Dominic Hodgkin1, Wenwu Gao, Mary Jo Larson, Charles E Drebing, Elizabeth L Merrick, Marianne Pugatch, Constance M Horgan, Galina Zolotusky, Nancy M Petry, Richard Saitz. 1. Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA (DH, MJL, ELM, MP, CMH, GZ); Mental Health Service, Edith Nourse Rogers VA Memorial Hospital, Bedford, MA (WG, CED); VA Boston Healthcare System, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Boston, MA (MP); University of Connecticut School of Medicine, CT (NMP); Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MS (RS); Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA (RS).
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To measure the rates and predictors of clinician recommendation for follow-up after a positive screen for unhealthy drug use, in a context of mandatory routine screening. To measure response to clinician recommendations and identification of new drug use diagnoses. METHODS: Data are from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center that introduced mandatory routine screening for unhealthy drug use in outpatient primary care and mental health settings, using a validated single question. This study analyzed VHA electronic health records data for patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use (n = 570) and estimated logistic regression models to identify the predictors of receiving a recommendation for any follow-up and for specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Bivariate tests were used for other analyses. RESULTS: Among patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use, 66% received no recommendation to return to primary care or another setting from the screening clinician. Further, among the 23% of patients who received a recommendation to visit specialty SUD treatment, only 25% completed the visit within 60 days. Six percent of all positive screens both received a referral to specialty SUD treatment and acted upon it. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of mandatory drug use screening using a single item, rates of clinician action and patient receipt of care appeared low. Improved follow-up will require health systems to provide more supports for clinicians and patients at each of the stages from positive screen to attending the follow-up appointment.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the rates and predictors of clinician recommendation for follow-up after a positive screen for unhealthy drug use, in a context of mandatory routine screening. To measure response to clinician recommendations and identification of new drug use diagnoses. METHODS: Data are from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center that introduced mandatory routine screening for unhealthy drug use in outpatient primary care and mental health settings, using a validated single question. This study analyzed VHA electronic health records data for patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use (n = 570) and estimated logistic regression models to identify the predictors of receiving a recommendation for any follow-up and for specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. Bivariate tests were used for other analyses. RESULTS: Among patients who screened positive for unhealthy drug use, 66% received no recommendation to return to primary care or another setting from the screening clinician. Further, among the 23% of patients who received a recommendation to visit specialty SUD treatment, only 25% completed the visit within 60 days. Six percent of all positive screens both received a referral to specialty SUD treatment and acted upon it. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of mandatory drug use screening using a single item, rates of clinician action and patient receipt of care appeared low. Improved follow-up will require health systems to provide more supports for clinicians and patients at each of the stages from positive screen to attending the follow-up appointment.
Authors: Shari Van Hook; Sion Kim Harris; Traci Brooks; Peggy Carey; Robert Kossack; John Kulig; John R Knight Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Emily C Williams; Carol E Achtmeyer; Bryan Volpp; Bonny J Collins; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Charles M Cleland; Shiela M Strauss; Joseph J Palamar; John Rotrosen; Richard Saitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard Saitz; Tibor P A Palfai; Debbie M Cheng; Daniel P Alford; Judith A Bernstein; Christine A Lloyd-Travaglini; Seville M Meli; Christine E Chaisson; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bertha K Madras; Wilson M Compton; Deepa Avula; Tom Stegbauer; Jack B Stein; H Westley Clark Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 4.492