Dataset Information

Implementing SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) in primary care: lessons learned from a multi-practice evaluation portfolio.

ABSTRACT: Background:Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary care offices geared toward frontline providers and office staff. Methods:Ten primary care practices were awarded small community grants to implement an SBIRT program in their location. Each practice chose the conditions for which they would screen, the screening tools, and how they would provide brief intervention and referral to treatment within their setting. An evaluation team communicated with each practice throughout the process, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to SBIRT success. Using the editing method, the qualitative data were analyzed and key strategies for success are detailed for implementing SBIRT in primary care. Results:The SBIRT program practices included primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, school-based health centers, and a safety-net emergency department. Conditions screened for included alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, anxiety, child safety, and tobacco use. Across practices, 49,964 patients were eligible for screening and 36,394 pre-screens and 21,635 full screens were completed. From the qualitative data, eight best practices for primary care SBIRT are described: Have a practice champion; Utilize an interprofessional team; Define and communicate the details of each SBIRT step; Develop relationships with referral partners; Institute ongoing SBIRT training; Align SBIRT with the primary care office flow; Consider using a pre-screening instrument, when available; and Integrate SBIRT into the electronic health record. Conclusions and implications:SBIRT is an effective tool that can empower primary care providers to identify and treat patients with substance use and mental health problems before costly symptoms emerge. Using the pragmatic best practices we describe, primary care providers may improve their ability to successfully create, implement, and sustain SBIRT in their practices.

SUBMITTER: Hargraves D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5809898 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) in primary care: lessons learned from a multi-practice evaluation portfolio.

Hargraves Daniel D White Christopher C Frederick Rachel R Cinibulk Margaret M Peters Meriden M Young Ashlee A Elder Nancy N

Public health reviews 20171229

<h4>Background</h4>Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a public health framework approach used to identify and deliver services to those at risk for substance-use disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. Primary care is the first entry to the healthcare system for many patients, and SBIRT offers potential to identify these patients early and assist in their treatment. There is a need for pragmatic "best practices" for implementing SBIRT in primary ...[more]

PMID: 29450101

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDrug overdose has become a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Between 2000 and 2015, the rate of deaths from drug overdoses increased 137%, including a 200% increase in the rate of overdose deaths involving opioids (including opioid pain relievers and heroin). Unnecessary opioid prescribing is one of the factors driving this epidemic.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this paper is to share lessons learned while conducting a randomized trial to de-implement opioids for post-extraction pain management utilizing clinical decision support (CDS) with and without patient education. The lessons learned from conducting this trial in a real-world setting can be applied to future dissemination and implementation oral health research.MethodsThe sources informing lessons learned were generated from qualitative interviews conducted with 20 of the forty-nine dental providers involved in the study following the implementation phase of the trial. Ongoing policy, social and environmental factors were tracked throughout the study.ResultsDental providers in the trial identified the impact of training that involved health professionals sharing information about the personal impact of pain and opioid use. Additionally, they found utility in being presented with a dashboard detailing their prescribing patterns related to other dentists. For the 30 general dentists with access to the CDS, use of its portal varied widely, with most using it 10%-49% of the time related to extractions.ConclusionsIn the context of a downward trend in opioid prescribing and considering the influence of the COVID pandemic during the trial, dental providers indicated benefit in training about negative personal impacts of prescribing opioids, and personally relevant feedback about their prescribing patterns. Only modest use of the CDS was realized. Implementation of this trial was impacted by governmental and health system policies and the COVID pandemic, prompt the consideration of implications regarding continuing ways to limit opioid prescribing among dental providers.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is a leading cause of disability worldwide. African American adults, compared to White adults, are half as likely to be screened for depression in primary care settings. Disparities in depression screening contribute to poor clinical outcomes, as African Americans with depression are more disabled and sicker longer compared to Whites. African American churches are trusted settings that provide access to supports for depression. Indeed, in the first study of its kind, the investigators found that 20% of adults in African American churches screened positive for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). However, no subjects with a positive screen (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) accepted a treatment referral when offered by research personnel. Community Health Workers, who are trusted paraprofessionals from the target community, may bridge the gap between depression screening and treatment. The investigators have trained and certified 112 Community Health Workers from 45 African American churches in New York City to deliver an evidence-based intervention called Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Thus, the aim of the current study is to test the impact of Community Health Worker-delivered depression screening in Black churches on engagement with clinical services.MethodsUsing a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, we propose a 2-arm, mixed-methods cluster randomized controlled trial. Church study sites will be randomized to either SBIRT (intervention arm) or referral as usual (usual care arm). This trial will be conducted with 600 church members across 30 churches (300 intervention; 300 usual care). Our primary outcome is treatment engagement, defined as attending a depression-related clinical visit. Secondary outcomes will be changes in Mental Health-Related Quality of Life and depressive symptoms at 3 and 6 months post-screening. Lastly, we will conduct a concurrent, mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) process evaluation to assess contextual facilitators and barriers of screening and referral.DiscussionThis is the first randomized trial of a church-placed, community health worker-delivered intervention for depression in African American populations. This study may provide a novel and effective approach to increasing depression identification and treatment linkage in economically disadvantaged populations with high depression rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04524767 . Registered on 21 August 2020.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice.MethodsData from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence.ResultsThe Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy.ConclusionsReal-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Project description:BackgroundFew patients with lower bowel symptoms who consult their general practitioner need a specialist opinion. However data from referred patients suggest that those who are referred would benefit from detailed assessment before referral.MethodsA cluster randomised factorial trial. 44 general practices in North Trent, UK. Practices were offered either an electronic interactive referral pro forma, an educational outreach visit by a local colorectal surgeon, both or neither. The main outcome measure was the proportion of cases with severe diverticular disease, cancer or precancerous lesions and inflammatory bowel disease in those referred by each group. A secondary outcome was a referral letter quality score. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify key themes relating to the use of the softwareResultsFrom 150 invitations, 44 practices were recruited with a total list size of 265,707. There were 716 consecutive referrals recorded over a six-month period, for which a diagnosis was available for 514. In the combined software arms 14% (37/261) had significant pathology, compared with 19% (49/253) in the non-software arms, relative risk 0.73 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.15). In the combined educational outreach arms 15% (38/258) had significant pathology compared with 19% (48/256) in the non-educational arms, relative risk 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.24). Pro forma practices documented better assessment of patients at referral.ConclusionThere was a lack of evidence that either intervention increased the proportion of patients with organic pathology among those referred. The interactive software did improve the amount of information relayed in referral letters although we were unable to confirm if this made a significant difference to patients or their health care providers. The potential value of either intervention may have been diminished by their limited uptake within the context of a cluster randomised clinical trial. A number of lessons were learned in this trial of novel innovations.

Project description:Aim This project evaluated the effectiveness of screening brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) in primary care in Abu Dhabi to manage patients with problematic substance use. This study aimed to determine whether: (i) training primary care physicians on the SBIRT model increased the identification of patients using substances at a harmful, hazardous or dependent level; (ii) training improved physicians' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs in self-efficacy in managing substance use.BackgroundSubstance use is increasing in the United Arab Emirates yet there has been no formal primary care intervention. SBIRT was considered an appropriate model given its endorsement by the WHO.MethodsA controlled trial (two intervention and two matched control clinics) was undertaken. Intervention physicians (n=17) were trained in SBIRT. Physicians' attitudes were measured before and after training and eight months after implementation. Target recruitment was 900 patients. Inclusion criteria were: consenting UAE national, ⩾18 years, using the 'walk-in' primary care clinic. Patient data was collected by physician-administered questionnaire. Prevalence of drug use was measured through electronic patient records. Findings A total of 906 patients were screened, aged 18-82 years and 496 (55%) were female. Of these, 5.7% reported use of amphetamine, 3.9% alcohol, 3.3%, sedatives, 1.7% opioids and 1.1% cannabis. In all, 21 people had a moderate/high ASSIST score and received a brief intervention, but did not attend follow-up; three high-risk people were referred for specialist treatment. Physicians' attitudes towards patients with problematic substance use and providing treatment improved after training, but returned to pre-training levels after eight months. Including the 21 individuals identified from intervention screening, the prevalence of substance use increased to 0.208% (95% CI 0.154-0.274), significantly higher than in control clinics (P<0.001). In conclusion, physicians were generally positive towards SBIRT and SBIRT increased recorded drug related conditions at a practice level. However, poor patient attendance at follow-up requires investigation.

Dataset Information

Implementing SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) in primary care: lessons learned from a multi-practice evaluation portfolio.

Publications

Implementing SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) in primary care: lessons learned from a multi-practice evaluation portfolio.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets