Objectives-Alcohol screening and brief interventions in medical settings can significantly reduce alcohol use. Corresponding data for illicit drug use is sparse. A Federally funded Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) service program, the largest of its kind to date, was initiated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in a wide variety of medical settings. We compared illicit drug use at intake and six months after drug screening and interventions were administered.Design-SBIRT services were implemented in a range of medical settings across six states. A diverse patient population (Alaska Natives, American Indians, African-Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics), was screened and offered score-based progressive levels of intervention (brief intervention, brief treatment, referral to specialty treatment). In this secondary analysis of the SBIRT service program, drug use data was compared at intake and at a six month follow-up, in a sample of a randomly selected population (10%) that screened positive at baseline.Results-Of 459,599 patients screened, 22.7% screened positive for a spectrum of use (risky/ problematic, abuse/addiction). The majority were recommended for a brief intervention (15.9%), with a smaller percentage recommended for brief treatment (3.2%) or referral to specialty treatment (3.7%). Among those reporting baseline illicit drug use, rates of drug use at 6 month follow-up (4 of 6 sites), were 67.7% lower (p < 0.001) and heavy alcohol use was 38.6% lower (p < 0.001), with comparable findings across sites, gender, race/ethnic, age subgroups. Among persons recommended for brief treatment or referral to specialty treatment, self-reported improvements in general health (p < 0.001), mental health (p < 0.001), employment (p < 0.001), housing status (p < 0.001), and criminal behavior (p < 0.001) were found. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptDrug Alcohol Depend. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 1. Conclusions-SBIRT was feasible to implement and the self-reported patient status at six months indicated significant improvements over baseline, for illicit drug use and heavy alcohol use, with functional domains improved, across a range of health care settings and a range of patients.

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Overdoses of prescription or illicit opioids claimed the lives of 116 Americans each day in 2016, and the crisis continues to escalate. As healthcare systems evolve to address the crisis, the potential of pharmacists to make a positive difference is significant. In addition to utilizing available prescription drug monitoring programs to help prevent diversion of opioids, practicing pharmacists can be alert for signs of opioid misuse by patients (e.g., multiple prescriptions from different physicians) as well as inappropriate prescribing or hazardous drug combinations that physicians may not be aware of (e.g., opioid analgesics combined with benzodiazepines). They can also supply patients with information on risks of opioids, proper storage and disposal of medications, and the harms (and illegality) of sharing medications with other people. Increasingly, pharmacies are sites of distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone, which has been shown to save lives when made available to opioid users and their families or other potential bystanders to an overdose; and pharmacists can provide guidance about its use and even legal protections for bystanders to an overdose that customers may not be aware of. Pharmacists can also recommend addiction treatment to patients and be a resource for information on addiction treatment options in the community. As addiction treatment becomes more integrated with general healthcare, pharmacies are also increasingly dispensing medications like buprenorphine and, in the future, possibly methadone. Pharmacists in private research labs and at universities are helping to develop the next generation of addiction treatments and safer, non-addictive pain medications; they can also play a role in implementation research to enhance the delivery of addiction interventions and medications in pharmacy settings. Meanwhile, pharmacists in educational settings can promote improved education about the neurobiology and management of pain and its links to opioid misuse and addiction.

This article summarizes a panel discussion on ''SBIRT in the emergency care setting: are we ready to take it to scale?'' Dr. Edward Bernstein commented on the historical developments of emergency department (ED) screening, brief intervention (BI), and referral to treatment (SBIRT) research, practice, and knowledge translation. Dr. Jack Stein addressed SBIRT grant program progress to date, the reimbursement stream, SBIRT lessons learned, and unanswered questions. Dr. Richard Saitz reviewed the limitations of the evidence for alcohol and drug ED screening and BI and cautioned on the danger of proceeding to practice and broad dissemination without evidenced based on randomized controlled trials with sufficient sample size and clinically important outcomes. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2009; 16:1072-1077 ª 2009 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineKeywords: alcohol, drug, screening, brief intervention, SBIRT, public health R esearch on screening, brief intervention (BI), and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for substance abuse has been accumulating over the past several decades, and its application to various health care and nontraditional settings is now being widely promoted. This panel discussion was convened to examine the complex and dynamic interrelationship between SBIRT research and practice as it applies to emergency care settings. Specifically, the panelists were asked to address the historical development of emergency care SBI research, lessons learned and challenges faced in bringing this research to scale, the limitations of current research, and the implications for recommending universal implementation of SBIRT in emergency care settings. Lessons learned from emergency department (ED) SBIRT research and practice may ultimately be relevant to screening and BI for research focused on other public health problems presenting to our ED, such as injury prevention and violence, sexually transmitted infections or HIV, and mental health. ED SBIRT KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION HIGHWAY FROM RESEARCH TO CLINICAL PRACTICE TO RESEARCH