28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of screening and brief intervention training on resident and faculty alcohol intervention behaviours: a pre- post-intervention assessment

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Many hazardous and harmful drinkers do not receive clinician advice to reduce their drinking. Previous studies suggest under-detection and clinician reluctance to intervene despite awareness of problem drinking (PD). The Healthy Habits Project previously reported chart review data documenting increased screening and intervention with hazardous and harmful drinkers after training clinicians and implementing routine screening. This report describes the impact of the Healthy Habits training program on clinicians' rates of identification of PD, level of certainty in identifying PD and the proportion of patients given advice to reduce alcohol use, based on self-report data using clinician exit questionnaires.

          Methods

          28 residents and 10 faculty in a family medicine residency clinic completed four cycles of clinician exit interview questionnaires before and after screening and intervention training. Rates of identifying PD, level of diagnostic certainty, and frequency of advice to reduce drinking were compared across intervention status (pre vs. post). Findings were compared with rates of PD and advice to reduce drinking documented on chart review.

          Results

          1,052 clinician exit questionnaires were collected. There were no significant differences in rates of PD identified before and after intervention (9.8% vs. 7.4%, p = .308). Faculty demonstrated greater certainty in PD diagnoses than residents (p = .028) and gave more advice to reduce drinking (p = .042) throughout the program. Faculty and residents reported higher levels of diagnostic certainty after training (p = .039 and .030, respectively). After training, residents showed greater increases than faculty in the percentage of patients given advice to reduce drinking (p = .038), and patients felt to be problem drinkers were significantly more likely to receive advice to reduce drinking by all clinicians (50% vs. 75%, p = .047). The number of patients receiving advice to reduce drinking after program implementation exceeded the number of patients felt to be problem drinkers. Recognition rates of PD were four to eight times higher than rates documented on chart review (p = .028).

          Conclusion

          This program resulted in greater clinician certainty in diagnosing PD and increases in the number of patients with PD who received advice to reduce drinking. Future programs should include booster training sessions and emphasize documentation of PD and brief intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a meta-analytic review of controlled investigations in treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking populations.

          Brief interventions for alcohol use disorders have been the focus of considerable research. In this meta-analytic review, we considered studies comparing brief interventions with either control or extended treatment conditions. We calculated the effect sizes for multiple drinking-related outcomes at multiple follow-up points, and took into account the critical distinction between treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples. Most investigations fell into one of two types: those comparing brief interventions with control conditions in non-treatment-seeking samples (n = 34) and those comparing brief interventions with extended treatment in treatment-seeking samples (n = 20). For studies of the first type, small to medium aggregate effect sizes in favor of brief interventions emerged across different follow-up points. At follow-up after > 3-6 months, the effect for brief interventions compared to control conditions was significantly larger when individuals with more severe alcohol problems were excluded. For studies of the second type, the effect sizes were largely not significantly different from zero. This review summarizes additional positive evidence for brief interventions compared to control conditions typically delivered by health-care professionals to non-treatment-seeking samples. The results concur with previous reviews that found little difference between brief and extended treatment conditions. Because the evidence regarding brief interventions comes from different types of investigation with different samples, generalizations should be restricted to the populations, treatment characteristics and contexts represented in those studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient and practitioner characteristics predict brief alcohol intervention in primary care.

            The effectiveness of an evidence-based health care intervention depends on it being delivered consistently to appropriate patients. Brief alcohol intervention is known to be effective at reducing excessive drinking and its concomitant health and social problems. However, a recent implementation trial reported partial delivery of brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners (GPs) which is likely to have reduced its impact. To investigate patient-practitioner characteristics influencing brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Cross-sectional analysis of 12,814 completed Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) screening questionnaires. Eighty-four GPs who had implemented a brief alcohol intervention programme in a previous trial based in the Northeast of England. GPs were requested to screen all adults (aged over 16 years) presenting to their surgery and follow a structured protocol to give a brief intervention (five minutes of advice plus an information booklet) to all 'risk' drinkers. Anonymized carbon copies of the screening questionnaire were collected from all practices after a three-month implementation period. Although AUDIT identified 4080 'risk' drinkers, only 2043 (50%) received brief intervention. Risk drinkers that were most likely to receive brief intervention were males (58%), unemployed (61%), and technically-trained patients (55%). Risk drinkers that were least likely to receive brief intervention were females (44%), students (38%), and university educated patients (46%). Logistic regression modelling showed that patients' risk status was the most influential predictor of brief intervention. Also, GPs' experience of relevant training and longer average practice consultations predicted brief intervention. However, personal characteristics relating to patients and GPs also predicted brief intervention in routine practice. Interpersonal factors relating to patients and practitioners contributed to the selective provision of brief alcohol intervention in primary care. Ways should be found to remedy this situation or the impact of this evidence-based intervention may be reduced when implemented in routine practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Three questions can detect hazardous drinkers.

              The researchers evaluated the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the first 3 questions of the AUDIT (AUDIT-C), the third AUDIT question (AUDIT-3), and quantity-frequency questions for identifying hazardous drinkers in a large primary care sample. Cross-sectional survey. Patients waiting for care at 12 primary care sites in western Pennsylvania from October 1995 to December 1997. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values for the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3. A total of 13,438 patients were surveyed. Compared with a quantity-frequency definition of hazardous drinking (> or =16 drinks/week for men and > or =12 drinks/week for women), the AUDIT, AUDIT-C, and AUDIT-3 had areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUROC) of 0.940, 0.949, and 0.871, respectively. The AUROCs of the AUDIT and AUDIT-C were significantly different (P=.004). The AUROCs of the AUDIT-C (P or =3) and the AUDIT-3 (score > or =1) were 94.9% and 99.6% sensitive and 68.8% and 51.1% specific in detecting individuals as hazardous drinkers. In a large primary care sample, a 3-question version of the AUDIT identified hazardous drinkers as well as the full AUDIT when such drinkers were defined by quantity-frequency criterion. This version of the AUDIT may be useful as an initial screen for assessing hazardous drinking behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2296
                2005
                4 November 2005
                : 6
                : 46
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Family Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine and Medical Center of Central Georgia, 3780 Eisenhower Parkway, Macon GA 31210, USA
                [2 ]Institute of Public Health, Georgia State University, One Park Place South, Sixth Floor, Suite 660, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA
                Article
                1471-2296-6-46
                10.1186/1471-2296-6-46
                1310533
                16271146
                55bb60bb-274b-408d-a3d2-d2d74f987a96
                Copyright © 2005 Seale et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 June 2005
                : 4 November 2005
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article