1 / 35

Substance Abuse Disorders in Primary Care Improving Evidence Based Practice

David W. Oslin, MD University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine And Philadelphia, VAMC. Substance Abuse Disorders in Primary Care Improving Evidence Based Practice. Hazelden Research Co-Chair on Late Life Addictions. Which Hat?. Geriatrics. Addictions. Primary Care. Introduction .

gayle
Télécharger la présentation

Substance Abuse Disorders in Primary Care Improving Evidence Based Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. David W. Oslin, MD University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine And Philadelphia, VAMC Substance Abuse Disorders in Primary Care Improving Evidence Based Practice Hazelden Research Co-Chair on Late Life Addictions

  2. Which Hat? Geriatrics Addictions Primary Care

  3. Introduction • Alcohol use and abuse costs the nation $150 Billion / annum • Alcohol use and abuse is common in primary care practices • Very little research has focused on illicit substance use disorders in the context of primary care

  4. 90-Day Prevalence in Primary Care (n=21,282 patients in 88 primary care clinician offices) At-risk Drinkers 9% Problem Drinkers 8% Alcohol Dependent 5% Low-risk Drinkers 38% Abstainers 40% Manwell, et al. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 1997;17:67-81.

  5. The Bad News • Individuals with alcohol disorders or problem drinking who seek help • ECA: 11% specialty mental health/addictive services; 8% voluntary support network • NLAES: 10% • RAS: 7%-10% • Rates of Early Drop-out from Alcoholism Treatment (less than four sessions) range from 44 - 75%

  6. Breaking down the Problem • Identification • Assessment • Initial Intervention • Referral and Follow-up

  7. How is Identification Accomplished? • Systems • VA, Kaiser, Group Health • Individual Practitioners • State, City, other agencies

  8. Examples: Screening Instruments • Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) • Health Screening Survey (including other health behaviors, e.g. nutrition, exercise, smoking, depressed feelings) • CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed by others, feel Guilty, need ‘Eye-opener’) • AUDIT-C/AUDIT

  9. Identify What? • Abstinence • Moderate Drinking • At – risk drinking • Problem drinking / alcohol abuse • Alcohol Dependence

  10. VA Experience • Prior to 2003 – CAGE • 11/03 AUDIT-C • 2781 screens in those that drink over a 4 month period • 32.6% positive

  11. The First Challenge • Assessing individuals to understand what level of care is needed

  12. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LAB

  13. Research to Practice:Behavioral Health Laboratory • BHL is designed to provide clinical services to support providers in Primary Care and Behavioral Health • It is intended to be analogous to Clinical Chemistry or Radiology Laboratories • The BHL is an automated telephone assessment, triage, and monitoring service for patients identified by primary care providers as having depressive symptoms or at-risk drinking. • The BHL conducts a brief telephone (20-30 minutes) assessment generating a report for the PCP including diagnosis, severity, and general treatment recommendations.

  14. How it works at the PVAMC • Mechanisms for requesting an assessment • Screening • Referral • Disease management • The BHL receives a printed consult request. • The BHL reports findings, provides interpretation, and recommendations. • Where appropriate, BHL staff facilitate referral or the appropriate level of intervention.

  15. What does the Service Provide? • Assessment of major illnesses – depression, anxiety, substance use • Screening for other domains – cognition, smoking, psychosis, mania • Initial Treatment recommendations • Patient engagement • Monitoring of initial treatment for depression – adherence, adverse effects, symptoms

  16. BHL Flow Annual Screening Direct consult New treatment for depression Consult request Full Assessment Recommendations to PCP and Patient Referral to ARU Referral to Specific Research No Treatment Recommended At-Risk Drinker Brief Intervention Referral Management Watchful Waiting – 8 weeks

  17. Referrals

  18. 5 Month Referral Success

  19. Characteristics of Patients

  20. Does the BHL change practice? • 25% reduction in the number of patient not screened for depression • 10% increase in the screen positive rate for depression • Significant increase in the identification of patients with suicidal ideation • Possible improvement in EPRP measures for depression

  21. Engagement in Care

  22. Conclusions • BHL is a flexible, evidence based program • Fills gaps in the VHA system • Provides valid information and documentation • Acceptable to veterans • Valued by provider • Can function at low cost across diverse settings • Useful for outreach • Can provide coordination as well as assessment • Disease Management • Referral Management • Valuable as a tool for improving system performance

  23. But? • The number of patients referred doesn’t match those assessed.

  24. Referrals for depression 17,543 Patients Screened 3008 already in MH/SA care 1232 positive screens (7%) 740 Patients referred to the BHL (60%) 104 Unable to contact (14.1%) 56 Refused 7.6%) 580 Completed Assessment

  25. Referrals for Alcohol Misuse 2781 patients who drank screened In MH/SA care not an option 906 positive screens (32.6%) 118 Patients referred to the BHL (13%) 17 Unable to contact (14.4%) 7 Refused (5.9%) 94 Completed Assessment

  26. What about the Instrument? Q#1: How often did you have a drink containing alcohol in the past year? Never (0 points) Monthly or less (1 point) Two to four times a month (2 points) Two to three times per week (3 points) Four or more times a week (4 points)

  27. What about the Instrument? Q#2: How many drinks did you have on a typical day when you were drinking in the past year? 1 or 2 (0 points) 3 or 4 (1 point) 5 or 6 (2 points) 7 to 9 (3 points) 10 or more (4 points)

  28. What about the Instrument? Q#3: How often did you have six or more drinks on one occasion in the past year? Never (0 points) Less than monthly (1 point) Monthly (2 points) Weekly (3 points) Daily or almost daily (4 points)

  29. Is the Screener to “sensitive” 2 Drinks/day 3-4 Drinks/day with binges 10+ Drinks/day

  30. Does the Type of Provider Matter? Choices: MD CRNP/PA Residents/ Fellows Other Residents/ Fellows CRNP/PA Other MD

  31. Do Clinician Beliefs Matter?

  32. Do Clinician Beliefs Matter?

  33. Starting a New Practice • Identify a thought leader / Champion • Define practice specific needs – screening, referral, resources • Define practice specific procedures • Announce the availability of the service • Face-to-face • Email • Letters / Brochures

  34. Business cards for patients Business cards for providers ELM interface Listing of providers Staff in practice / Screening of patients 877 number Pens Sticky pads Business size card for computer Monthly email reminders Clinic feedback In-service by staff on MH/SA topics Website Other Marketing Strategies

  35. A Platform for other activities • Telephone disease management for problem drinking • Supported by VA HSR&D • Developing watchful waiting strategies • Supported by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation • ExTENd – Use of naltrexone in managing alcohol dependence • Supported by NIAAA – R01 • DIADS – depression of Alzheimer’s disease • Supported by NIMH R01 • Family caregiver Support • Depression Treatment Monitoring • PTSD • Referral Management

More Related