Comparison of Methods for Alcohol and Drug Screening in Primary Care Clinics | Electronic Health Records | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Table 1.  Screening Program Elements Common to All Clinics
Screening Program Elements Common to All Clinics
Table 2.  Screening Approaches and Implementation Strategies Used at Each Clinic
Screening Approaches and Implementation Strategies Used at Each Clinic
Table 3.  Characteristics of Participating Clinics and Patient Populations
Characteristics of Participating Clinics and Patient Populations
Table 4.  Implementation Outcomes for First 12 Months of Screening
Implementation Outcomes for First 12 Months of Screening
1.
Mokdad  AH, Marks  JS, Stroup  DF, Gerberding  JL.  Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.   JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1238 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
White  AM, Castle  IJP, Hingson  RW, Powell  PA.  Using death certificates to explore changes in alcohol-related mortality in the United States, 1999 to 2017.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(1):178-187. doi:10.1111/acer.14239 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increase in fatal drug overdoses across the United States driven by synthetic opioids before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: CDC health advisory. CDC Health Alert Network. December 17, 2020. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00438.asp
4.
Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for unhealthy drug use: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;323(22):2301-2309. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8020 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(18):1899-1909. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16789 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Solberg  LI, Maciosek  MV, Edwards  NM.  Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness.   Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):143-152. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Maciosek  MV, Coffield  AB, Edwards  NM, Flottemesch  TJ, Goodman  MJ, Solberg  LI.  Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis.   Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1):52-61. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Nilsen  P.  Brief alcohol intervention—where to from here? challenges remain for research and practice.   Addiction. 2010;105(6):954-959. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02779.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Kaner  E.  Brief alcohol intervention: time for translational research.   Addiction. 2010;105(6):960-961. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02848.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Rehm  J, Anderson  P, Manthey  J,  et al.  Alcohol use disorders in primary health care: what do we know and where do we go?   Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(4):422-427. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agv127 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
McKnight-Eily  LR, Okoro  CA, Mejia  R,  et al.  Screening for excessive alcohol use and brief counseling of adults—17 states and the District of Columbia, 2014.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(12):313-319. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6612a1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Hallgren  KA, Witwer  E, West  I,  et al.  Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice–based research network.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;110:18-27. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2019.11.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
McCormick  KA, Cochran  NE, Back  AL, Merrill  JO, Williams  EC, Bradley  KA.  How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol: a qualitative study.   J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):966-972. doi:10.1007/BF02743146 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Anderson  P, Wojnar  M, Jakubczyk  A,  et al.  Managing alcohol problems in general practice in Europe: results from the European ODHIN survey of general practitioners.   Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49(5):531-539. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agu043 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Johnson  M, Jackson  R, Guillaume  L, Meier  P, Goyder  E.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.   J Public Health (Oxf). 2011;33(3):412-421. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdq095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Aira  M, Kauhanen  J, Larivaara  P, Rautio  P.  Factors influencing inquiry about patients’ alcohol consumption by primary health care physicians: qualitative semi-structured interview study.   Fam Pract. 2003;20(3):270-275. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmg307 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Yoast  RA, Wilford  BB, Hayashi  SW.  Encouraging physicians to screen for and intervene in substance use disorders: obstacles and strategies for change.   J Addict Dis. 2008;27(3):77-97. doi:10.1080/10550880802122687 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Harris  BR, Yu  J.  Attitudes, perceptions and practice of alcohol and drug screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment: a case study of New York state primary care physicians and non-physician providers.   Public Health. 2016;139:70-78. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.05.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Wakeman  SE, Pham-Kanter  G, Donelan  K.  Attitudes, practices, and preparedness to care for patients with substance use disorder: results from a survey of general internists.   Subst Abus. 2016;37(4):635-641. doi:10.1080/08897077.2016.1187240 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
van Boekel  LC, Brouwers  EPM, van Weeghel  J, Garretsen  HFL.  Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1-2):23-35. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Tai  B, McLellan  AT.  Integrating information on substance use disorders into electronic health record systems.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012;43(1):12-19. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.10.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Venkatesh  A, Malicki  C, Hawk  K, D’Onofrio  G, Kinsman  J, Taylor  A.  Assessing the readiness of digital data infrastructure for opioid use disorder research.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020;15(1):24. doi:10.1186/s13722-020-00198-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA CTN common data elements. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://cde.drugabuse.gov/
24.
Ogrinc  G, Davies  L, Goodman  D, Batalden  P, Davidoff  F, Stevens  D.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.   BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):986-992. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
McNeely  J, Kumar  PC, Rieckmann  T,  et al.  Barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of substance use screening in primary care clinics: a qualitative study of patients, providers, and staff.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13(1):8. doi:10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Seale  JP, Shellenberger  S, Velasquez  MM,  et al.  Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison.   BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-18 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Lapham  GT, Achtmeyer  CE, Williams  EC, Hawkins  EJ, Kivlahan  DR, Bradley  KA.  Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.   Med Care. 2012;50(2):179-187. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e35743 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Saitz  R, Horton  NJ, Sullivan  LM, Moskowitz  MA, Samet  JH.  Addressing alcohol problems in primary care: a cluster randomized, controlled trial of a systems intervention: the Screening and Intervention in Primary Care (SIP) study.   Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(5):372-382. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-5-200303040-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Ornstein  SM, Miller  PM, Wessell  AM, Jenkins  RG, Nemeth  LS, Nietert  PJ.  Integration and sustainability of alcohol screening, brief intervention, and pharmacotherapy in primary care settings.   J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2013;74(4):598-604. doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.598 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
McNeely  J, Cleland  CM, Strauss  SM, Palamar  JJ, Rotrosen  J, Saitz  R.  Validation of self-administered single-item screening questions (SISQs) for unhealthy alcohol and drug use in primary care patients.   J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1757-1764. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3391-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Smith  PC, Schmidt  SM, Allensworth-Davies  D, Saitz  R.  Primary care validation of a single-question alcohol screening test.   J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):783-788. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0928-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Smith  PC, Schmidt  SM, Allensworth-Davies  D, Saitz  R.  A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care.   Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.140 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Bradley  KA, DeBenedetti  AF, Volk  RJ, Williams  EC, Frank  D, Kivlahan  DR.  AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(7):1208-1217. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00403.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Skinner  HA.  The drug abuse screening test.   Addict Behav. 1982;7(4):363-371. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Yudko  E, Lozhkina  O, Fouts  A.  A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(2):189-198. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
D'Onofrio  GD, Pantalon  MV, Degutis  LC, Fiellin  D, O’Connor  PG.  The Yale Brief Negotiated Interview Manual. Yale University School of Medicine; 2005.
37.
Bradley  KA, Chung  H, Brown  RL,  et al; National Council for Behavioral Health.  Implementing Care for Alcohol & Other Drug Use in Medical Settings: An Extension of SBIRT. National Council for Behavioral Health; 2018. SBIRT Change Guide 1.0. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/021518_NCBH_ASPTReport-FINAL.pdf?daf=375ateTbd56
38.
Rubinsky  AD, Dawson  DA, Williams  EC, Kivlahan  DR, Bradley  KA.  AUDIT-C scores as a scaled marker of mean daily drinking, alcohol use disorder severity, and probability of alcohol dependence in a U.S. general population sample of drinkers.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(8):1380-1390. doi:10.1111/acer.12092PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Baskerville  NB, Liddy  C, Hogg  W.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings.   Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):63-74. doi:10.1370/afm.1312 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Siantz  E, Redline  B, Henwood  B.  Practice facilitation in integrated behavioral health and primary care settings: a scoping review.   J Behav Health Serv Res. 2021;48(1):133-155. doi:10.1007/s11414-020-09709-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Wang  A, Pollack  T, Kadziel  LA,  et al.  Impact of practice facilitation in primary care on chronic disease care processes and outcomes: a systematic review.   J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1968-1977. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4581-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Kushniruk  A.  Evaluation in the design of health information systems: application of approaches emerging from usability engineering.   Comput Biol Med. 2002;32(3):141-149. doi:10.1016/S0010-4825(02)00011-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Kushniruk  AW, Patel  VL.  Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems.   J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):56-76. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2004.01.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Mertens  JR, Chi  FW, Weisner  CM,  et al.  Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISE cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015;10:26. doi:10.1186/s13722-015-0047-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Bradley  KA, Johnson  ML, Williams  EC.  Commentary on Nilsen et al. (2011): the importance of asking patients—the potential value of patient report of brief interventions.   Addiction. 2011;106(10):1757-1759. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03587.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Sayre  M, Lapham  GT, Lee  AK,  et al.  Routine assessment of symptoms of substance use disorders in primary care: prevalence and severity of reported symptoms.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(4):1111-1119. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-05650-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Lapham  GT, Rubinsky  AD, Williams  EC,  et al.  Decreasing sensitivity of clinical alcohol screening with the AUDIT-C after repeated negative screens in VA clinics.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;142:209-215. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.06.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Saitz  R.  Clinical practice. unhealthy alcohol use.   N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):596-607. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp042262 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Cherpitel  CJ, Ye  Y.  Drug use and problem drinking associated with primary care and emergency room utilization in the US general population: data from the 2005 National Alcohol Survey.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;97(3):226-230. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Spear  SE, Shedlin  M, Gilberti  B, Fiellin  M, McNeely  J.  Feasibility and acceptability of an audio computer-assisted self-interview version of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in primary care patients.   Subst Abus. 2016;37(2):299-305. doi:10.1080/08897077.2015.1062460PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Saunders  EC, Moore  SK, Gardner  T,  et al.  Screening for substance use in rural primary care: a qualitative study of providers and patients.   J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(12):2824-2832. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05232-y PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Pilowsky  DJ, Wu  LT.  Screening for alcohol and drug use disorders among adults in primary care: a review.   Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2012;3(1):25-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Tourangeau  R, Smith  TW.  Asking sensitive questions—the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context.   Public Opin Q. 1996;60(2):275-304. doi:10.1086/297751 Google ScholarCrossref
54.
Wight  RG, Rotheram-Borus  MJ, Klosinski  L, Ramos  B, Calabro  M, Smith  R.  Screening for transmission behaviors among HIV-infected adults.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12(5):431-441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Adam  A, Schwartz  RP, Wu  LT,  et al.  Electronic self-administered screening for substance use in adult primary care patients: feasibility and acceptability of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (myTAPS) screening tool.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2019;14(1):39. doi:10.1186/s13722-019-0167-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Bradley  KA, Lapham  GT, Hawkins  EJ,  et al.  Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.   J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(3):299-306. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1509-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Williams  EC, Achtmeyer  CE, Rittmueller  SE,  et al.  Factors underlying quality problems with alcohol screening in routine care.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2013;8(suppl 1):A85. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-8-S1-A85Google ScholarCrossref
58.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2020. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-national-report
59.
McNeely  J, Wu  LT, Subramaniam  G,  et al.  Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) tool for substance use screening in primary care patients.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):690-699. doi:10.7326/M16-0317 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Bradley  KA, Lapham  GT, Lee  AK.  Screening for drug use in primary care: practical implications of the new USPSTF recommendation.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(8):1050-1051. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7335 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Lapham  GT, Lee  AK, Caldeiro  RM,  et al.  Frequency of cannabis use among primary care patients in Washington state.   J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(6):795-805. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2017.06.170062 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Kastner  M, Lottridge  D, Marquez  C, Newton  D, Straus  SE.  Usability evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management.   Implement Sci. 2010;5:96. doi:10.1186/748-5908-5-96Google ScholarCrossref
63.
Kushniruk  AW, Borycki  EM.  Low-cost rapid usability engineering: designing and customizing usable healthcare information systems.   Healthc Q. 2006;9(4):98-100, 102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
64.
Bright  TJ, Wong  A, Dhurjati  R,  et al.  Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.   Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29-43. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Garg  AX, Adhikari  NKJ, McDonald  H,  et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.   JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223-1238. doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Sterling  S, Kline-Simon  AH, Wibbelsman  C, Wong  A, Weisner  C.  Screening for adolescent alcohol and drug use in pediatric health-care settings: predictors and implications for practice and policy.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):13. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-7-13 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS measure: unhealthy alcohol use screening and follow-up. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/reports-and-research/hedis-measure-unhealthy-alcohol-use-screening-and-follow-up/
68.
Czeisler  ME, Lane  RI, Petrosky  E,  et al.  Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, June 24-30, 2020.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(32):1049-1057. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
van Beurden  I, Anderson  P, Akkermans  RP, Grol  RPTM, Wensing  M, Laurant  MGH.  Involvement of general practitioners in managing alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial of a tailored improvement programme.   Addiction. 2012;107(9):1601-1611. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03868.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Williams  EC, Achtmeyer  CE, Young  JP,  et al.  Local implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention at five Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics: perspectives of clinical and administrative staff.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016;60:27-35. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.07.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Substance Use and Addiction
    May 20, 2021

    Comparison of Methods for Alcohol and Drug Screening in Primary Care Clinics

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York
    • 2Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York
    • 3Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    • 4Department of Psychiatry, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York
    • 5Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
    • 6Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
    • 7Division of General Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
    • 8Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York
    • 9The Emmes Company, Rockville, Maryland
    • 10National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland
    • 11Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
    • 12School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5):e2110721. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10721
    Key Points

    Question  How are commonly used screening methods for alcohol and drug use associated with implementation outcomes among adult patients in primary care clinics, and what is the best approach for implementing electronic health record–integrated screening?

    Findings  In this quality improvement study implementing systematic screening for alcohol and drug use among 93 114 patients in 6 primary care clinics, 72% of patients completed screening. Screening at any visit (in comparison with screening at annual examinations only) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol and drug use, and self-administered screening was associated with greater detection of moderate- to high-risk alcohol use compared with staff-administered screening.

    Meaning  These findings suggest that, to maximize the adoption of substance use screening during primary care visits, clinics can conduct screening at any visit and use self-administered screening tools to increase the detection of unhealthy alcohol use among adult patients.

    Abstract

    Importance  Guidelines recommend that adult patients receive screening for alcohol and drug use during primary care visits, but the adoption of screening in routine practice remains low. Clinics frequently struggle to choose a screening approach that is best suited to their resources, workflows, and patient populations.

    Objective  To evaluate how to best implement electronic health record (EHR)–integrated screening for substance use by comparing commonly used screening methods and examining their association with implementation outcomes.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This article presents the outcomes of phases 3 and 4 of a 4-phase quality improvement, implementation feasibility study in which researchers worked with stakeholders at 6 primary care clinics in 2 large urban academic health care systems to define and implement their optimal screening approach. Site A was located in New York City and comprised 2 clinics, and site B was located in Boston, Massachusetts, and comprised 4 clinics. Clinics initiated screening between January 2017 and October 2018, and 93 114 patients were eligible for screening for alcohol and drug use. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021.

    Interventions  Clinics integrated validated screening questions and a brief counseling script into the EHR, with implementation supported by the use of clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention) and the training of clinic staff. Clinics varied in their screening approaches, including the type of visit targeted for screening (any visit vs annual examinations only), the mode of administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient), and the extent to which they used practice facilitation and EHR usability testing.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Data from the EHRs were extracted quarterly for 12 months to measure implementation outcomes. The primary outcome was screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected via screening, and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script.

    Results  Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Of the 93,114 patients with primary care visits, 71.8% received screening for alcohol use, and 70.5% received screening for drug use. Screening at any visit (implemented at site A) in comparison with screening at annual examinations only (implemented at site B) was associated with higher screening rates for alcohol use (90.3%-94.7% vs 24.2%-72.0%, respectively) and drug use (89.6%-93.9% vs 24.6%-69.8%). The 5 clinics that used a self-administered screening approach had a higher detection rate for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (14.7%-36.6%) compared with the 1 clinic that used a staff-administered screening approach (1.6%). The detection of moderate- to high-risk drug use was low across all clinics (0.5%-1.0%). Clinics with more robust practice facilitation and EHR usability testing had somewhat greater adoption of the counseling script for patients with moderate-high risk alcohol or drug use (1.4%-12.5% vs 0.1%-1.1%).

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this quality improvement study, EHR-integrated screening was feasible to implement in all clinics and unhealthy alcohol use was detected more frequently when self-administered screening was used at any primary care visit. The detection of drug use was low at all clinics, as was clinician adoption of counseling. These findings can be used to inform the decision-making of health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for substance use.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02963948

    Introduction

    Alcohol and drug use are among the top 10 causes of preventable death in the US.1 More than 72 500 deaths in 2017 were associated with alcohol use,2 and drug overdose deaths now exceed 81 000 deaths per year.3 The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for both alcohol and drug use among adult patients during primary care visits.4,5 While the drug screening recommendation reflects a recent change, alcohol screening has been recommended for more than 2 decades and ranks as the third-highest prevention priority for adults in the US.6,7

    Despite the substantial health burden of alcohol and drug use, screening and interventions to address these issues are rarely incorporated into routine medical care.8-12 Barriers to screening for alcohol use include systems-level problems, such as time and workflow constraints, and underlying issues of stigma and lack of clinician knowledge.13-17 These barriers are even more pronounced for drug screening because of the variety of substances (ranging from cannabis to heroin and the nonmedical use of prescribed medications), the illegality of some drugs, the greater stigmatization among patients, and the knowledge deficits among clinicians.18-20

    Electronic health records (EHRs), which can facilitate systematic screening, guide clinician actions, and record results in structured data fields, have been underused for substance use.21,22 Common data elements for alcohol and drug information have been defined and recommended for integration into EHRs23; however, in most systems, this information is still gathered in social history fields that do not include validated screening questionnaires and are inconsistently used.

    To inform strategies for implementing substance use screening and interventions in primary care settings, the Clinical Trials Network of the National Institute on Drug Abuse conducted a study of EHR-integrated screening in 2 large urban academic health care systems. The primary goal was to facilitate the implementation of screening approaches that were feasible, had good potential for sustainability, and would optimize the screening rate and capture of screening data in the EHR. To evaluate how best to implement EHR-integrated screening, the present study compared screening methods to examine their association with implementation outcomes during the first year of screening at 6 participating primary care clinics.

    Methods

    This study was approved by the institutional review boards of the New York University Grossman School of Medicine, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Partners Healthcare System. A waiver of informed consent was granted because the screening was conducted as part of routine clinical care, the study posed minimal risk to participants, and it would not have been feasible to obtain individual consent from all clinic patients. The study followed the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) reporting guideline for health care quality improvement studies.24

    Study Design and Setting

    In this quality improvement study assessing implementation feasibility, clinics were required to use screening tools included in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Common Data Elements.23 All clinics received support to compensate a clinical champion (10% full-time equivalent) and expert consultation from the research team to assist them in choosing a screening approach that clinic leaders believed would be the most feasible and effective in their setting. The clinics used existing EHR systems and were not provided with additional clinical staff or resources to perform screening. Although the study was not randomized, clinics varied in their screening approaches and implementation strategies. We sought to characterize and evaluate the screening implementation outcomes achieved using these diverse tactics.

    The study sites were 2 urban academic health care systems; site A was in New York City, and site B was in Boston, Massachusetts. At site A, which included 2 primary care clinics (A1 and A2), screening was advocated by a site principal investigator (R.N.R.), who is a clinical leader in the treatment of substance use disorders. At site B, which included 4 primary care clinics (B1 through B4), screening was part of a systemwide initiative to integrate substance use care into general medical settings. Clinics were general internal medicine practices serving adult patients, and none of the clinics were systematically screening patients for alcohol or drug use before the study began. One clinic from each site was the primary teaching practice for the internal medicine residency program, which was located near the hospital. The other clinics were in community settings, and 1 clinic (A2) was a faculty practice. All clinics used Epic EHR software (Epic Systems Corp).

    Before the initiation of screening, barriers were assessed through focus groups and interviews with stakeholders,25 and the EHR tools developed to support screening were tailored through multiple rounds of usability testing. Screening was initiated at 1 clinic within each health care system in January 2017 (clinic A1) and July 2017 (clinic B1). Screening was then implemented at the remaining clinics (A2, B2, B3, and B4) between February and October 2018. Implementation outcomes were collected for 12 months after initiation of screening at each clinic, and data collection ended in October 2019. The primary outcome was the screening rate for alcohol and drug use. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of unhealthy substance use detected via screening and clinician adoption of a brief counseling script.

    Screening Program Elements

    Clinics used screening program elements that had been reported to increase the adoption of screening and interventions by health care professionals.26-29 These elements23,30-37 are summarized in Table 1 and included the training of clinic staff and the use of validated screening tools (the single-item screening questions for alcohol and drugs, the 3-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption items [AUDIT-C] and the 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST-10]), a clinical reminder in the EHR indicating that a patient was due for screening (based on age, type of visit, and no receipt of screening within the past 12 months), a brief EHR-integrated counseling script suggested for use with patients with moderate- to high-risk alcohol or drug use, and clinical champions (ie, clinicians who advocate for change, motivate others, and use their expertise to facilitate the adoption of an intervention). The counseling script was created for the study and included the 4 major components of a brief negotiated interview: raising the subject, providing feedback, enhancing motivation, and negotiating a plan.36

    Screening Approach and Implementation Strategies

    Participating health care systems and clinics selected the screening approach that they deemed most feasible given their resources, clinical workflows, and patient populations. There was variation in the type of visit targeted for screening (annual examination only vs any visit), with clinics A1 and A2 choosing to conduct screenings at any visit and clinics B1 through B4 choosing to conduct screenings at annual examinations only (Table 2). The mode of screening administration (staff-administered vs self-administered by the patient) also varied, with 5 clinics choosing self-administration and only 1 clinic (A1) choosing staff administration (Table 2).

    Clinics varied in the extent of practice facilitation and usability testing of the EHR tools developed to support screening. Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy in which trained facilitators work with clinic leaders and staff to implement evidence-based practices.39-41 All clinics received practice facilitation from study investigators (T.A.K., E.F., B.I., and M.H.) for the first 12 months of the screening program, and the extent of facilitation was classified as robust vs standard based on training, days spent on site by the facilitator, and frequency of meetings with clinical champions. Usability testing involves observing human-computer interaction as representative end users use a prototype and provide feedback on system design, interface, information content, and mode of delivery. It is an iterative process in which each round of usability testing is followed by system redesign based on user feedback.42,43 Three rounds of usability testing were conducted at clinic A1 (performed by J.M., J.K., M.H., and A.K.), 2 rounds were conducted at clinic A2 (performed by J.M., J.K., C.K.C., M.H., and A.K.), and 1 round was conducted at clinics B1 through B4 (performed by T.A.K. and B.I.). At site B, substance use screening was incorporated into a larger primary care initiative to collect patient-reported information on a broad range of topics; in comparison with site A, site B had less flexibility to adapt the EHR and less time to allocate to practice facilitation.

    Screening Implementation Outcomes

    Implementation outcome data were extracted from the EHR for 12 months after initiation of the screening program at each clinic. Data collected comprised (1) the number of patients eligible for screening (adults aged ≥18 years who had ≥1 primary care visit and had not completed screening in the preceding 12 months), (2) the proportion of eligible patients screened for alcohol and/or drug use, (3) the prevalence and risk level of unhealthy alcohol and drug use detected on screening, and (4) clinician adoption of the suggested counseling script for patients who had positive screening results for moderate- to high-risk alcohol and/or drug use, as detected by an EHR data element embedded in the counseling script. At each clinic, summary reports of implementation outcomes were generated weekly for the first 3 months of screening and quarterly thereafter. Reports were sent to the investigators and research staff, who then shared and discussed them with clinical champions.

    Statistical Analysis

    Clinics sent extracted EHR data that captured screening information to the study’s data and statistical coordinating center (The Emmes Company, Rockville, Maryland) throughout the first 12 months; these data were used to generate summary reports of the implementation outcome measures for each clinic. A separate data extraction was performed at the end of the study period to collect sociodemographic information from the EHR, which was used to describe the patient populations at each clinic. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the rates and frequencies of predefined implementation outcomes.

    Screening rate was calculated as the proportion of eligible patients presenting for a primary care visit who completed screening for alcohol or drug use. Patients who had a positive result on the single-item screening question for alcohol (“How many times in the past year have you had x or more drinks in a day?” [x was 5 for men and 4 for women])30,31 received the AUDIT-C (score range, 0-12 points, with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of having an unhealthy level of alcohol use or an alcohol use disorder). Patients who had a positive result on the single-item screening question for drugs (“How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons [for example, because of the experience or feeling it caused]?”)30,32 received the DAST-10 (score range, 0-10 points, with higher scores indicating more severe levels of problems associated with drug use).32,34,35,37 A positive result for the single-item screening questions was defined as any response greater than 0 points. The prevalence of moderate- to high-risk use was calculated using standard cutoffs for the AUDIT-C (for moderate-risk alcohol use, 3-7 points for women and 4-7 points for men; for high-risk alcohol use, ≥8 points) and the DAST-10 (for moderate-risk drug use, 3-5 points; for high-risk drug use, ≥6 points)33-35,37,38 (Table 1). Because the counseling script was only suggested for use among patients who received positive screening results for moderate- to high-risk use of alcohol and/or drugs, the counseling rate was calculated based on the moderate- to high-risk population. Data used in the analysis were collected between January 2017 and October 2019, and analysis was performed from July 13, 2018, to March 23, 2021, using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

    Results

    Patients of the 6 clinics had a mean (SD) age ranging from 48.9 (17.3) years at clinic B2 to 59.1 (16.7) years at clinic B3, were predominantly female (52.4% at clinic A1 to 64.6% at clinic A2), and were English speaking. Racial diversity varied by location. Other characteristics of the participating clinics and their patient populations are shown in Table 3. Of the 6 clinics included in the study, the approximate number of patient visits per year ranged from 12 000 at clinic B4 to 60 000 at clinic A1; clinic B3 had the highest number of attending physicians (50), and clinic A1 had the highest number of medical residents (134). The site B clinics, with the exception of clinic B2, served a predominantly White patient population, while site A clinics had a higher proportion of patients who were Black or of other races (a category that included patients who identified as having Hispanic ethnicity without specifying their race). Insurance status varied by practice type, with clinic A1 having the largest proportion of Medicaid patients (41.8%), clinic B3 having the largest proportion of Medicare patients (37.0%), and clinic A2 (the faculty practice) having the highest proportion of privately insured patients (81.0%).

    Among 93 114 patients eligible for screening, 66 817 patients (71.8%) received screening for alcohol use, and 65 656 patients (70.5%) received screening for drug use (Table 4). Screening rates were higher among clinics that conducted screening at any visit (for alcohol screening, 90.3% at clinic A1 and 94.7% at clinic A2; for drug screening, 89.6% at clinic A1 and 93.9% at clinic A2) compared with clinics that conducted screening at annual examinations only (for alcohol screening, 42.2% at clinic B1, 24.2% at clinic B2, 72.0% at clinic B3, and 44.3% at clinic B4; for drug screening, 37.9% at clinic B1, 24.6% at clinic B2, 69.8% at clinic B3, and 44.1% at clinic B4) (Table 4 and eFigure in the Supplement).

    The prevalence of moderate- to high-risk alcohol use detected by screening was lowest at clinic A1 (1.6%), which used a staff-administered screening approach. At clinics that used a self-administered approach, the prevalence of moderate- to high-risk alcohol use was higher, ranging from 14.7% at clinic A2 to 36.6% at clinic B1. The prevalence of moderate- to high-risk drug use detected by screening was low at all clinics, ranging from 0.3% at clinic A2 to 1.0% at clinics B1 and B2.

    The counseling script was used infrequently, with rates ranging from 0.1% at clinic B3 to 12.5% at clinic A1 (Table 4). Clinics A1 and A2, which used implementation strategies comprising robust practice facilitation and more EHR usability testing, had the highest rates of counseling (12.5% and 1.4%, respectively) across the 6 clinics.

    Discussion

    In this quality improvement study of the feasibility and implementation of EHR-integrated screening, 71.8% of eligible patients received screening for substance use over the course of 12 months, via the use of validated questionnaires during routine primary care visits. This screening represents a substantial change in practice for the participating clinics, none of which were systematically screening patients for alcohol or drug use before our study intervention began. The successful implementation of screening aligns these clinics with the current US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for alcohol and drug screening among adult patients in primary care settings.4,5

    Notably, the screening program was implemented using existing clinic staff and EHRs, although the study provided support for practice facilitation and usability testing as well as modest funding for clinical champions. Screening rates were higher than those observed in a number of previous screening implementation studies.26,29,44 At some clinics, screening prevalence was consistent with results from the Veterans Health Administration, which has prioritized alcohol screening during primary care visits for years.45 However, we did observe differences in screening rates that appeared to be associated with the screening approach and implementation strategies used in the participating clinics.

    Screening rates were highest at site A clinics, which adopted the approach of screening patients during any primary care visit. The screening rates at site A (89.6%-94.7%) were slightly higher than those reported in a recent pragmatic clinical trial conducted at primary care practices in Washington state.46 The site B clinics, which specifically targeted annual examinations for screening, had lower and more variable screening rates (24.2%-72.0%). Although it is typical for primary care practices to conduct screening only during a dedicated annual physical or preventive care visit, patients may miss appointments; therefore, offering screening during any type of visit provides more opportunities to detect substance use. Notably, at all sites, the performance of screening was suggested only once per year because screening at every visit may produce patient and clinician fatigue and decrease the accuracy of results.47

    Perhaps the most notable finding was the substantially lower detection of unhealthy alcohol use at the 1 clinic (A1) that used a staff-administered screening approach in comparison with clinics that used a self-administered approach. Based on survey data, the anticipated prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use in the general population is approximately 30%.48,49 In medical settings, the rates of positive screening results are typically lower, which may be associated with patients’ reluctance to disclose substance use.25,50-52 Two study clinics achieved rates of positive screening results for moderate- to high-risk alcohol use that exceeded general population estimates, and all 5 clinics using a self-administered approach detected a greater than 14% prevalence of moderate- to high-risk alcohol use (vs <2% for the clinic that used staff-administered screening). Our findings are consistent with those of previous studies using self-administered screening, which typically produces more accurate reporting among patients with stigmatized conditions.53-55 Our findings could also reflect problems with the quality of screening when administered by staff, who may change the wording of validated screening questions in an effort to hasten the process or reduce perceived patient discomfort.56,57

    Screening rates were similar for alcohol and drug use, likely reflecting the fact that most clinics administered the alcohol and drug screenings simultaneously. However, the detection of unhealthy drug use via screening was low and did not appear to vary based on the screening approach or implementation strategy used. Although population rates of illicit drug use are lower than those of alcohol use, the prevalence of past-year drug use may be as high as 21% when cannabis is included.58 The low screening-detected prevalence of drug use likely reflects patients’ discomfort with disclosing a behavior that is illegal and stigmatized and one that they may believe could negatively impact their medical care. The drug screening tools used in our study did not distinguish between the use of cannabis and other drugs. Given the changing legal status and social acceptability of cannabis, it is possible that using a screening instrument that contains separate questions about cannabis and other illicit drugs, such as the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medications, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) tool,59 would produce higher reporting of drug use.60,61 Regardless of the screening approach, increasing patients’ comfort with disclosing drug use may also require improving clinicians’ attitudes.17,19,25

    Clinics differed in their implementation strategies, with site A clinics having more robust practice facilitation and usability testing than site B clinics, which may have been associated with the higher rates of adoption of screening and counseling. Practice facilitation can be a beneficial implementation strategy, although results are not uniform across studies.39-41 Usability testing is helpful for implementing any practice change that involves modifications to the EHR.43,62,63 In our study, it is not possible to differentiate the relative contributions of practice facilitation and usability testing, although the clinic that performed the most usability testing (A1) used the counseling script at a slightly higher rate. Further studies are needed to examine the independent, and possibly synergistic, associations between these implementation strategies.

    Clinician use of the counseling script among patients with moderate- to high-risk alcohol or drug use was low at all clinics. This low adoption may reflect the fact that counseling was recommended but not required and that delivering the script was a complex and relatively time-consuming task (requiring ≥5 minutes).64,65 Focus groups conducted in an earlier stage of this study voiced concern that substance use counseling would be too time consuming to include during regular primary care visits.25 Further barriers to adoption could have been clinician discomfort and lack of knowledge about alcohol and drug use, which may have made them reluctant to engage patients in conversation about these behaviors.14,66

    Limitations

    This study has limitations. As an implementation feasibility study, it sought to adapt to the existing conditions and resources of the participating clinics. Clinics were not randomized, so it is not possible to conclude with confidence that the differences we observed are associated with the screening approaches or implementation strategies used rather than other practice characteristics. In addition, clinics had overlapping combinations of implementation strategies, so we are unable to pinpoint whether robust practice facilitation or usability testing has more substantial implications for differential screening outcomes. However, the extent of the differences, particularly in screening rates and the prevalence of unhealthy alcohol use detected via screening, suggests that the screening approach selected by clinics was associated with the outcomes. We had limited ability to measure clinician counseling, and it is possible that clinicians discussed screening results with patients without using the counseling script. Conducting medical record reviews or using natural language processing to analyze clinical notes may have captured this information, but these methods were outside the scope of the study. We were also unable to measure referrals for substance use treatment among patients who received positive screening results for high-risk substance use. Although study clinics varied in size, location, and patient population and included both faculty and resident clinicians, they were all within urban academic health care systems; thus, they are not representative of all primary care practices.

    Conclusions

    By examining the outcomes of common approaches to screening for substance use in primary care settings, the findings of this quality improvement study can guide clinics and health care systems that are seeking to implement screening for alcohol and drug use. Interest in screening will likely increase, motivated by US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations,4,5 the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure for alcohol screening and brief interventions,67 and increases in substance use associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.68 The high screening rate achieved in our study clinics supports the feasibility of EHR-integrated screening for substance use as part of routine primary care. This study also suggests best practices, including the use of self-administered screening tools and the performance of screening at any type of visit. The implementation strategies of robust practice facilitation and usability testing, although more resource intensive, were also associated with greater adoption of screening and counseling.

    Many previous studies have reported the challenges of implementing substance use screening and interventions in primary care settings.26,29,44,46,69,70 The health care systems participating in the present study have maintained screening and are now adopting our EHR-integrated screening tools systemwide, which highlights the success of their implementation. However, more research is needed regarding beneficial interventions to address moderate-risk drug use during primary care visits, strategies for motivating clinicians to engage patients in discussions of substance use, and the resources required to do so.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: March 28, 2021.

    Published: May 20, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10721

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 McNeely J et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Jennifer McNeely, MD, MS, Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 180 Madison Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (jennifer.mcneely@nyulangone.org).

    Author Contributions: Dr McNeely had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: McNeely, Rotrosen, Wakeman, Kannry, Rosenthal, Rosa, Peccoralo, Waite, Hamilton.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: McNeely, Adam, Wilens, Kannry, Rosenthal, Wahle, Pitts, Farkas, Rosa, Peccoralo, Waite, Vega, Kent, Craven, Kaminski, Firmin, Isenberg, Harris, Kushniruk, Hamilton.

    Drafting of the manuscript: McNeely, Vega, Kent, Isenberg, Hamilton.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McNeely, Adam, Rotrosen, Wakeman, Wilens, Kannry, Rosenthal, Wahle, Pitts, Farkas, Rosa, Peccoralo, Waite, Craven, Kaminski, Firmin, Harris, Kushniruk, Hamilton.

    Statistical analysis: Wahle, Kushniruk, Hamilton.

    Obtained funding: McNeely, Rotrosen, Kannry, Farkas.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: McNeely, Adam, Rotrosen, Kannry, Rosenthal, Pitts, Farkas, Rosa, Peccoralo, Waite, Vega, Kent, Craven, Kaminski, Firmin, Isenberg, Harris, Hamilton.

    Supervision: McNeely, Rotrosen, Rosa, Vega, Kent, Hamilton.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr McNeely reported receiving personal fees from the National Council for Quality Assurance outside the submitted work. Dr Adam reported receiving a research fellowship from the Swiss Foundation for Alcohol Research outside the submitted work. Dr Rotrosen reported being a principal investigator or coinvestigator on studies that received funding and/or donated or discounted medication from the Addiction–Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System, Alkermes, Braeburn Pharmaceuticals/Camurus, Indivior (formerly Reckitt Benckiser), and Pear Therapeutics and serving as an unpaid member of an Alkermes steering committee outside the submitted work. Dr Wakeman reported receiving textbook royalties from Springer Publishing and personal fees from Alosa Health, Celero Systems, OptumLabs, and UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Wilens reported receiving consulting fees from Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Ironshore, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Vallon Pharmaceuticals; receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press as a coeditor of the textbook ADHD in Adults and Children, Guilford Press as an author of Straight Talk About Psychiatric Medications for Kids, and Ironshore as a co-owner of the Before School Functioning Questionnaire; and serving as a clinical consultant to Bay Cove Human Services, the Gavin Foundation, US Major League Baseball, US Minor League Baseball, and the US National Football League outside the submitted work. Dr Kushniruk reported receiving grants from AE Informatics during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants UG1DA013035 (Dr Rotrosen), UG1DA015831, and HHSN271201400028C (The Emmes Company) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Carmen Rosa, MS, Scientific Officer at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for the Clinical Trials Network, contributed to study conception and participated in the writing of the manuscript. The funding organization had no role in the conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.

    Meeting Presentations: This work was presented at the annual conference of the International Network on Brief Interventions for Alcohol & Other Drugs; September 26, 2019; Hamburg, Germany; the annual conference of the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse; November 9, 2019; Boston, Massachusetts; and the virtual annual conference of Addiction Health Services Research; October 15, 2020.

    Additional Contributions: Noa Appleton, MPH, Patricia Novo, MPA, and Antonia Polyn, MPH, of the New York University Grossman School of Medicine contributed to study coordination. Margaret Kline, MS, and Jacquie King, MS, of The Emmes Company contributed to data management and analysis. Constance Weisner, DrPH, MSW, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California; Katharine Bradley, MD, MPH, of Kaiser Permanente Washington; Chinazo Cunningham, MD, MS, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine; and Devin Mann, MD, of the New York University Grossman School of Medicine served on the study Advisory Committee. The Clinical Trials Network Publications Committee of the National Institute on Drug Abuse provided peer review of the manuscript before submission. None of the contributors received compensation for their assistance.

    References
    1.
    Mokdad  AH, Marks  JS, Stroup  DF, Gerberding  JL.  Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000.   JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238-1245. doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1238 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    White  AM, Castle  IJP, Hingson  RW, Powell  PA.  Using death certificates to explore changes in alcohol-related mortality in the United States, 1999 to 2017.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(1):178-187. doi:10.1111/acer.14239 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increase in fatal drug overdoses across the United States driven by synthetic opioids before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: CDC health advisory. CDC Health Alert Network. December 17, 2020. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00438.asp
    4.
    Krist  AH, Davidson  KW, Mangione  CM,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for unhealthy drug use: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2020;323(22):2301-2309. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.8020 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.   JAMA. 2018;320(18):1899-1909. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16789 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Solberg  LI, Maciosek  MV, Edwards  NM.  Primary care intervention to reduce alcohol misuse ranking its health impact and cost effectiveness.   Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(2):143-152. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.035 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Maciosek  MV, Coffield  AB, Edwards  NM, Flottemesch  TJ, Goodman  MJ, Solberg  LI.  Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis.   Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1):52-61. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Nilsen  P.  Brief alcohol intervention—where to from here? challenges remain for research and practice.   Addiction. 2010;105(6):954-959. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02779.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Kaner  E.  Brief alcohol intervention: time for translational research.   Addiction. 2010;105(6):960-961. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02848.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Rehm  J, Anderson  P, Manthey  J,  et al.  Alcohol use disorders in primary health care: what do we know and where do we go?   Alcohol Alcohol. 2016;51(4):422-427. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agv127 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    McKnight-Eily  LR, Okoro  CA, Mejia  R,  et al.  Screening for excessive alcohol use and brief counseling of adults—17 states and the District of Columbia, 2014.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(12):313-319. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6612a1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Hallgren  KA, Witwer  E, West  I,  et al.  Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice–based research network.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2020;110:18-27. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2019.11.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    McCormick  KA, Cochran  NE, Back  AL, Merrill  JO, Williams  EC, Bradley  KA.  How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol: a qualitative study.   J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):966-972. doi:10.1007/BF02743146 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Anderson  P, Wojnar  M, Jakubczyk  A,  et al.  Managing alcohol problems in general practice in Europe: results from the European ODHIN survey of general practitioners.   Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49(5):531-539. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agu043 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Johnson  M, Jackson  R, Guillaume  L, Meier  P, Goyder  E.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.   J Public Health (Oxf). 2011;33(3):412-421. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdq095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Aira  M, Kauhanen  J, Larivaara  P, Rautio  P.  Factors influencing inquiry about patients’ alcohol consumption by primary health care physicians: qualitative semi-structured interview study.   Fam Pract. 2003;20(3):270-275. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmg307 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Yoast  RA, Wilford  BB, Hayashi  SW.  Encouraging physicians to screen for and intervene in substance use disorders: obstacles and strategies for change.   J Addict Dis. 2008;27(3):77-97. doi:10.1080/10550880802122687 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Harris  BR, Yu  J.  Attitudes, perceptions and practice of alcohol and drug screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment: a case study of New York state primary care physicians and non-physician providers.   Public Health. 2016;139:70-78. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.05.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Wakeman  SE, Pham-Kanter  G, Donelan  K.  Attitudes, practices, and preparedness to care for patients with substance use disorder: results from a survey of general internists.   Subst Abus. 2016;37(4):635-641. doi:10.1080/08897077.2016.1187240 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    van Boekel  LC, Brouwers  EPM, van Weeghel  J, Garretsen  HFL.  Stigma among health professionals towards patients with substance use disorders and its consequences for healthcare delivery: systematic review.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1-2):23-35. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Tai  B, McLellan  AT.  Integrating information on substance use disorders into electronic health record systems.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012;43(1):12-19. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.10.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Venkatesh  A, Malicki  C, Hawk  K, D’Onofrio  G, Kinsman  J, Taylor  A.  Assessing the readiness of digital data infrastructure for opioid use disorder research.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2020;15(1):24. doi:10.1186/s13722-020-00198-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIDA CTN common data elements. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://cde.drugabuse.gov/
    24.
    Ogrinc  G, Davies  L, Goodman  D, Batalden  P, Davidoff  F, Stevens  D.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process.   BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):986-992. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    McNeely  J, Kumar  PC, Rieckmann  T,  et al.  Barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of substance use screening in primary care clinics: a qualitative study of patients, providers, and staff.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13(1):8. doi:10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Seale  JP, Shellenberger  S, Velasquez  MM,  et al.  Impact of vital signs screening & clinician prompting on alcohol and tobacco screening and intervention rates: a pre-post intervention comparison.   BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-18 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Lapham  GT, Achtmeyer  CE, Williams  EC, Hawkins  EJ, Kivlahan  DR, Bradley  KA.  Increased documented brief alcohol interventions with a performance measure and electronic decision support.   Med Care. 2012;50(2):179-187. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e35743 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Saitz  R, Horton  NJ, Sullivan  LM, Moskowitz  MA, Samet  JH.  Addressing alcohol problems in primary care: a cluster randomized, controlled trial of a systems intervention: the Screening and Intervention in Primary Care (SIP) study.   Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(5):372-382. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-5-200303040-00006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Ornstein  SM, Miller  PM, Wessell  AM, Jenkins  RG, Nemeth  LS, Nietert  PJ.  Integration and sustainability of alcohol screening, brief intervention, and pharmacotherapy in primary care settings.   J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2013;74(4):598-604. doi:10.15288/jsad.2013.74.598 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    McNeely  J, Cleland  CM, Strauss  SM, Palamar  JJ, Rotrosen  J, Saitz  R.  Validation of self-administered single-item screening questions (SISQs) for unhealthy alcohol and drug use in primary care patients.   J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1757-1764. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3391-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Smith  PC, Schmidt  SM, Allensworth-Davies  D, Saitz  R.  Primary care validation of a single-question alcohol screening test.   J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(7):783-788. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0928-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Smith  PC, Schmidt  SM, Allensworth-Davies  D, Saitz  R.  A single-question screening test for drug use in primary care.   Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(13):1155-1160. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.140 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Bradley  KA, DeBenedetti  AF, Volk  RJ, Williams  EC, Frank  D, Kivlahan  DR.  AUDIT-C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(7):1208-1217. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00403.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Skinner  HA.  The drug abuse screening test.   Addict Behav. 1982;7(4):363-371. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Yudko  E, Lozhkina  O, Fouts  A.  A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(2):189-198. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    D'Onofrio  GD, Pantalon  MV, Degutis  LC, Fiellin  D, O’Connor  PG.  The Yale Brief Negotiated Interview Manual. Yale University School of Medicine; 2005.
    37.
    Bradley  KA, Chung  H, Brown  RL,  et al; National Council for Behavioral Health.  Implementing Care for Alcohol & Other Drug Use in Medical Settings: An Extension of SBIRT. National Council for Behavioral Health; 2018. SBIRT Change Guide 1.0. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/021518_NCBH_ASPTReport-FINAL.pdf?daf=375ateTbd56
    38.
    Rubinsky  AD, Dawson  DA, Williams  EC, Kivlahan  DR, Bradley  KA.  AUDIT-C scores as a scaled marker of mean daily drinking, alcohol use disorder severity, and probability of alcohol dependence in a U.S. general population sample of drinkers.   Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013;37(8):1380-1390. doi:10.1111/acer.12092PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Baskerville  NB, Liddy  C, Hogg  W.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings.   Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):63-74. doi:10.1370/afm.1312 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Siantz  E, Redline  B, Henwood  B.  Practice facilitation in integrated behavioral health and primary care settings: a scoping review.   J Behav Health Serv Res. 2021;48(1):133-155. doi:10.1007/s11414-020-09709-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Wang  A, Pollack  T, Kadziel  LA,  et al.  Impact of practice facilitation in primary care on chronic disease care processes and outcomes: a systematic review.   J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1968-1977. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4581-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Kushniruk  A.  Evaluation in the design of health information systems: application of approaches emerging from usability engineering.   Comput Biol Med. 2002;32(3):141-149. doi:10.1016/S0010-4825(02)00011-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Kushniruk  AW, Patel  VL.  Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems.   J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):56-76. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2004.01.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Mertens  JR, Chi  FW, Weisner  CM,  et al.  Physician versus non-physician delivery of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment in adult primary care: the ADVISE cluster randomized controlled implementation trial.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2015;10:26. doi:10.1186/s13722-015-0047-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    45.
    Bradley  KA, Johnson  ML, Williams  EC.  Commentary on Nilsen et al. (2011): the importance of asking patients—the potential value of patient report of brief interventions.   Addiction. 2011;106(10):1757-1759. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03587.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Sayre  M, Lapham  GT, Lee  AK,  et al.  Routine assessment of symptoms of substance use disorders in primary care: prevalence and severity of reported symptoms.   J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(4):1111-1119. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-05650-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Lapham  GT, Rubinsky  AD, Williams  EC,  et al.  Decreasing sensitivity of clinical alcohol screening with the AUDIT-C after repeated negative screens in VA clinics.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;142:209-215. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.06.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Saitz  R.  Clinical practice. unhealthy alcohol use.   N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):596-607. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp042262 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Cherpitel  CJ, Ye  Y.  Drug use and problem drinking associated with primary care and emergency room utilization in the US general population: data from the 2005 National Alcohol Survey.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;97(3):226-230. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Spear  SE, Shedlin  M, Gilberti  B, Fiellin  M, McNeely  J.  Feasibility and acceptability of an audio computer-assisted self-interview version of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in primary care patients.   Subst Abus. 2016;37(2):299-305. doi:10.1080/08897077.2015.1062460PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Saunders  EC, Moore  SK, Gardner  T,  et al.  Screening for substance use in rural primary care: a qualitative study of providers and patients.   J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(12):2824-2832. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05232-y PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Pilowsky  DJ, Wu  LT.  Screening for alcohol and drug use disorders among adults in primary care: a review.   Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2012;3(1):25-34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    53.
    Tourangeau  R, Smith  TW.  Asking sensitive questions—the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context.   Public Opin Q. 1996;60(2):275-304. doi:10.1086/297751 Google ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Wight  RG, Rotheram-Borus  MJ, Klosinski  L, Ramos  B, Calabro  M, Smith  R.  Screening for transmission behaviors among HIV-infected adults.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12(5):431-441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    55.
    Adam  A, Schwartz  RP, Wu  LT,  et al.  Electronic self-administered screening for substance use in adult primary care patients: feasibility and acceptability of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (myTAPS) screening tool.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2019;14(1):39. doi:10.1186/s13722-019-0167-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Bradley  KA, Lapham  GT, Hawkins  EJ,  et al.  Quality concerns with routine alcohol screening in VA clinical settings.   J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(3):299-306. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1509-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Williams  EC, Achtmeyer  CE, Rittmueller  SE,  et al.  Factors underlying quality problems with alcohol screening in routine care.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2013;8(suppl 1):A85. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-8-S1-A85Google ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2020. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-annual-national-report
    59.
    McNeely  J, Wu  LT, Subramaniam  G,  et al.  Performance of the Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Medication, and Other Substance Use (TAPS) tool for substance use screening in primary care patients.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(10):690-699. doi:10.7326/M16-0317 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    60.
    Bradley  KA, Lapham  GT, Lee  AK.  Screening for drug use in primary care: practical implications of the new USPSTF recommendation.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(8):1050-1051. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.7335 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Lapham  GT, Lee  AK, Caldeiro  RM,  et al.  Frequency of cannabis use among primary care patients in Washington state.   J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(6):795-805. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2017.06.170062 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Kastner  M, Lottridge  D, Marquez  C, Newton  D, Straus  SE.  Usability evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management.   Implement Sci. 2010;5:96. doi:10.1186/748-5908-5-96Google ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Kushniruk  AW, Borycki  EM.  Low-cost rapid usability engineering: designing and customizing usable healthcare information systems.   Healthc Q. 2006;9(4):98-100, 102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    64.
    Bright  TJ, Wong  A, Dhurjati  R,  et al.  Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.   Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29-43. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Garg  AX, Adhikari  NKJ, McDonald  H,  et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.   JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223-1238. doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Sterling  S, Kline-Simon  AH, Wibbelsman  C, Wong  A, Weisner  C.  Screening for adolescent alcohol and drug use in pediatric health-care settings: predictors and implications for practice and policy.   Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2012;7(1):13. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-7-13 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    67.
    National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS measure: unhealthy alcohol use screening and follow-up. National Committee for Quality Assurance. Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/reports-and-research/hedis-measure-unhealthy-alcohol-use-screening-and-follow-up/
    68.
    Czeisler  ME, Lane  RI, Petrosky  E,  et al.  Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, June 24-30, 2020.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(32):1049-1057. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6932a1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    van Beurden  I, Anderson  P, Akkermans  RP, Grol  RPTM, Wensing  M, Laurant  MGH.  Involvement of general practitioners in managing alcohol problems: a randomized controlled trial of a tailored improvement programme.   Addiction. 2012;107(9):1601-1611. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03868.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    70.
    Williams  EC, Achtmeyer  CE, Young  JP,  et al.  Local implementation of alcohol screening and brief intervention at five Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics: perspectives of clinical and administrative staff.   J Subst Abuse Treat. 2016;60:27-35. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.07.011 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×