BACKGROUND: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening. DESIGN: This was an observational, qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S. APPROACH: Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.
BACKGROUND: Population-based alcohol screening is recommended in primary care, and increasingly incentivized by policies, yet is challenging to implement. The U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) achieved high rates of screening using a national performance measure and associated electronic clinical reminder to prompt and facilitate screening and document results. However, the sensitivity of alcohol screening for identifying unhealthy alcohol use is low in VA clinics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand factors that might contribute to low sensitivity of alcohol screening. DESIGN: This was an observational, qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included clinical staff responsible for conducting alcohol screening and nine independently managed primary care clinics of a single VA medical center in the Northwestern U.S. APPROACH: Four researchers observed clinical staff as they conducted alcohol screening. Observers took handwritten notes, which were transcribed and coded iteratively. Template analysis identified a priori and emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: We observed 72 instances of alcohol screening conducted by 31 participating staff. Observations confirmed known challenges to implementation of care using clinical reminders, including workflow and flexibility limitations. Three themes specific to alcohol screening emerged. First, most observed screening was conducted verbally, guided by the clinical reminder, although some variability in approaches to screening (e.g., paper-based or laminate-based screening) was observed. Second, specific verbal screening practices that might contribute to low sensitivity of clinical screening were identified, including conducting non-verbatim screening and making inferences, assumptions, and/or suggestions to input responses. Third, staff introduced and adapted screening questions to enhance patient comfort. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study in nine clinics found that implementation of alcohol screening facilitated by a clinical reminder resulted primarily in verbal screening in which questions were not asked vertbatim and were otherwise adapted. Non-verbal approaches to screening, or patient self-administration, may enhance validity and standardization of screening while simultaneously addressing limitations of the clinical reminder and issues related to perceived discomfort.
Authors: Constance H Fung; Juliet N Woods; Steven M Asch; Peter Glassman; Bradley N Doebbeling Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Mari Millery; Donna Shelley; Daren Wu; Pamela Ferrari; Tuo-Yen Tseng; Helene Kopal Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Mari M Kitahata; Peter W Dillingham; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Susan E Buskin; Jeffrey L Jones; Robert D Harrington; Thomas M Hooton; King K Holmes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2003-03-04 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Eric J Hawkins; Daniel R Kivlahan; Emily C Williams; Steven M Wright; Thomas Craig; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Tuyen Hoang; Herschel Knapp; Jane Burgess; Michael D Fletcher; Allen L Gifford; Steven M Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Danielle Frank; Anna F DeBenedetti; Robert J Volk; Emily C Williams; Daniel R Kivlahan; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anna D Rubinsky; Laura J Chavez; Douglas Berger; Gwen T Lapham; Eric J Hawkins; Emily C Williams; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Derek D Satre; Alexandra N Anderson; Amy S Leibowitz; Tory Levine-Hall; Sally Slome; Jason Flamm; C Bradley Hare; Jennifer McNeely; Constance M Weisner; Michael A Horberg; Paul Volberding; Michael J Silverberg Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mandy D Owens; George N Ioannou; Judith L Tsui; E Jennifer Edelman; Preston A Greene; Emily C Williams Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kathleen A McGinnis; Janet P Tate; Emily C Williams; Melissa Skanderson; Kendall J Bryant; Adam J Gordon; Kevin L Kraemer; Stephen A Maisto; Steven Crystal; David A Fiellin; Amy C Justice Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kara M Bensley; John Fortney; Gary Chan; Julia C Dombrowski; India Ornelas; Anna D Rubinsky; Gwen T Lapham; Joseph E Glass; Emily C Williams Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Brendan J Clark; Anna D Rubinsky; P Michael Ho; David H Au; Laura J Chavez; Marc Moss; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 3.716