Contextual factors associated with successful alcohol screening and brief intervention implementation and sustainment in adult primary care
Stacy A Sterling,Yun Lu,Christina Grijalva,Thekla B Ross,Constance M Weisner,Joseph Elson,Felicia W Chi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josat.2024.209532
Abstract:Introduction: Hazardous drinking is a public health problem affecting approximately 20 % of the U.S. primary care population. Clinical trials have documented the efficacy and effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention (ASBI), yet widespread implementation remains elusive, and questions remain regarding optimal implementation and sustainment strategies. Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) implemented systematic ASBI in adult primary care in mid-2013. We used 8 years of electronic health record (EHR) data, combined with surveys which captured primary care provider perceptions organized into PRISM (Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) implementation framework domains (Intervention, External Environment, Implementation Infrastructure, and Recipients), to characterize ASBI implementation and sustainment and test how various factors are associated with ASBI rates. Methods: Using EHR data, we calculated yearly screening rates of adults with a primary care visit, and brief intervention (BI) rates among those with a positive hazardous drinking screen, (exceeding the age and sex-specific daily and weekly low-risk NIH guidelines (≤3 per day and ≤ 7 per week for women and older men; ≤4 per day and ≤ 14 per week for men 18-65)), across KPNC, from 2014 to 2021. We collected web-based survey data, informed by the PRISM domains, from primary care providers (n = 796; 35.5 % RR) to assess perceptions on ASBI implementation and sustainability. Results: Between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/21 there were 5,072,270 completed screenings and 624,167 BIs. After adjusting for patient panel characteristics, we found that facilities with higher Implementation Infrastructure domain scores, indicating more robust implementation capacity, had higher screening and BI rates; facilities with higher Intervention domain scores, indicating positive perceptions of SBIRT evidence, and facilities with higher Recipients domain scores, indicating perceived organizational robustness, clinician culture and management support; and greater perceived patient needs and their likely benefit from SBIRT, had higher BI rates. Conclusions: Results provide information on factors which may facilitate successful ASBI implementation and sustainability and could inform future ASBI implementation efforts in healthcare system settings. In particular, efforts toward bolstering an organization's implementation infrastructure capacity, prior to embarking on implementation of a systematic ASBI program, could potentially help pave the way for successful implementation.