Elsevier

Annals of Emergency Medicine

Volume 50, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 699-710.e6
Annals of Emergency Medicine

INJURY PREVENTION/ORIGINAL RESEARCH
The Impact of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral for Treatment on Emergency Department Patients' Alcohol Use

Presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, May 2005, New York, NY.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.06.486Get rights and content

Study objective

We determine the impact of a screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment (SBIRT) program in reducing alcohol consumption among emergency department (ED) patients.

Methods

Patients drinking above National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism low-risk guidelines were recruited from 14 sites nationwide from April to August 2004. A quasiexperimental comparison group design was used in which control and intervention patients were recruited sequentially at each site. Control patients received a written handout. The intervention group received the handout and a brief intervention, the Brief Negotiated Interview, to reduce unhealthy alcohol use. Follow-up surveys were conducted at 3 months by telephone using an interactive voice response system.

Results

Of 7,751 patients screened, 2,051 (26%) exceeded the low-risk limits set by National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 1,132 (55%) of eligible patients consented and were enrolled (581 control, 551 intervention). Six hundred ninety-nine (62%) completed a 3-month follow-up survey, using the interactive voice response system. At follow-up, patients receiving a Brief Negotiated Interview reported consuming 3.25 fewer drinks per week than controls (coefficient [B] −3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] −5.76 to −0.75), and the maximum number of drinks per occasion among those receiving Brief Negotiated Interview was almost three quarters of a drink less than controls (B −0.72; 95% CI −1.42 to −0.02). At-risk drinkers (CAGE <2) appeared to benefit more from a Brief Negotiated Interview than dependent drinkers (CAGE >2). At 3-month follow-up, 37.2% of patients with CAGE less than 2 in the intervention group no longer exceeded National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism low-risk limits compared with 18.6% in the control group (Δ 18.6%; 95% CI 11.5% to 25.6%).

Conclusion

SBIRT appears effective in the ED setting for reducing unhealthy drinking at 3 months.

Introduction

Unhealthy alcohol use, ranging from at-risk drinking to dependence, is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and cost in the United States.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 There is substantial evidence from primary care settings that brief interventions with at-risk drinkers reduce alcohol abuse, increase treatment contact, and are cost effective.9, 10, 11, 12 Despite the high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality of alcohol-related emergency department (ED) visits,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 brief intervention techniques have not been tested widely in EDs. Health care providers confront the consequences of alcohol abuse daily but often lack the skills to engage patients in health-promoting behavior change.20, 21

Recent studies offer encouraging evidence concerning the efficacy of brief interventions in the ED setting when performed by a variety of non-ED providers.22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Hospital EDs offer a teachable moment to address the consequences of unhealthy alcohol use across the entire spectrum of severity and effect a behavior change that could improve patient outcomes, especially among those whose visit was alcohol related.22, 25, 26 However, the effectiveness of brief interventions delivered by ED providers themselves has not yet been clearly demonstrated.

We sought to determine the effectiveness of ED provider–initiated Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to alcohol Treatment (SBIRT) to reduce alcohol consumption among patients reporting unhealthy levels of alcohol use.

Section snippets

Study Design

A quasiexperimental comparison group design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of SBIRT in the ED setting.27 Participants assigned to the control group received screening for at-risk drinking and a written list of referral resources. On completion of a standardized 2-hour educational curriculum based on work at Boston Medical Center and Yale University,23, 28, 29 trained ED providers delivered the brief intervention, namely, the Brief Negotiated Interview, to participants during the

Results

A total of 402 ED staff members were trained in the Brief Negotiated Interview: 60% were physicians (attending physicians and residents), 21% nurses, 7% physician extenders (physician assistants and advanced practice nurses), and 12% social workers and EMTs. Forty-nine percent of all Brief Negotiated Interviews provided to patients were delivered by physicians, 19% by nurses, 19% by physician extenders, and 10% by social workers and EMTs.

Screening and enrollment results are presented in Figure 2

Limitations

This study has several limitations. We used a quasiexperimental design that was randomized only by time sequence, not within time sequence. This design was chosen in an effort to minimize the threat of contamination attributable to the training of ED staff in the Brief Negotiated Interview before the enrollment of controls, which we deemed a much greater threat to validity than the absence of randomization within each period. Also, patient recruitment was limited by the availability of research

Discussion

Brief interventions by primary care providers have been shown to be an efficacious and cost-effective modality for eliminating or reducing harmful health behaviors related to alcohol abuse.12, 49, 50, 51, 52 However, these techniques are used infrequently by ED staff, despite a substantial number of patients with alcohol problems.38, 53 The current multicenter study is the first to demonstrate efficacy of an ED provider intervention across a diverse group of ED practices, clinicians, and

References (58)

  • J.M. McGinnis et al.

    Actual causes of death in the United States

    JAMA

    (1993)
  • SAMHSA. National Household Survey, 2001. Washington, DC: DHHS;...
  • L. Johnston et al.

    National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1999

    (2000)
  • US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office;...
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States,...
  • Harwood H. Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods...
  • M.F. Fleming et al.

    Brief physician advice for problem drinkers: long term efficacy and benefit-cost analysis

    Alcohol Clin Exp Res.

    (2002)
  • C. Dunn et al.

    The use of brief interventions adapted from motivational interviewing across behavioral domains: a systematic review

    Addiction.

    (2001)
  • A.I. Wilks et al.

    Meta-analysis of randomized control trials addressing brief interventions in heavy alcohol drinkers

    J Gen Intern Med.

    (1997)
  • N. Bertholet et al.

    Reduction of alcohol consumption by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

    Arch Intern Med

    (2005)
  • L.F. McCaig et al.

    National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2000 emergency department summary

    Adv Data.

    (2002)
  • P.J. Whiteman et al.

    Alcoholism in the emergency department

    Acad Emerg Med.

    (2000)
  • E. Bernstein et al.

    Emergency department detection and referral rates for patients with problem drinking

    Subst Abuse.

    (1996)
  • S.R. Lowenstein et al.

    Behavioral risk factors in emergency department patients: a multi-site survey

    Acad Emerg Med.

    (1998)
  • C.J. Cherpitel

    Drinking patterns and problems: a comparison of primary care with the emergency room

    Subst Abuse.

    (1999)
  • D.M. Graham et al.

    Emergency physician attitudes concerning intervention for alcohol abuse/dependence delivered in the emergency department: a brief report

    J Addict Dis

    (2000)
  • G. Geller et al.

    Knowledge, attitudes and reported practices of medical students and house staff regarding the diagnosis and treatment of alcoholism

    JAMA

    (1989)
  • F.C. Blow et al.

    The efficacy of two brief intervention strategies among injured, at-risk drinkers in the emergency department: impact of tailored messaging and brief advice

    J Stud Alcohol

    (2006)
  • R. Longabaugh et al.

    Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department

    J Stud Alcohol

    (2001)
  • Cited by (158)

    • A randomized clinical trial of strengths-based case management to link emergency department patients to opioid use disorder treatment

      2022, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Non-medical models like screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) have sought to mitigate the treatment gap by identifying ED patients with substance use disorders, providing brief therapeutic contact, and referring the most severe cases to longer-term care. While some SBIRT programs have shown promising effects on post-ED engagement in substance use treatment (Krupski et al., 2010), results have been mixed, and most research has focused on SBIRT for patients with alcohol use disorder (Academic ED SBIRT Research Collaborative, 2007; Blow et al., 2006; Crawford et al., 2004; Estee et al., 2010; Monti et al., 2007; Neumann et al., 2006; Spirito et al., 2004). Brief motivational interventions appear somewhat less effective at engaging drug-dependent patients in long-term treatment (Bernstein et al., 2005; Donovan et al., 2001; Rapp et al., 2008; Tait et al., 2004) or modifying their drug use (Bogenschutz et al., 2014; Marsden et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2003; Stein et al., 2009), and positive effects tend to deteriorate over time (McCambridge & Strang, 2005).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Supervising editor: David. L. Schriger, MD, MPH

    Author contributions: EB, GD, JB, and RHA conceived the study and obtained the initial funding for the development of the curriculum and the training (R25), and RHA for the Data Coordinating Center (R21). All sites submitted (RO3s) for patient outcomes and participated in data collection. RHA analyzed the data. All authors participated in the interpretation of the data. EB, JB, GD, and RHA participated in drafting the article. All authors participated in the critical review of the article. EB, JB, GD, and RHA take responsibility for the paper as a whole.

    Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. Funding was provided by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 1R25AA014957 (E. Bernstein, J. Bernstein, and G. D'Onofrio); 1R03AA01511-14 (all site authors); R21 AA015123 (R. H. Aseltine).

    Reprints not available from the authors.

    All members are listed in Appendix 1.

    View full text