Increased Detection of Alcohol Consumption and At-risk Drinking with Computerized Alcohol Screening

Abstract

Background The impact of alcohol use has been widely studied and is considered a public health issue. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends Screening and Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment (SBIRT) but the actual practice in the Emergency Department (ED) is constrained due to limited provider time and financial resources. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of alcohol screening using Computerized Alcohol Screening and brief Intervention (CASI) compared to alcohol screening by triage nurse during Medical Screening Examination (MSE) in the ED. Methods Retrospective review of CASI/MSE database from January 2008 through December 2009, collected in the tertiary, level I Trauma ED was performed. Inclusion criteria included age ≥18, and completion of both the MSE and CASI. We analyzed the database by comparing age, gender, primary language (English, Spanish), and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores using McNemar’s analysis. Results Data was available for 5,835 patients. CASI showed a significant increase in detection of at-risk drinking over MSE across all ages, gender, and primary language (p<.05). MSE found 2.5% at-risk drinkers while CASI found 11.5% at risk drinkers (Odds ratio 8.88, 95%CI 6.89–11.61). Similar results were found in 18 to 20 year-old patients. MSE identified 1.7% at-risk drinkers and CASI reported 15.94%. (Odds ratio 19.33, 95% CI 6.29–96.74) Conclusion CASI increased detection of at-risk alcohol drinkers compared with MSE across all ages, gender, and primary language. CASI is a promising innovative method for alcohol screening in the ED for the adult population including under-aged drinkers.

Simultaneous gas-chromatographic urinary measurement of sugar probes to assess intestinal permeability: Use of time course analysis to optimize its use to assess regional gut permeability

“…No subjects were daily alcohol drinkers and none were at risk drinkers based on NIAAA criteria (i.e., females more than 3 drinks per day on a regular basis; for men more than four drinks per day) [25]. Subjects had not taken antibiotics for the previous three months, over the counter probiotics or multivitamins for at least the previous two weeks, nor NSAID or high dose aspirin in the previous 4 weeks.…”

Brief interventions for alcohol misuse

“…15,16 Brief interventions When risky alcohol use is identified through screening, brief interventions, commonly involving individualized feedback and counselling, can then be initiated. The interventions available for use are diverse but typically involve giving brief advice and deliberately employing client-centred, nonconfrontational, motivational approaches to avoid creating resistance to change.…”

Electronic communication based interventions for hazardous young drinkers: A systematic review

“…A further 16 studies did not meet the age range criteria (Bewick et al, 2013;Enggasser et al, 2015;Sinadinovic et al, 2014., Bendtsen & Bendtsen, 2014., Bendtsen et al, 2015Bewick et al, 2010;Doumas et al, 2014;Ekman et al, 2011;Kypri et al, 2010;Kypri et al, 2013;Lotfipour et al, 2013;McCambridge et al, 2013;Moreira, Oskrochi & Foxcroft, 2012;Schulz, Kremers & de Vries, 2012;Schulz et al, 2013;Tensil, Jonas & Strüber, 2013). Four papers were simply commentaries on other studies, or reviews (Cronce et al, 2014;Naimi & Cole, 2014;Rodriguez et al, 2015), whilst one study discussed the method of designing a behaviour change intervention (Voogt et al, 2014c), resulting in exclusion from this review.…”