Filtering by
- All Subjects: Screening
- All Subjects: Adolescent
- Creators: Guthrey, Ann
- Member of: Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Final Projects
- Resource Type: Text
Background and Purpose:
Depression in older adults is a significant problem that often goes undetected and untreated in primary care. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening adults for depression in primary care to increase detection, so it can be adequately managed. Despite this recommendation, screening rates in primary care are low. The purpose of this project was to implement a screening intervention and examine the effect of screening on the treatment of depression in older adults.
Methods:
The screening intervention was implemented as an evidence-based project in a small primary care practice. Consenting adults ≥ 65 years of age were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Research indicates the PHQ-9 is valid and reliable for older adults. A post-screening chart audit was conducted to collect data and analyze the outcome of screening related to treatment.
Conclusions:
A total of 38 participants were screened. Five (13.2%) participants had a positive screening, two received treatment during the follow up period. The number of participants who were treated after a positive screening was significant (p= .040).
Implications for Practice:
Screening can increase detection and treatment of depression and reduce the associated illness burden in the older adult population.
Design: The primary hypothesis was that active participation as defined by contact with a sponsor of an hour or more per week, as measured by the impact on affective characteristics correlated with increased levels of sobriety, when measured by the AWARE questionnaire (Advance Warning of Relapse) within 7 days of entry and prior to discharge (within 30 days). Setting: The project took place in a residential treatment facility in Phoenix, Arizona.
Participants: There were 12 clients from a men’s house and 12 clients from a woman’s house, all of which were going through recovery. Intervention: The educational session explained what a sponsor is and the importance of finding one early as a key role in relapse prevention.
Measurements: Pre and post-test results were compared to see if there was an impact on the predictability of relapse and sponsorship. The paired t-test was performed to compare the two means of AWARE scores. A lower score on the AWARE questionnaire indicates a person is more likely to succeed in sobriety.
Findings: Based on 24 samples collected, the mean scores within the first seven days were 91.17 with a standard deviation of 18.59 and the mean score prior to discharge were 72.78 with a standard deviation (SD) of 20.02. The mean difference between the two scores was 18.39 (SD=2.84). There was a significant effect of the relapse prevention program which included sponsorship, t (22) = 4.79, p < 0.001.
Conclusion: Implications for practice include increased time with sponsors to reduce rates of relapse. Future concerns include good fit matching which may reduce rates of relapse even further.
Background: The cost of substance use (SU) in the United States (U.S.) is estimated at $1.25 trillion annually. SU is a worldwide health concern, impacting physical and psychological health of those who use substances, their friends, family members, communities and nations. Screening, Brief Intervention (BI) and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) provides an evidence-based (EB) framework to detect and treat SU. Evidence shows that mental health (MH) providers are not providing EB SU management. Federally grant-funded SBIRT demonstrated evidence of decreased SU and prevention of full disorders. Implementation outcomes in smaller-scale projects have included increased clinician knowledge, documentation and interdisciplinary teamwork.
Objective: To improve quality of care (QOC) for adolescents who use substances in the inpatient psychiatric setting by implementing EB SBIRT practices.
Methods: Research questions focused on whether the number of SBIRT notes documented (N=170 charts) increased and whether training of the interdisciplinary team (N=26 clinicians) increased SBIRT knowledge. Individualized interventions used existing processes, training and a new SBIRT Note template. An SBIRT knowledge survey was adapted from a similar study. A pre-and post-chart audit was conducted to show increase in SBIRT documentation. The rationale for the latter was not only for compliance, but also so that all team members can know the status of SBIRT services. Thus, increased interdisciplinary teamwork was an intentional, though indirect, outcome.
Results: A paired-samples t-test indicated clinician SBIRT knowledge significantly increased, with a large effect size. The results suggest that a short, 45-60-minute tailored education module can significantly increase clinician SBIRT knowledge. Auditing screening & BI notes both before and after the study period yielded important patient SU information and which types of SBIRT documentation increased post-implementation. The CRAFFT scores of the patients were quite high from a SU perspective, averaging over 3/6 both pre- and post-implementation, revealing over an 80% chance that the adolescent patient had a SU disorder. Most patients were positive for at least one substance (pre- = 47.1%; post- = 65.2%), with cannabis and alcohol being the most commonly used substances. Completed CRAFFT screenings increased from 62.5% to 72.7% of audited patients. Post-implementation, there were two types of BI notes: the preexisting Progress Note BI (PN BI) and the new Auto-Text BI (AT BI), part of the new SBIRT Note template introduced during implementation. The PN BIs not completed despite a positive screen increased from 79.6% to 83.7%. PN BIs increased 1%. The option for AT BI notes ameliorated this effect. Total BI notes completed for a patient positive for a substance increased from 20.4% to 32.6%, with 67.4% not receiving a documented BI. Total BIs completed for all patients was 21.2% post-implementation.
Conclusion: This project is scalable throughout the U.S. in MH settings and will provide crucial knowledge about positive and negative drivers in small-scale SBIRT implementations. The role of registered nurses (RNs), social workers and psychiatrists in providing SBIRT services as an interdisciplinary team will be enhanced. Likely conclusions are that short trainings can significantly increase clinician knowledge about SBIRT and compliance with standards. Consistent with prior evidence, significant management involvement, SBIRT champions, thought leaders and other consistent emphasis is necessary to continue improving SBIRT practice in the target setting.
Keywords: adolescents, teenagers, youth, alcohol, behavioral health, cannabis, crisis, documentation, drug use, epidemic, high-risk use, illicit drugs, implementation, mental health, opiates, opioid, pilot study, psychiatric inpatient hospital, quality improvement, SBIRT, Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment, substance use, unhealthy alcohol use, use disorders