available structured fields. Within the free-text, descriptions of frequency were most common (79%) using words or phrases conveying occasional (61%), daily (13%), or weekly (12%) use. Of the 36 cases suggesting alcohol misuse, 44% had mention of alcohol problems in the problem list or past medical history. Conclusions: Based on the early findings, implications for improving the structured collection and use of alcohol use information in the EHR are provided in four areas: (1) system enhancements, (2) user training, (3) decision support, and (4) standards. Next steps include examining how alcohol use is documented in other parts of the EHR (e. g., clinical notes) and how documentation practices vary based on patient, provider, and clinic characteristics.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(2):402-15. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2013-12-RA-0101 · 0.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The time required to conduct drug and alcohol screening has been a major barrier to its implementation in mainstream healthcare settings. Because patient self-administered tools are potentially more efficient, we translated the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) into an audio guided computer assisted self interview (ACASI) format. This study reports on the test-retest reliability of the ACASI ASSIST in an adult primary care population. Adult primary care patients completed the ACASI ASSIST, in English or Spanish, twice within a 1–4 week period. Among the 101 participants, there were no significant differences between test administrations in detecting moderate to high risk use for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug class. Substance risk scores from the two administrations had excellent concordance (90-98%) and high correlation (ICC 0.90-0.97) for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The ACASI ASSIST has good test-retest reliability, and warrants additional study to evaluate its validity for detecting unhealthy substance use.
    Journal of substance abuse treatment 07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2014.01.007 · 2.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Routine screening for unhealthy alcohol use is widely recommended in primary care settings. However, the validity of repeat screening among patients who have previously screened negative remains unknown. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a clinical alcohol screen compared to a confidential comparison alcohol screen among patients with previous negative alcohol screens. Methods: This study included four nested samples of Veteran Health Administration (VA) outpatients with at least one (N=18,493) and up to four (N=714) prior negative annual clinical AUDIT-C screens who completed the AUDIT-C the following year, both in a VA clinic (clinical screen) and on a confidential mailed survey (comparison screen). AUDIT-C screens were categorized as either negative (0-3 points men; 0-2 women) or positive (>= 4 men; >= 3 women). For each sample, the performance of the clinical screen was compared to the comparison screen, the reference measure for unhealthy alcohol use. Results: The sensitivity of clinical screens decreased as the number of prior negative screens in a sample increased (40.0-17.4%) for patients with 1-4 negative screens. The positive predictive value also decreased as the number of prior negative screens in a sample increased (67.7-33.3%) while specificity was consistently high for all samples (>= 97.8%). Conclusions: Repeat clinical alcohol screens became progressively less sensitive for identifying unhealthy alcohol use among patients who repeatedly screened negative over several years. Alternative approaches for assessing unhealthy alcohol use may be needed for these patients. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 06/2014; 142. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.06.017 · 3.28 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014