Variation in SBIRT delivery among acute care facilities

Effects of a structured SBIRT training program for hospital nursing leaders on utilization of SBIRT within their medical-surgical units: cohort study

BACKGROUND

Psychoactive substances contribute to numerous deaths annually, and more than 60% of the US population aged 12 + years reports past-month substance use. Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) may support identification of substance-related risks and facilitate targeted interventions, but best practices and implementation designs remain elusive. Our study examined whether a standardized SBIRT toolkit and training-of-trainers for nurse site coordinators was prospectively associated with documented performance of core SBIRT-related functions in medical-surgical hospital units.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study conducted from January 2018 to May 2019 in 14 adult medical-surgical units (one/hospital). Hospitals were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 7 hospitals/each), which received identical interventions: an SBIRT training-of-trainers (8 h), supportive follow-up, and a toolkit containing information, resources, and guidance. However, group 1 sites were trained four months earlier than group 2 sites. At three points (baseline, 10-months, and 16-months), 61 patient records per hospital unit (n = 854) were randomly selected for extraction. Inclusion criteria for random selection were age (18+) and being admitted and discharged from the selected unit. Main outcome measures were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, including screening within 24 h of admission, using a validated screening tool, screening positive, and receiving a brief intervention or referral to treatment.

RESULTS

For groups 1 and 2, patients had 1.81 and 2.66 greater odds, respectively, of being screened for alcohol at 10-months, 1.92 and 4.68 greater odds of being screened for drugs, and 1.96 and 2.06 greater odds of being screened for tobacco. For hospital group 2, patients also had greater odds of being screened for alcohol (3.92), drugs (6.31), and tobacco (2.41) at 16-months. For both hospital groups and benchmarks, patients were hundreds of times more likely to be screened with a validated tool, reflecting a shift from near absence of such behaviors (around 1% prevalence) to prevalence rates from 24 to 56%.

CONCLUSIONS

The SBIRT intervention was associated with the initiation and sustained use of validated screening tools for alcohol and drugs, and with short-term increases in overall alcohol, tobacco, and drug screening prevalence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03560076.

Understanding Nurse Perceptions of Caring for Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Alcohol use disorder (AUD), the problematic consumption of alcohol, affects 107 million people worldwide. Individuals with AUD experience high morbidity and increased mortality. Nurses practicing in acute care are ideally positioned to deliver quality interventions to patients with AUD, including screening and brief intervention; formal training and assessment of baseline knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions are necessary.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of acute care nurses caring for patients with AUD.

DESIGN

This study used a cross-sectional survey design.

METHODS

The Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions was completed by 93 nurses working in six acute care centers (seven medicine units) across Alberta. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Few participants reported receiving any prior structured training on AUD, with the majority reporting limited knowledge of alcohol and the effects of alcohol consumption. Although most participants said that caring for patients with AUD was a part of their professional role, few felt satisfied or motivated to work with this group of patients. Responses to individual questions or subdomains of the survey did not significantly differ by length of time in professional role, employment status, or sex.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that nurses need to learn more about caring for patients with AUD. Developing tailored educational interventions that are mindful of the importance of knowledge, support, satisfaction, and motivation is necessary to improve the quality of care for patients with AUD.

Implementing a Screening and Brief Intervention Protocol for Excessive Alcohol Use in a Trauma Center: A Healthcare Improvement Project

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this healthcare improvement project was to evaluate healthcare provider use of screening and brief interventions (SBIs) for patients screening positive for alcohol at an upper Midwestern adult trauma center transitioning from Level II to Level I.

METHOD

Trauma registry data for 2,112 adult patients with trauma who screened positive for alcohol were compared between three periods: pre-formal-SBI protocol (January 1, 2010, to November 29, 2011); first post-SBI protocol (February 6, 2012, to April 17, 2016) after protocol implementation, healthcare provider training, and documentation changes; and second post-SBI protocol (June 1, 2016, to June, 30, 2019) after additional training and process improvements. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and logistic regression for comparisons over time and between admitting services.

RESULTS

For the trauma admitting service, SBI rates increased from 32% to 90% over time, compared with 18%-51% for other admitting services combined. Trauma-service-admitted patients screening positive for alcohol had higher odds of receiving a brief intervention than other admitting services in each period in adjusted models: pre-SBI (OR = 1.99, 95% CI [1.15, 3.43], p = .014), first post-SBI (OR = 2.89, 95% CI [2.04, 4.11], p < .001), and second post-SBI (OR = 11.40, 95% CI [6.27, 20.75], p < .001) protocol periods. Within trauma service admissions, first post-SBI protocol (OR = 2.15, 95% CI [1.64, 2.82], p < .001) and second post-SBI protocol (OR = 21.56, 95% CI [14.61, 31.81], p < .001) periods had higher rates and odds of receiving an SBI than the pre-SBI protocol period.

CONCLUSION

The number of SBIs completed with alcohol-positive adult patients with trauma significantly increased over time through SBI protocol implementation, healthcare provider training, and process improvements, suggesting other admitting services with lower SBI rates could adopt similar approaches.

Perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, outcomes, and helpfulness of strategies to implement screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in acute care

Background

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is a clinical intervention used to address alcohol and illicit drug use. SBIRT use has resulted in positive health and social outcomes; however, SBIRT implementation remains low. Research on implementing interventions, such as SBIRT, lacks information about challenges and successes related to implementation. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) provides a framework to guide comprehension, clarity, and relevance of strategies available for implementation research. This framework was applied to qualitative feedback gathered from site coordinators (SCs) leading SBIRT implementation. The purpose of this study was to describe the SCs’ experiences pertaining to SBIRT implementation across a health system.

Methods

Within the context of a larger parent study, a semi-structured interview guide was used to capture 14 SCs’ perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes pertaining to SBIRT implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using standard content analytic procedures. A follow-up survey was developed based on 14 strategies identified from qualitative data and was administered electronically to determine the SC’s perceptions of the most helpful implementation strategies on a scale of 1 (least helpful) to 5 (most helpful).

Results

All 14 invited SCs participated in the SBIRT implementation interview, and 11 of 14 (79%) responded to the follow-up survey. Within the categories of barriers, facilitators, and outcomes, 25 subthemes emerged. The most helpful implementation strategies were reexamining the implementation (M = 4.38; n = 8), providing ongoing consultation (M = 4.13; n = 8), auditing and providing feedback (M = 4.1; n = 10), developing education materials (M = 4.1; n = 10), identifying and preparing champions (M = 4; n = 7), and tailoring strategies (M = 4; n = 7).

Conclusion

SCs who led implementation efforts within a large healthcare system identified several barriers and facilitators to the implementation of SBIRT. Additionally, they identified clinician-related outcomes associated with SBIRT implementation into practice as well as strategies that were helpful in the implementation process. This information can inform the implementation of SBIRT and other interventions in acute care settings.

Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Process mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare.

METHODS

We developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC-Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

The framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward. PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies (N = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions.

CONCLUSION

The full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero ID: CRD42017082140.