Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Substance use screening is widely encouraged in healthcare settings, but the lack of a screening approach that fits easily into clinical workflows has restricted its broad implementation. The Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS) was developed as a brief, self-administered instrument to identify unhealthy use of tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, and prescription drugs. We evaluated the validity and test-retest reliability of the SUBS in adult primary care patients. METHODS: Adults age 18-65 were enrolled from urban safety net primary care clinics to self-administer the SUBS using touch-screen tablet computers for a test-retest reliability study (n=54) and a two-site validation study (n=586). In the test-retest reliability study, the SUBS was administered twice within a 2-week period. In the validation study, the SUBS was compared to reference standard measures, including self-reported measures and saliva drug tests. We measured test-retest reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the SUBS for detection of unhealthy use and substance use disorder for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (illicit and prescription drug misuse). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was good or excellent for each substance class. For detection of unhealthy use, the SUBS had sensitivity and specificity of 97.8% (95% CI 93.7 to 99.5) and 95.7% (95% CI 92.4 to 97.8), respectively, for tobacco; and 85.2% (95% CI 79.3 to 89.9) and 77.0% (95% CI 72.6 to 81.1) for alcohol. For unhealthy use of illicit or prescription drugs, sensitivity was 82.5% (95% CI 75.7 to 88.0) and specificity 91.1% (95% CI 87.9 to 93.6). With respect to identifying a substance use disorder, the SUBS had sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI 92.7 to 100.0) and 72.1% (95% CI 67.1 to 76.8) for tobacco; 93.5% (95% CI 85.5 to 97.9) and 64.6% (95% CI 60.2 to 68.7) for alcohol; and 85.7% (95% CI 77.2 to 92.0) and 82.0% (95% CI 78.2 to 85.3) for drugs. Analyses of area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) indicated good discrimination (AUC 0.74-0.97) for all substance classes. Assistance in completing the SUBS was requested by 11% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The SUBS was feasible for self-administration and generated valid results in a diverse primary care patient population. The 4-item SUBS can be recommended for primary care settings that are seeking to implement substance use screening.

Aims: Implementation of substance use screening in general medical settings is hindered by the lack of a brief yet precise and comprehensive screening tool that is compatible with clinical workflows. To address this need, we developed the Substance Use Brief Screen (SUBS); a 4-item screener for tobacco, alcohol, and drug use (illicit and prescription) that is self-administered and may be easily integrated with electronic health records. Methods: Adult patients were recruited consecutively in the waiting area of an urban safety net primary care clinic. The SUBS was self-administered in English on touchscreen tablet computers. Reference standard measures of unhealthy substance use and substance use disorders were then administered, including self reported measures and saliva drug tests. The SUBS was compared against the reference standards to determine its sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for each substance class. Results: Among the 390 participants, rates of past year use reported on the SUBS were 37% tobacco, 43% alcohol (4+ drinks/day), 20% illicit drugs, and 12% prescription drugs. Sensitivity and specificity of the SUBS for detecting past year unhealthy use were: tobacco 99% and 91% (AUC = .95); alcohol 94% and 68% (AUC = .81); drugs (illicit or prescription) 84% and 89% (AUC = .86). Sensitivity was lower for prescription drugs (57%) than for illicit drugs (78%). For detecting a substance use disorder, sensitivity and specificity were: tobacco 100% and 73% (AUC = .87); alcohol 93% and 64% (AUC = .79); drugs 85% and 82% (AUC = .84). Conclusions: The SUBS accurately identified unhealthy tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in this primary care sample, and had high sensitivity but lower specificity for identifying substance use disorders. Individuals screening positive on the SUBS should receive further assessment. Our findings support use of the SUBS for substance use screening in primary care, but additional tools may be needed for prescription drugs

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

INTRODUCTION: Dental visits represent an opportunity to identify and help patients quit smoking, yet dental settings remain an untapped venue for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this analysis was to assess factors that may influence patterns of tobacco-use-related practice among a national sample of dental providers. METHODS: We surveyed a representative sample of general dentists practicing in the United States (N = 1,802). Multivariable analysis was used to assess correlates of adherence to tobacco use treatment guidelines and to analyze factors that influence providers' willingness to offer tobacco cessation assistance if reimbursed for this service. RESULTS: More than 90% of dental providers reported that they routinely ask patients about tobacco use, 76% counsel patients, and 45% routinely offer cessation assistance, defined as referring patients for cessation counseling, providing a cessation prescription, or both. Results from multivariable analysis indicated that cessation assistance was associated with having a practice with 1 or more hygienists, having a chart system that includes a tobacco use question, having received training on treating tobacco dependence, and having positive attitudes toward treating tobacco use. Providers who did not offer assistance but who reported that they would change their practice patterns if sufficiently reimbursed were more likely to be in a group practice, treat patients insured through Medicaid, and have positive attitudes toward treating tobacco dependence. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate the potential benefit of increasing training opportunities and promoting system changes to increase involvement of dental providers in conducting tobacco use treatment. Reimbursement models should be tested to assess the effect on dental provider practice patterns.

Unobserved or "home" buprenorphine induction has become a common clinical practice. Patients take the initial and subsequent doses of buprenorphine after, rather than during, an office visit. This clinical case summarizes an unobserved induction onto buprenorphine in a typical new patient. We review the core issues surrounding patient selection, feasibility, logistics, safety, and effectiveness of unobserved buprenorphine induction. Prescribers, treatment providers, policy makers, and patients should weigh the benefits of observed induction (maximum clinical supervision) with the reduced resource burden, flexibility, and comparable safety of unobserved induction.

The time required to conduct drug and alcohol screening has been a major barrier to its implementation in mainstream healthcare settings. Because patient self-administered tools are potentially more efficient, we translated the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) into an audio guided computer assisted self interview (ACASI) format. This study reports on the test-retest reliability of the ACASI ASSIST in an adult primary care population. Adult primary care patients completed the ACASI ASSIST, in English or Spanish, twice within a 1-4week period. Among the 101 participants, there were no significant differences between test administrations in detecting moderate to high risk use for tobacco, alcohol, or any other drug class. Substance risk scores from the two administrations had excellent concordance (90-98%) and high correlation (ICC 0.90-0.97) for tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. The ACASI ASSIST has good test-retest reliability, and warrants additional study to evaluate its validity for detecting unhealthy substance use.

ABSTRACT. Background: With rising rates of prescription drug abuse and associated overdose deaths, there is great interest in having accurate and efficient screening tools that identify nonmedical use of prescription drugs in health care settings. The authors sought to gain a better understanding of how patients interpret questions about misuse of prescription drugs, with the goal of improving the accuracy and acceptability of instruments intended for use in primary care. Methods: A total of 27 English-speaking adult patients were recruited from an urban safety net primary care clinic to complete a cognitive interview about a 4-item screening questionnaire for tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, and misuse of prescription drugs. Detailed field notes were analyzed for overall comprehension of the screening items on illicit drug use and prescription drug misuse, the accuracy with which participants classified drugs into these categories, and whether the screening response correctly captured the participant's substance use behavior. Results: Based on initial responses to the screening items, 6 (22%) participants screened positive for past-year prescription drug misuse, and 8 (30%) for illicit drug use. The majority (26/27) of participants correctly interpreted the item on illicit drug use, and appropriately classified drugs in this category. Eleven (41%) participants had errors in their understanding of the prescription drug misuse item. The most common error was classifying use of medications without abuse potential as nonmedical use. All cases of misunderstanding the prescription drug misuse item occurred among participants who screened negative for illicit drug use. Conclusions: The results suggest that terminology used to describe misuse of prescription medications may be misunderstood by many primary care patients, particularly those who do not use illicit drugs. Failure to improve upon the language used to describe prescription drug misuse in screening questionnaires intended for use in medical settings could potentially lead to high rates of false-positive results.

Increasingly, patients with unhealthy alcohol and other drug use are being seen in primary care and other non-specialty addiction settings. Primary care providers are well positioned to screen, assess, and treat patients with alcohol and other drug use because this use, and substance use disorders, may contribute to a host of medical and mental health harms. We sought to identify and examine important recent advances in addiction medicine in the medical literature that have implications for the care of patients in primary care or other generalist settings. To accomplish this aim, we selected articles in the field of addiction medicine, critically appraised and summarized the manuscripts, and highlighted their implications for generalist practice. During an initial review, we identified articles through an electronic Medline search (limited to human studies and in English) using search terms for alcohol and other drugs of abuse published from January 2010 to January 2012. After this initial review, we searched for other literature in web-based or journal resources for potential articles of interest. From the list of articles identified in these initial reviews, each of the six authors independently selected articles for more intensive review and identified the ones they found to have a potential impact on generalist practice. The identified articles were then ranked by the number of authors who selected each article. Through a consensus process over 4 meetings, the authors reached agreement on the articles with implications for practice for generalist clinicians that warranted inclusion for discussion. The authors then grouped the articles into five categories: 1) screening and brief interventions in outpatient settings, 2) identification and management of substance use among inpatients, 3) medical complications of substance use, 4) use of pharmacotherapy for addiction treatment in primary care and its complications, and 5) integration of addiction treatment and medical care. The authors discuss each selected articles' merits, limitations, conclusions, and implication to advancing addiction screening, assessment, and treatment of addiction in generalist physician practice environments.