No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Residents' Experience of SBIRT as a Clinical Tool Following Practical Application: A Mixed Methods Study
Abstract
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 paper investigates the effectiveness of SBIRT training during short-term follow-up at Albany Medical Center, one of the initial SAMHSA grantees.
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 the SBIRT training provided skills that were applicable to their practice. We examined differences in learning experience by post-graduate 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.
Residents remained highly satisfied with the training at four-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.
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.
... 12 The goal of these grants was to train future health care providers to identify and address unhealthy alcohol and drug use through a process known as Screening, Brief Interventions, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), in hopes that they would carry these skills into their future practices. [13][14][15][16][17] Feasibility studies from the early phases of these projects determined that infusing SBIRT curriculum into existing training programs was indeed possible. [13][14][15][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The progress of developing and implementing curricula that yielded changes in resident attitudes and behaviors has been substantial. ...
... 22,25,26 Chart reviews conducted in residency clinics where training had been implemented also demonstrated significant increases in the use of validated screening instruments and the provision of brief interventions. 27 Furthermore, immediately after SBIRT training, 24 at 6 months posttraining 17 and at 12 months posttraining, 25 residents reported increased confidence in use and likelihood of incorporating SBIRT into their clinical practices. To date, however, there has been little effort to determine whether these significant improvements in SBIRT knowledge, skills, and performance during training years translated into the use of SBIRT in postgraduation practices. ...
Background and objectives:
Many residency programs provide alcohol and drug screening, brief intervention (BI), and referral to treatment (SBIRT) training, hoping to impact residents' future practice activities. Little is known about postresidency use of these skills. This study assesses postresidency impact of SBIRT training.
Methods:
Over 3 years, physicians who participated in SBIRT training in four residency programs were recruited for follow-up. Participants chose between a paper and online questionnaire 12-24 months after graduation; participants received $20 gift cards. We first analyzed postresidency responses only (n=74), then compared pre- and posttraining results of those completing both surveys (n=50).
Results:
Of 182 enrolled graduates, 74 (41%) completed questionnaires. In paired comparisons to their pretraining responses, graduates increased endorsement of statements that BIs can reduce risky use and reduced endorsement of statements that they do not have adequate training or time to address patients' alcohol use, or that discussing alcohol use with patients is uncomfortable. While most barriers to providing interventions were endorsed less frequently by SBIRT-trained clinicians in postresidency surveys, ongoing concerns included poor reimbursement, little time, low success rates, and some discomfort with interventions. Seventy percent of graduates felt motivational interviewing techniques created stronger doctor-patient relationships; 16% reported colleagues in their practices had increased SBIRT activities after they joined the practice.
Conclusions:
SBIRT trainees reported high levels of SBIRT activity 12-24 months after graduation and increased SBIRT activities by their colleagues. While some barriers remain, residency training appears to be a promising approach for disseminating SBIRT into clinical practice.
... Eight articles reported on clinical application through the measurement of resident behaviors following the intervention. Self-reported frequency of clinical application was reported in 6 studies, with results generally showing high rates of use of the behavioral skills taught [22,23,25,38,40]. Three studies evaluated independently observed clinical applications. ...
Purpose of Review
Medications for addiction treatment (MAT) are the standard of care for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) and reducing overdose deaths, yet demand for MAT providers has outstripped supply in the USA. Public policy and graduate medical education (GME) leaders have called for increased focus on addiction medicine training for resident physicians to mitigate this provider gap. We sought to characterize the current state of OUD training at the GME level by reviewing published literature on GME educational interventions designed to enhance the care of patients with OUD.
Recent Findings
We identified 31 articles describing 29 unique interventions. The majority of these articles detailed specific, reproducible interventions with outcomes, and tended to focus on training resident physicians in behavioral approaches to treat OUD, rather than MAT. Fewer than half of interventions involved direct patient care.
Summary
MAT training is under-represented within the current landscape of educational interventions, despite MAT being the standard of care for OUD.
Purpose:
To assess the quality of curricular research on the Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) approach and determine the presence of useful training modalities, with an emphasis on the prevalence of motivational interviewing (MI) training, across health care training curricula.
Method:
The authors conducted a systematic review of published, peer-reviewed studies in PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL, Ovid HealthSTAR, and PsycINFO databases through March 2021 for English-language studies describing SBIRT, a curriculum for health care trainees, and curricular intervention outcome. After the records were independently assessed, data were extracted and 20% of the studies were double coded for interrater reliability.
Results:
Of 1,853 studies, 95 were included in the review, including 22 studies having overlapping samples. Interrater reliability ranged from moderate (κ = .74, P < .001) to strong (κ = .91, P < .001) agreement. SBIRT training was delivered to trainees across many professions, including nursing (n = 34, 41%), medical residents (n = 28, 34%), and social work (n = 24, 29%). Nearly every study described SBIRT training methods (n = 79, 95%), and most reported training in MI (n = 54, 65%). On average, studies reported 4.06 (SD = 1.64) different SBIRT training methods and 3.31 (SD = 1.59) MI training methods. Their mean design score was 1.92 (SD = 0.84) and mean measurement score was 1.89 (SD = 1.05). A minority of studies measured SBIRT/MI skill (n = 23, 28%), and 4 studies (5%) set a priori benchmarks for their curricula.
Conclusions:
SBIRT training has been delivered to a wide range of health care trainees and often includes MI. Rigor scores for the studies were generally low due to limited research designs and infrequent use of objective skill measurement. Future work should include predefined training benchmarks and validated skills measurement.
Background:
Screening Brief Intervention Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) was developed as an integrated and comprehensive public health approach that includes early screening and intervention to address substance use in a variety of health care settings. Research suggests that SBIRT is effective in reducing substance use in individuals whose use places them at higher risk for negative health and social consequences. However, less is known about how training in SBIRT modifies attitudes, regard, and beliefs toward people who use substances. Methods: Participants included 461 students from a variety of healthcare related disciplines (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, pharmacy, psychiatry and psychology, and medical students). Participants were evaluated using a pre-post design to assess changes in regard, attitudes, and beliefs by completing the Short Alcohol and Alcohol Problems Perception Questionnaire, the Drug Problem Perception Questionnaire, the Medical Condition Regard Scale, and the Short Understanding of Substance Abuse Scale before and after a 7-hour SBIRT training program. We hypothesized that trainees would have more positive regard, attitudes, and beliefs toward people who use substances following training in SBIRT relative to a baseline assessment and that there would be between program differences. Results: Results were consistent with hypotheses and suggested that trainees had significantly more positive regard and changes in attitudes and beliefs toward working with patients who use substances following training in SBIRT. Results also suggested significant differences by training group at baseline and at 30-day follow up. Conclusions: Overall, the findings suggest that an important additional benefit of SBIRT is the impact it has on mitigating healthcare professional trainees' negative regard and modifying attitudes and beliefs toward those who use substances.
Background:
Many screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) training curricula have been implemented within graduate medical residency training programs, with varying degrees of success. The authors examined the implementation of a uniform, but adaptable, statewide SBIRT curriculum in 7 diverse residency training programs and whether it could improve resident knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding SBIRT and unhealthy alcohol and other drug (AOD) use.
Methods:
The authors assessed the implementation of the Pennsylvania SBIRT Medical and Residency Training (SMaRT) curriculum at 7 residency sites training a variety of disciplines. Faculty could use a variety of training modalities, including (1) Web-based self-directed modules; (2) didactic lectures; (3) small-group sessions; and/or (4) skill-transfer interactions with standardized or real patients in preceptor-led encounters. Acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding SBIRT and unhealthy AOD use-associated patient care were assessed via a pre- and post-survey instrument with 4 domains: Resident Knowledge, Resident Competence, Resident Skills and Attitudes (Alcohol), and Resident Skills and Attitudes (Drug). Responses to the pre- and post-surveys (N = 365) were compared and analyzed with t tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
Results:
The diverse modalities allowed each of the residency programs to adapt and implement the SMaRT curriculum based on their needs and environments. Residents' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding SBIRT and working with unhealthy AOD use, as assessed by survey, generally improved after completing the SMaRT curriculum, despite the variety of models used. Specifically, Resident Knowledge and Resident Competence domains significantly improved (P < .000). Residents improved the least for survey items within the Resident Skills and Attitudes (Alcohol) domain.
Conclusions:
Adaptable curricula, such as SMaRT, may be a viable step towards developing a nationwide curriculum.
Background:
Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a practical means to address substance misuse in primary care. Important barriers to implementing SBIRT include adequacy of training and provider confidence as well as logistical hurdles and time constraints. A faculty development initiative aimed at increasing SBIRT knowledge and treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs) should lead to increased use of SBIRT by faculty and the residents they teach. This study examined how a faculty development program to promote SBIRT influenced faculty practice and resident teaching.
Methods:
This was a cross-sectional study of faculty exposed to multiple SBIRT educational interventions over a five-year period in an academic resident-faculty general medicine practice. Participants completed a brief online survey followed by a semi-structured interview. Quantitative responses were examined descriptively. Qualitative questions were reviewed to identify key themes.
Results:
Fifteen of 29 faculty (52%) completed the survey and 13 (45%) completed the interviews regarding faculty development interventions. Faculty thought that SBIRT was an important skill and had confidence in screening for substance use disorders, though confidence in making treatment referrals and prescribing pharmacotherapy were rated lower. Many faculty reported screening more frequently for SUDs after attending faculty development sessions. However, several reported that the training did not improve their SBIRT teaching to residents during clinic precepting sessions. To improve uptake of SBIRT, a majority of faculty recommended electronic health record (EHR) alerts.
Conclusions:
SBIRT is a highly valued set of skills and training may enhance rates of screening for substance misuse. However, participants did not report a substantial change in SBIRT teaching as a result of faculty development. In the future, small targeted faculty development sessions, potentially involving strategies for using the EHR, may be an effective way to enhance primary care SBIRT skills.
Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment is a quick, effective technique with which to manage substance use in adolescents and young adults. Use of a validated measure for detecting substance use and abuse is significantly more effective than unvalidated tools or provider intuition. There are a variety of validated tools available to use in the adolescent/young adult population, and there are opportunities to increase the efficiency and scalability of screening by using computerized questionnaires. This area continues to evolve rapidly.
AIMS: This study aims to determine the impact of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral for Treatment (SBIRT) in reducing alcohol consumption in emergency department (ED) patients at 3, 6, and 12 months following exposure to the intervention.
METHODS: Patients drinking above the low-risk limits (at-risk to dependence), as defined by National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), were recruited from 14 sites nationwide from April to August 2004. A quasi-experimental comparison group design included sequential recruitment of intervention and control patients at each site. Control patients received a written handout. The Intervention group received the handout and participated in a brief negotiated interview with direct referral for treatment if indicated. Follow-up surveys were conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months by telephone using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system.
RESULTS: Of the 1132 eligible patients consented and enrolled (581 control, 551 intervention), 699 (63%), 575 (52%) and 433 (38%) completed follow-up surveys via IVR at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Regression analysis adjusting for the clustered sampling design and using multiple imputation procedures to account for subject attrition revealed that those receiving SBIRT reported roughly three drinks less per week than controls (B = -3.00, SE = 1.06, P < 0.05) and the level of maximum drinks per occasion was approximately three-fourths of a drink less than controls (B = -0.76, SE = 0.29, P < 0.05) at 3 months. At 6 and 12 months post-intervention, these effects had weakened considerably and were no longer statistically or substantively significant.
CONCLUSION: SBIRT delivered by ED providers appears to have short-term effectiveness in reducing at-risk drinking, but multi-contact interventions or booster programs may be necessary to maintain long-term reductions in risky drinking.
Background: The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Substance Use recommends screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) at every adolescent preventive and all appropriate urgent visits. We designed an SBIRT curriculum as part of the adolescent block of a pediatric residency that combined online modules with an in-person workshop, faculty feedback on resident interactions with patients, and resident self-reflection on their motivational interviewing (MI) skills. Methods: To evaluate the curriculum, we measured resident satisfaction and self-reported confidence in using SBIRT and MI with teens using a retrospective pre/post questionnaire. We used qualitative analysis to evaluate the written comments from faculty observations of patient-trainee interactions and comments from residents' self-reflections on patient interactions. Results: Thirty-two residents completed the curriculum. Residents reported high satisfaction with the training. Comparing retrospective pre/post scores on the survey of resident self-reported confidence, measures increased significantly in all domains, including for both alcohol and other drug use. Regarding self-reported MI skillfulness also increased significantly. Analysis of specific faculty feedback to residents revealed subthemes such as normalizing confidentiality and focusing more on the patient's perspectives on substance use. Resident reflections on their own abilities with SBIRT/MI focused on using the ruler tool and on adapting the MI style of shared decision-making. Conclusions: A curriculum that combines online training, small group practice, clinical observations and self-reflection is valued by residents and can increase resident self-reported confidence in using SBIRT and MI in adolescent encounters. Future studies should examine to what extent confidence predicts performance using standardized measures of MI skillfulness in patient encounters.
Importance
The United States has invested substantially in screening and brief intervention for illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, based in part on evidence of efficacy for unhealthy alcohol use. However, it is not a recommended universal preventive service in primary care because of lack of evidence of efficacy.Objective
To test the efficacy of 2 brief counseling interventions for unhealthy drug use (any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse)—a brief negotiated interview (BNI) and an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV)—compared with no brief intervention.Design, Setting, and Participants
This 3-group randomized trial took place at an urban hospital-based primary care internal medicine practice; 528 adult primary care patients with drug use (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of ≥4) were identified by screening between June 2009 and January 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts.Interventions
Two interventions were tested: the BNI is a 10- to 15-minute structured interview conducted by health educators; the MOTIV is a 30- to 45-minute intervention based on motivational interviewing with a 20- to 30-minute booster conducted by master’s-level counselors. All study participants received a written list of substance use disorder treatment and mutual help resources.Main Outcomes and Measures
Primary outcome was number of days of use in the past 30 days of the self-identified main drug as determined by a validated calendar method at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other self-reported measures of drug use, drug use according to hair testing, ASSIST scores (severity), drug use consequences, unsafe sex, mutual help meeting attendance, and health care utilization.Results
At baseline, 63% of participants reported their main drug was marijuana, 19% cocaine, and 17% opioids. At 6 months, 98% completed follow-up. Mean adjusted number of days using the main drug at 6 months was 12 for no brief intervention vs 11 for the BNI group (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22) and 12 for the MOTIV group (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.84-1.32; P = .81 for both comparisons vs no brief intervention). There were also no significant effects of BNI or MOTIV on any other outcome or in analyses stratified by main drug or drug use severity.Conclusions and Relevance
Brief intervention did not have efficacy for decreasing unhealthy drug use in primary care patients identified by screening. These results do not support widespread implementation of illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse screening and brief intervention.Trial Registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00876941
Importance
Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).Objective
To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, Setting, and Participants
A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.Interventions
Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index–Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.Results
Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, −0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, −0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and Relevance
A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial Registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331
Background:
Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is recommended as part of routine health care for adolescents as well as adults. In an effort to promote universal SBIRT, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awarded funding to residency programs to develop and implement SBIRT education and training. Our project focused on creating scientifically based, developmentally appropriate strategies and teaching materials for the adolescent age range. This paper describes curriculum development and implementation and presents evaluation data.
Methods:
Pediatric and child psychiatry residents were trained. The training consisted of 4 activities: (1) case-based teaching modules, (2) role-play of motivational interviewing and brief interventions, (3) mock interviews with trained adolescents, and (4) supervised "hands-on" screening and brief interventions. Main outcome measures included trainee satisfaction, and SBIRT knowledge, perceived self-efficacy, and self- and observer report of use of the SBIRT algorithm.
Results:
Among 150 total participants completing the SBIRT training modules, nearly all (92.3%) were satisfied/very satisfied with the training modules. Knowledge accuracy immediately post training was high, but declined significantly by the end of the first residency year, with little change across subsequent years of residency. Confidence ratings also declined over time. Use of the SBIRT algorithm during the Adolescent Medicine rotation was high according to trainee self- and faculty observer report.
Conclusions:
We found evidence of training satisfaction, increased confidence in talking to adolescents about substance use, and widespread use of recommended practices immediately following training. Use of a highly structured algorithm to guide practice, and simple, highly structured brief interventions was a successful training approach, as residents self-reported accurate use of the SBIRT algorithm immediately after training. Knowledge and self-confidence declined over time. It is possible that "booster" sessions and ongoing opportunities to review materials could help residents retain knowledge and skills.
The Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) service for unhealthy alcohol use has been shown to be one of the most cost-effective medical preventive services and has been associated with long-term reductions in alcohol use and health care utilization. Recent studies also indicate that SBIRT reduces illicit drug use. In 2008 and 2009, the Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration funded 17 grantees to develop and implement medical residency training programs that teach residents how to provide SBIRT services for individuals with alcohol and drug misuse conditions. This paper presents the curricular activities associated with this initiative.
We used an online survey delivery application (Qualtrics) to e-mail a survey instrument developed by the project directors of 4 SBIRT residency programs to each residency grantee's director. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative data.
All 17 (100%) grantees responded. Respondents encompassed residency programs in emergency medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, psychiatry, surgery, and preventive medicine. Thirteen of 17 (76%) grantee programs used both online and in-person approaches to deliver the curriculum. All 17 grantees incorporated motivational interviewing and validated screening instruments in the curriculum. As of June 2011, 2867 residents had been trained, and project directors reported all residents were incorporating SBIRT into their practices. Consistently mentioned challenges in implementing an SBIRT curriculum included finding time in residents' schedules for the modules and the need for trained faculty to verify resident competence.
The SBIRT initiative has resulted in rapid development of educational programs and a cohort of residents who utilize SBIRT in practice. Skills verification, program dissemination, and sustainability after grant funding ends remain ongoing challenges.
Thematic analysis is a poorly demarcated, rarely acknowledged, yet widely used qualitative analytic method within psychology. In this paper, we argue that it offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data. We outline what thematic analysis is, locating it in relation to other qualitative analytic methods that search for themes or patterns, and in relation to different epistemological and ontological positions. We then provide clear guidelines to those wanting to start thematic analysis, or conduct it in a more deliberate and rigorous way, and consider potential pitfalls in conducting thematic analysis. Finally, we outline the disadvantages and advantages of thematic analysis. We conclude by advocating thematic analysis as a useful and flexible method for qualitative research in and beyond psychology.
Alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI) is recommended for all primary care patients but is underutilized. This project trained 111 residents and faculty in 8 family medicine residencies to conduct SBI and implement SBI protocols in residency clinics, then assessed changes in self-reported importance and confidence in performing SBI and brief intervention (BI) rates. Clinicians reported significant increases in role security, confidence, and ability to help drinkers reduce drinking and decreased importance of factors that might dissuade them from performing SBI. Stage of change measures indicated 37% of clinicians progressed toward action or maintenance in performing SBI; however, numbers of reported BIs did not increase. At all time points, 33% to 36% of clinicians reported BIs with ≥10% of the last 50 patients. Future studies should focus on increasing intervention rates using more patient-centered BI approaches, quality improvement approaches, and systems changes that could increase opportunities for performing BIs.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the integration of a screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) curriculum for alcohol and other drug use into a pediatric residency program. Pediatric and medicine/pediatric residents in an adolescent medicine rotation located in an urban teaching hospital participated in the study. Main outcome measures were pre- and post-training knowledge scores, performance of the Brief Negotiation Interview (BNI), training satisfaction, and adoption of the BNI into clinical practice. Thirty-four residents were trained. Significant pre- to post-training improvements were seen in knowledge scores (P < .001) and performance as measured by the BNI Adherence Scale (P < .001). Residents reported high satisfaction immediately post-training and at 30 days on a 1-5 Likert scale: mean 1.41 to 1.59 (1 = very satisfied) (P = 0.23). Over a 9-month period, 53% of residents documented performing at least 1 BNI, of which 2/3 reported ≥2 BNIs in a subsequent clinical setting. The results show that integrating a SBIRT curriculum into a pediatric residency program increases residents' knowledge and skills.
The purpose of this study was to elucidate changes in attitudes, experiences, readiness, and confidence levels of medical residents to perform screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) and factors that moderate these changes.
A cohort of 121 medical residents received an educational intervention. Self-reported experience, readiness, attitude, and confidence toward SBIRT-related skills were measured at baseline and at follow-up. Analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of medical specialization.
The intervention significantly increased experience (P<.001), attitude (P<.05), readiness (P<.001), and confidence (P<.001). Residents were more likely to report that their involvement influenced patients' substance use. However, experience applying SBIRT skills varied by country of birth, specialty, and baseline scores.
This study suggested that SBIRT training was an effective educational tool that increased residents' sense of responsibility. However, application of skills might differ by specialization and other variables. Future studies are needed to explore and evaluate SBIRT knowledge obtained, within the context of cultural awareness and clinical skills.
The authors sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of initiating a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol and other drug use curriculum across multiple residency programs. SBIRT project faculty in the internal medicine (traditional, primary care internal medicine, medicine/pediatrics), psychiatry, obstetrics and gynecology, emergency medicine, and pediatrics programs were trained in performing and teaching SBIRT. The SBIRT project faculty trained the residents in their respective disciplines, accommodating discipline-specific implementation issues and developed a SBIRT training Web site. Post-training, residents were observed performing SBIRT with a standardized patient. Measurements included number of residents trained, performance of SBIRT in clinical practice, and training satisfaction. One hundred and ninety-nine residents were trained in SBIRT: 98 internal medicine, 35 psychiatry, 18 obstetrics and gynecology, 21 emergency medicine, and 27 pediatrics residents. To date, 338 self-reported SBIRT clinical encounters have occurred. Of the 196 satisfaction surveys completed, the mean satisfaction score for the training was 1.60 (1 = very satisfied to 5 = very dissatisfied). Standardized patient sessions with SBIRT project faculty supervision were the most positive aspect of the training and length of training was a noted weakness. Implementation of a graduate medical education SBIRT curriculum in a multispecialty format is feasible and acceptable. Future efforts focusing on evaluation of resident SBIRT performance and sustainability of SBIRT are needed.
To see whether the stages of change are useful for targeting a brief intervention to reduce smoking based on implementation intentions. A second objective was to rule out demand characteristics as an alternative explanation for the findings of intervention studies based on the transtheoretical model and implementation intentions.
Participants (N = 350) were randomized to a passive control condition (questionnaire only), active control condition (questionnaire plus instruction to plan to quit), or experimental condition (questionnaire, plan to quit, form an implementation intention). Their behavior and psychosocial orientation to quit were measured at baseline and at 2-month follow-up.
Theory of planned behavior variables, nicotine dependence, and quitting.
Significantly more people quit smoking in the experimental condition than in the control conditions, and the planning instructions changed intention to quit and perceived control over quitting, but not behavior. Stage of change moderated these effects such that implementation intentions worked best for individuals who were in the preparation stage at baseline.
Harnessing both motivational and volitional processes seems to enhance the effectiveness of smoking cessation programs, although further work is required to clarify inconsistencies in the literature using the stages of change.
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.
Training outcomes were measured across three domains of learning: trainee satisfaction, acquired knowledge, and perceived usefulness. We explored differences in learning experience by post-graduate year and by specialty.
Overall, residents were highly satisfied with the training, and learning outcomes met objectives. Residents' ratings of usefulness did not vary by program year. However, our results indicate that relative to residents in other programs, residents in Psychiatry and Pediatrics found the training components significantly more useful, while 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.
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.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the impact of a screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment (SBIRT) program in reducing alcohol consumption among emergency department (ED) patients.
METHODS: Patients drinking above National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism low-risk guidelines were recruited from 14 sites nationwide from April to August 2004. A quasiexperimental comparison group design was used in which control and intervention patients were recruited sequentially at each site. Control patients received a written handout. The intervention group received the handout and a brief intervention, the Brief Negotiated Interview, to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. Follow-up surveys were conducted at 3 months by telephone using an interactive voice response system.
RESULTS: Of 7,751 patients screened, 2,051 (26%) exceeded the low-risk limits set by National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1,132 (55%) of eligible patients consented and were enrolled (581 control, 551 intervention). Six hundred ninety-nine (62%) completed a 3-month follow-up survey, using the interactive voice response system. At follow-up, patients receiving a Brief Negotiated Interview reported consuming 3.25 fewer drinks per week than controls (coefficient [B] -3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.76 to -0.75), and the maximum number of drinks per occasion among those receiving Brief Negotiated Interview was almost three quarters of a drink less than controls (B -0.72; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.02). At-risk drinkers (CAGE 2). At 3-month follow-up, 37.2% of patients with CAGE less than 2 in the intervention group no longer exceeded National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism low-risk limits compared with 18.6% in the control group (delta 18.6%; 95% CI 11.5% to 25.6%).
CONCLUSION: SBIRT appears effective in the ED setting for reducing unhealthy drinking at 3 months.
Background:
Resident physicians are the direct care providers for many patients with addiction. This study assesses residents' self-perceived preparedness to diagnose and treat addiction, measures residents' perceptions of the quality of addictions instruction, and evaluates basic knowledge of addictions.
Methods:
A survey was e-mailed to 184 internal medicine residents at Massachusetts General Hospital in May 2012.
Results:
Responses were obtained from 55% of residents. Residents estimated that 26% of inpatients they cared for met criteria for a substance use disorder (SUD). Twenty-five percent of residents felt unprepared to diagnose and 62% felt unprepared to treat addiction. Only 13% felt very prepared to diagnose addiction. No residents felt very prepared to treat addiction. Preparedness to diagnose or treat addiction did not differ significantly across postgraduate year (PGY) level. Fifty-five percent rated the overall instruction in addictions as poor or fair. Seventy-two percent of residents rated the quality of addictions training as poor or fair in the outpatient clinical setting, and 56% in the inpatient setting. No resident answered all 6 knowledge questions correctly. Slightly more than half correctly identified the mechanism of buprenorphine and 19% correctly answered a question about naltrexone. Nine percent of residents responded that someone had expressed concern about the respondent's substance use.
Conclusions:
Despite providing care for a substantial population with addiction, the majority of internal medicine residents in this study feel unprepared to treat SUDs. More than half rate the quality of addictions instruction as fair or poor. Structured and comprehensive addictions curriculum and faculty development are needed to address the deficiencies of the current training system.
In order to successfully integrate screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into primary care, education of clinicians must be paired with sustainable transformation of the clinical settings in which they practice. The SBIRT Oregon project adopted this strategy in an effort to fully integrate SBIRT into 7 primary care residency clinics. Residents were trained to assess and intervene in their patients' unhealthy substance use, whereas clinic staff personnel were trained to carry out a multistep screening process. Electronic medical record tools were created to further integrate and track SBIRT processes. This article describes how a resident training curriculum complemented and was informed by the transformation of workflow processes within the residents' home clinics.
Background:
The Baylor College of Medicine SBIRT Medical Residency Training Program is a multilevel project that trains residents and faculty in evidenced-based screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment methods for alcohol and substance use problems.
Methods:
This paper describes the training program created for pediatric residents and provides an evaluation of the program. Ninety-five first-year pediatric residents participated in the training program. They were assessed on satisfaction with the program, self-rated skills, observed competency, and implementation into clinical practice.
Results:
The program was successfully incorporated into the residency curricula in two pediatric residencies. Evaluations indicate a high degree of satisfaction with the program, self-reported improvement in SBIRT skills, observed proficiency in SBIRT skills, and utilization of SBIRT skills in clinical practice.
Conclusions:
SBIRT skills training can be incorporated into pediatric residency training, and residents are able to learn and implement the skills in clinical practice.
The objective was to evaluate the effects of Project Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services Education and Referral to Treatment (ASSERT), an emergency department (ED)-based screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment program for unhealthy alcohol and other drug use.
Health promotion advocates (HPAs) screened ED patients for alcohol and/or drug problems 7 days a week using questions embedded in a general health questionnaire. Patients with unhealthy drinking and/or drug use received a brief negotiation interview (BNI), with the goal of reducing alcohol/drug use and/or accepting a referral to a specialized treatment facility (STF), depending on severity of use. Patients referred to an STF were followed up at 1 month by phone or contact with the STF to determine referral completion and enrollment into the treatment program.
Over a 5-year period (December 1999 through December 2004), 22,534 adult ED patients were screened. A total of 10,246 (45.5%) reported alcohol consumption in the past 30 days, of whom 5,533 (54%) exceeded the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) guidelines for low-risk drinking. Use of at least one illicit drug was reported by 3,530 patients (15.7%). Over one-fourth of screened patients received BNIs (6,266, or 27.8%). Of these, 3,968 (63%) were referred to an STF. Eighty-three percent of patients were followed at 1 month, and 2,159 (65%) had enrolled in a program. Patients who received a direct admission to an STF were 30 times more likely to enroll than those who were indirectly referred (odds ratio = 30.71; 95% confidence interval = 18.48 to 51.04). After 3 years, funding for Project ASSERT was fully incorporated into the ED budget.
Project ASSERT has been successfully integrated into an urban ED. A direct, facilitated referral for patients with alcohol and other drug problems results in a high rate of enrollment in treatment programs.
To compare the self-reported confidence and clinical behaviors of primary care residents in treating alcoholism versus hypertension.
Eighty-five residents, 36 in family medicine and 49 in primary care internal medicine, representing all years of the three-year training programs at two hospitals affiliated with the Brown University School of Medicine, were surveyed in 1988. Self-report questionnaires elicited demographic data and several responses (ranged on scales of 1, not confident or frequent, to 10, very confident or frequent) about the residents' confidence and frequency of use of clinical behaviors with both alcoholic and hypertensive patients. Paired t-tests were used to compare the responses about hypertension with those about alcoholism.
Questionnaires were completed by 54 (63.5%) of the residents. No significant difference was found between the residents' responses by sex or program, but there was a significant difference (p < .0001) between the responses with regard to the two disorders. The residents had more confidence about their management of hypertension (a mean score of 8.81 versus 7.95 for alcoholism). They also reported greater use of appropriate clinical behaviors with hypertensive patients (mean scores in the very confident range of 7.5 to 8.2 compared with means in the moderate range of 4.9 to 7.1 for alcoholism).
Both the family medicine and the internal medicine residents were significantly more confident in managing all aspects of hypertension than in managing alcoholism, and they reported significantly greater frequency in utilizing appropriate clinical behaviors for hypertension than for alcoholism.
To systematically review the medical literature in order to determine the strength of the recommendation for screening and brief intervention (SBI) for alcohol-related problems in the emergency department (ED) setting.
The review followed the methodology of systematic reviews and was facilitated through the use of a structured template, a companion explanatory piece, and a grading and methodological scoring system based on published criteria for critical appraisal. The primary outcome measure was the prevention of mortality and morbidity secondary to alcohol-related illnesses/injuries. The secondary outcome measures included: decreased consumption; fewer ED/outpatient visits and hospitalizations; a decrease in social consequences; and increased referrals for follow-up and/or treatment. Three Medline searches as well as a search of the Cochrane Library were performed. Two team members reviewed the abstracts and selected pertinent articles. References were screened for additional pertinent articles.
Twenty-seven articles were identified and reviewed, in addition to the 14 primary articles included in the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Report. The study populations were diverse, including inpatient, outpatient, and college settings, with ages ranging from 12 to 70 years. Four studies were ED-based and two included EDs as one of multiple sites. Thirty-nine studies on SBI, 30 randomized controlled and nine cohort, were used to formulate the current recommendation. A positive effect of the intervention was demonstrated in 32 of these studies.
The authors recommend that SBI for alcohol-related problems in the ED be incorporated into clinical practice.
To determine if brief alcohol interventions in trauma centers reduce health care costs.
Alcohol-use disorders are the leading cause of injury. Brief interventions in trauma patients reduce subsequent alcohol intake and injury recidivism but have not yet been widely implemented.
This was a cost-benefit analysis. The study population consisted of injured patients treated in an emergency department or admitted to a hospital. The analysis was restricted to direct injury-related medical costs only so that it would be most meaningful to hospitals, insurers, and government agencies responsible for health care costs. Underlying assumptions used to arrive at future benefits, including costs, injury rates, and intervention effectiveness, were derived from published nationwide databases, epidemiologic, and clinical trial data. Model parameters were examined with 1-way sensitivity analyses, and the cost-benefit ratio was calculated. Monte Carlo analysis was used to determine the strategy-selection confidence intervals.
An estimated 27% of all injured adult patients are candidates for a brief alcohol intervention. The net cost savings of the intervention was 89 US dollars per patient screened, or 330 US dollars for each patient offered an intervention. The benefit in reduced health expenditures resulted in savings of 3.81 US dollars for every 1.00 US dollar spent on screening and intervention. This finding was robust to various assumptions regarding probability of accepting an intervention, cost of screening and intervention, and risk of injury recidivism. Monte Carlo simulations found that offering a brief intervention would save health care costs in 91.5% of simulated runs. If interventions were routinely offered to eligible injured adult patients nationwide, the potential net savings could approach 1.82 billion US dollars annually.
Screening and brief intervention for alcohol problems in trauma patients is cost-effective and should be routinely implemented.
This article examines 14 studies that assessed the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) delivered to injury patients in emergency care settings. The aims were to review findings concerning the effectiveness of providing BI in these settings and to explore factors contributing to its effectiveness. Of the 12 studies that compared pre- and post-BI results, 11 observed a significant effect of BI on at least some of the outcomes: alcohol intake, risky drinking practices, alcohol-related negative consequences, and injury frequency. Two studies assessed only post-BI results. More intensive interventions tended to yield more favorable results. BI patients achieved greater reductions than control group patients, although there was a tendency for the control group(s) to also show improvements. Five studies failed to show significant differences between the compared treatment conditions. Variations in the study protocol, alcohol-related recruitment criteria, screening and assessment methods, and injury severity limit the specific conclusions that can be drawn.