Using process indicators to optimize service completion of an ED drug and alcohol brief intervention program
Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, PO Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302
Correspondence
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 413 6323.

Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, PO Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302
Correspondence
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 404 413 6323.

Affiliations
- Institute of Public and Preventive Health and Department of Psychology, Georgia Regents University, 1120 Fifteenth St CJ2300, Augusta, GA 30912

Affiliations
- Department of Family Medicine, Medical Center of Central Georgia and Mercer University School of Medicine, 3780 Bloomfield Village Dr Suite 1, Macon, GA 31206

Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, PO Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302

Article Info
To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Fig. 1
Screening questions.
Fig. 2
ED patient volume and percentage screen positives by day and time.
Abstract
Objective
The strongest evidence for effectiveness of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) programs is in primary care settings. Emergency department (ED) studies have shown mixed results. Implementation of SBIRT into ED settings is complicated by the type of patients seen and the fast-paced, high-throughput nature of the ED environment that makes it difficult to reach patients flagged for SBIRT services. This study uses data from an ED-based SBIRT program to examine the relationship between screen-positive rate, ED patient flow, and SBIRT service delivery.
Methods
Data for the study (N = 67137) were derived from weekly reports extracted directly from one hospital’s electronic health record. Measures included time and day of patient entry, drug/alcohol screen result (positive or negative), and whether the patient was reached by SBIRT specialists. Factorial analysis of variance compared variations in screen-positive rates by day and time and the percentage of patients reached by SBIRT specialists during these periods.
Results
Overall, 56% of screen-positive patients received SBIRT services. Only 5% of patients offered SBIRT services refused. Day and time of entry had a significant interaction effect on the reached rate (F12,14166 =3.48, P < .001). Although patient volume was lowest between 11 pm and 7 am, screen-positive rates were highest during this period, particularly on weekends; and patients were least likely to be reached during these periods.
Conclusions
When implementing an ED-based SBIRT program, thoughtful consideration should be given to patient flow and staffing to maximize program impact and increase the likelihood of sustainability.
To access this article, please choose from the options below
Purchase access to this article
Claim Access
If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.
Subscribe to this title
Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.
Institutional Access
Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
Related Articles
Searching for related articles..
