0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.196.24.103. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Original Article |

Testing for Substance Use in Trauma Patients:  Are We Doing Enough? FREE

Jason A. London, MD, MPH; Felix D. Battistella, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento.


Arch Surg. 2007;142(7):633-638. doi:10.1001/archsurg.142.7.633.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  Only a fraction of trauma patients are being tested for substance use, and the proportion of those tested may have decreased over time.

Design  Retrospective review of longitudinal data.

Setting  National Trauma Data Bank.

Patients  Individuals aged 15 to 50 years admitted with injuries from 1998 to 2003.

Main Outcome Measures  The primary outcomes of interest are the incidence of drug and alcohol testing and the results of these tests. The primary exposure of interest is year of admission.

Results  Half of patients admitted with injuries are being tested for alcohol use, and half of these patients have positive test results. Only 36.3% of patients admitted with injuries are tested for drug use, and 46.5% of these patients have positive test results. There have been no significant trends for either alcohol testing or results in the past 6 years. Compared with 1998, patients are significantly less likely to be tested for drugs, but more likely to have positive test results.

Conclusions  Only a small proportion of patients who are admitted with injuries are tested for substance use. The proportion of patients tested for drugs has decreased significantly during the past 6 years. Routine testing would maximize identification of patients who may benefit from interventions. Several obstacles exist to routine screening, including legal and physician-related barriers. Future efforts to facilitate routine testing of trauma patients for substance use should concentrate on protecting patient confidentiality and educating physicians on the techniques and benefits of brief interventions.

Figures in this Article

Injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States for persons younger than 35 years.1 The 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 7.9% of the US population 12 years or older were current users of illicit drugs, and 23% participated in binge drinking of alcohol.2 Rates of substance use in patients admitted for traumatic injuries exceed those of the general population, with positive drug and alcohol test results ranging from 30% to 40% and from 27% to 47%, respectively.37 In addition to injury and death, psychosocial, health, and economic problems often result from substance use. Estimated national costs of alcohol-related gunshot and stab wounds are $6.3 billion annually; and those for motor vehicle crashes, $15.7 billion annually.8

Despite the strong association between substance use and injuries, drug and alcohol testing among patients admitted for traumatic injuries is not routine. Rates of testing range from 35% to 89% and from 35% to 62% for alcohol and other drugs, respectively.911 Testing patients for substance use is often the first step toward identifying the problem and providing intervention. Several physician-related and legal barriers exist to routine drug and alcohol testing. We hypothesize that only a fraction of trauma patients are being tested for substance use, and because of these barriers, the proportion of those tested may have decreased over time.

The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) was established by the American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma, and is the largest aggregation of trauma registry data in the United States. The NTDB is not a population-based sample because it includes a disproportionate percentage of larger hospitals with younger and more severely injured patients. The data are voluntarily submitted by contributing hospitals. Therefore, the data may not be an accurate representation of all hospitals. The database includes only patients who were admitted to the hospital and does not include prehospital deaths.12

Patients admitted from 1998 to 2003 with a primary diagnosis of injury (code E800-E999) were included in the study. The years before 1998 represent relatively few centers and only 14.3% of the patients included in the entire database. Patients with primary diagnoses of injuries from poisoning (codes E850-E869), surgical misadventures (codes E870-E879), environmental factors (codes E900-E909), late effects of injury (code E929), or drugs in therapeutic use (codes E930-E949) were excluded. Patients aged 15 to 50 years, the ages of those most at risk for traumatic injuries and substance use, were included in the analysis. The term substance use refers to alcohol and other drugs unless individually stated. The NTDB has fields labeled “alcohol present” and “drugs present.” The potential entries were “yes,” “no,” or a blank field. Alcohol and other drug testing were considered performed when the respective fields in the database were coded as either positive or negative. We assumed that no test was performed if the fields were blank.

Potential confounding variables, such as sex, age, race, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, and mechanism of injury, were included in the multivariate analysis. We evaluated age in 4 categories (15-20, 21-30, 31-40, and 41-50 years), ISS in 5 categories (≤8, 9-15, 16-25, 26-45, and >45), and GCS score in 3 categories (<9, 9-13, and 14-15). Race was classified as white or nonwhite.

The primary outcomes of interest were the prevalence of drug and alcohol testing and the results of these tests. The primary exposure of interest is year of admission. Two separate analyses were performed. In the first analysis, the entire cohort (EC) that submitted data to the NTDB any time during the 6-year interval was included. We recognize that bias may be introduced as centers with different testing policies enter or leave the database through the years. For example, if a facility that tests all patients submitted data for the first half of the study period, but did not submit data for the second half, the apparent trend of decreased testing over time may be artificially low because of the absence of 1 facility. In an attempt to minimize selection bias, we performed a second analysis on a select cohort (SC) of institutions that submitted data for the entire 6-year period.

We evaluated trends in the covariates over time using Poisson regression, with the dependent variable being the year of admission. Incidence rate ratios were generated for each covariate, with the dependent variable being drug or alcohol testing or the results of those tests. We recognize that patients admitted to a single facility may not be independent compared with those admitted to another facility by virtue of their geographic location and socioeconomic factors. We accounted for this variability by using the “cluster” option in a computer program (Stata).13 Robust 95% confidence intervals were generated using the Huber-White sandwich estimator.13 Finally, variables potentially confounding the relationship between drug and alcohol testing and the year of admission were evaluated using Poisson regression. Results of the multivariate analysis are graphically depicted. All statistical analyses were performed using a computer program (Stata 8/SE).

There were 996 225 patients from 258 facilities who met the inclusion criteria during the study period. The characteristics of the EC are illustrated in Table 1. The characteristics of the SC are shown for comparison. There were 25 SC facilities, accounting for 21.8% of the patients. When comparing SC with EC, there were similar proportions of mechanism of injury, age distribution, and sex. The SC facilities contained more level I centers when compared with the entire study population. The SC facilities also had more severely injured patients, as evidenced by higher ISSs and lower GCS scores. There were no significant trends in age, sex, race, mechanism of injury, ISS, or GCS score during the 6-year period (data not shown). Overall, only 36.3% of the patients were tested for drug use and 48.7% were tested for alcohol use.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Population Characteristicsa

Univariate analysis revealed that patients admitted with penetrating trauma are less likely to be tested for alcohol than those admitted after blunt trauma, but more likely to have positive test results. A similar relationship exists for drug testing and results with respect to mechanism of injury, although this did not reach statistical significance. While patients were more likely to have positive test results for alcohol with increasing age, the same was not true for other drugs. Men were consistently tested, and had positive results for substance use more often than women. Nonwhite patients are tested less often for alcohol. As ISS increases, and GCS score decreases, patients are more likely to be tested for substance use. The results of the univariate analysis for the SC facilities are similar to those of the EC facilities (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Univariate Poisson Regression for the Entire Cohorta
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Poisson Regression for the Select Cohorta

Multivariate analysis shows that compared with 1998, there were no significant differences in alcohol testing or results for either the EC or the SC facilities. In contrast, drug testing consistently and significantly decreased during the study period. There was a trend toward increasingly positive results in drug testing, but this only reached statistical significance in 2003 for the EC analysis. Table 4 and Table 5 show the results of the multivariate analysis of testing for substance use by year of admission for the EC and the SC, respectively. These results are graphically depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Incidence rate ratios for substance use by year of admission for the entire cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Incidence rate ratios for substance use by year of admission for the select cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Multivariate Poisson Regression for the Entire Cohorta
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Multivariate Poisson Regression for the Select Cohorta

During a 6-year period, fewer than half of patients admitted with traumatic injuries were tested for substance use. When examining the trend from 1998 to 2003, we found that while there were no significant changes in alcohol testing and results, there was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of the population being tested for drugs, and a trend toward increasingly positive results.

The results of this study are not unprecedented. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that from 2002 to 2003 there has been an increase in the nonmedical use of pain relievers, from 29.6 to 31.2 million.2 Soderstrom et al9 examined the trends of alcohol and other drug use in a single institution for trauma patients between 1984 and 2000. They found that while there has been a decrease in those with positive test results for alcohol, there has been a significant increase in those with positive test results for cocaine or opiates.9

The finding of decreased drug testing and the trend toward increased use has several possible explanations. Drug testing may be performed more selectively in patients in recent years. It is feasible that clinicians have become more astute in recognizing drug intoxication and test those most likely to be under the influence. It is also possible that drug testing has decreased nonselectively and that there is a true increase in the proportion of patients using drugs. It is unclear why similar trends are not found with alcohol testing. Comparable results between the EC and the SC analysis decrease the possibility that the findings are a result of facilities entering and leaving the database. In either case, more than half of the population is not being tested for substance use and, therefore, potentially not identifying individuals who may benefit from interventions.

Testing for substance use, in addition to screening questionnaires, is the first step in the identification of patients with potential substance abuse problems. Many trauma patients do not have medical insurance or a primary care physician. Therefore, their injury and contact with the medical profession represents potentially the only window of opportunity for intervention.14 Brief interventions are time-limited counseling for patients that focus on changing a patient's behavior and increasing the success of therapy. Individuals are given feedback on their level of substance consumption, the relation of consumption to injury, and the negative consequences related to consumption. Emphasis is placed on personal responsibility, and options are presented to the patient for limiting or ceasing intake.

The widespread social, economic, and personal impact of traumatic injury make it one of the nation's primary public health concerns. When routinely screened, more than 40% of trauma patients show evidence of chronic alcohol abuse or dependence, making it the most common chronic condition among these patients.4 A public health paradigm for prevention identifies risk factors and addresses them in such a way to effect a change. Substance use is a risk factor for traumatic injuries in a similar way that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, hypertension is for cardiac disease, and obesity is for diabetes mellitus.15 One could arguably classify all of these diseases resulting from lifestyle choices. Smokers often receive periodic screening chest radiographs to identify pulmonary nodules, patients with hypertension are screened for cardiac disease, and obese patients are screened for diabetes mellitus. In addition to routine screening, these patients receive information regarding cessation of smoking, controlling serum glucose level, and weight loss. Similarly, patients presenting with traumatic injuries should be routinely tested for substance use and, if present, interventions should be initiated. This does not happen for several reasons.

Despite a growing body of literature showing the effectiveness of brief interventions, many physicians still do not believe that these programs are effective. Others cite that the information gained from testing for substance use is not clinically important and that screening is not part of the physician's job. Those who want to intervene often lack the confidence to do so because they believe that they do not possess the necessary skill set. Finally, many physicians believe that positive test results will negatively impact patient care.1618

Several studies1922 have suggested that injury is a potent motivator for changing behavior, potentially making timely interventions more likely to illicit a response. Recent surveys14,23 suggest that trauma patients are amenable to alcohol screening and brief interventions. Contrary to the perceived ineffectiveness of brief interventions for substance use, multiple studies have shown that they are effective in decreasing consumption, arrests and recidivism, and injuries. Gentilello et al24 showed that brief interventions reduced weekly alcohol consumption, and reduced injuries and readmissions by almost 50% at 3 years. Four other randomized trials2528 have shown that brief interventions in the setting of alcohol-related injuries decrease consumption, traffic violations, injuries, and other alcohol-related problems.

A survey29 of trauma surgeons found that only 18.7% routinely screened patients, and more than half screened less than 25% of patients. One major disincentive to routine testing and screening is the threat by insurance companies to deny payments for medical care if an injury is sustained while under the influence of a substance of abuse.30,31 A recent survey31 has shown that 38 states and the District of Columbia have provisions in their insurance codes that allow companies to deny coverage to patients injured while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The problems associated with failure to screen and intervene can be highlighted by the experience in Tennessee, one of the states with such provisions. A statewide study32 found that less than 10% of patients needing substance abuse treatment actually receive any treatment. This unmet need was estimated to cost the state $777 million in 2000 in hospital admissions and emergency department visits alone.32 Nationally, estimated costs of alcohol-related injuries are several billion dollars.8

Several methods have been proposed to help achieve more universal testing and screening.31 One approach is to lobby state policy makers to adopt laws that would prevent insurance companies from denying payments if injuries were sustained under a substance of abuse. In addition to legislative changes, altering the manner in which substance abuse information is obtained may help protect the patient's confidentiality in terms of release of information to third parties. Special federal regulations exist that protect the confidentiality of patients receiving substance abuse therapy. In the hospital setting, these regulations apply only to programs that have either a unit specializing in substance abuse treatment and referral or staff whose primary function is to provide such services. Most information regarding drug or alcohol use is collected during the routine medical care of patients and, therefore, is not protected under federal regulations.

The validity of any observational study is limited by the database used. Although the NTDB is not a population-based sample and the findings may not be an accurate representation of all hospitals in the country, it is the largest aggregation of trauma registry data in the United States.12 Submitting hospitals may use different registry software that may account, in part, for some of the difference between facilities. The manner in which the NTDB collects data precludes the determination of specific drugs for which the facilities were testing, and which drugs produced positive results. Furthermore, there is no method in which to determine if certain drugs, particularly opiates or benzodiazepines, were given to patients by medical personnel in either the prehospital setting or the emergency department.

There are several sources of bias in this study. During the study period, many centers have entered and left the database. If some centers entered the database that routinely did or did not test patients, this may bias the results. The results would then represent the addition or deletion of a selected number of institutions. Restricting the analysis to only centers submitting data for the entire study period reduces this problem. Submitting facilities have the option of leaving the fields of drug and alcohol testing blank. Institutions that did not submit data into these fields were assumed to not have tested the patients. This may not be true, and some institutions may not have submitted complete information.

Substance use and injury in individuals younger than 50 years are leading public health concerns. Only a portion of these patients who are admitted with injuries are tested for substance use. Routine testing of patients is an important first step toward identification of patients in need of interventions. Unfortunately, several obstacles exist to routine testing, including legal and physician-related barriers. Future efforts to facilitate routine testing of trauma patients for substance use should concentrate on legislating changes in insurance policies and on protecting patient confidentiality. In addition, efforts need to be made to educate physicians on the techniques and benefits of brief interventions.

Correspondence: Jason A. London, MD, MPH, Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Suite 4207, Sacramento, CA 95817 (jason.london@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu).

Accepted for Publication: March 23, 2006.

Author Contributions: Dr London has full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: London and Battistella. Acquisition of data: London. Analysis and interpretation of data: London and Battistella. Drafting of the manuscript: London. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: London and Battistella. Statistical analysis: London. Study supervision: Battistella.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Rivara  FPGrossman  DCCummings  P Injury prevention: first of two parts. N Engl J Med 1997;337 (8) 543- 548
PubMed
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies, Overview of the Findings From the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.  Rockville, MD Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies2005;
Demetriades  DGkiokas  GVelmahos  GCBrown  CMurray  JNoguchi  T Alcohol and illicit drugs in traumatic deaths: prevalence and association with type and severity of injuries. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199 (5) 687- 692
PubMed
Rivara  FPJurkovich  GJGurney  JG  et al.  The magnitude of acute and chronic alcohol abuse in trauma patients. Arch Surg 1993;128 (8) 907- 913
PubMed
Rivara  FPGurney  JGRies  RKSeguin  DACopass  MKJurkovich  GJ A descriptive study of trauma, alcohol, and alcoholism in young adults. J Adolesc Health 1992;13 (8) 663- 667
PubMed
Rivara  FPMueller  BAFligner  CL  et al.  Drug use in trauma victims. J Trauma 1989;29 (4) 462- 470
PubMed
Tominaga  GTGarcia  GDzierba  AWong  J Toll of methamphetamine on the trauma system. Arch Surg 2004;139 (8) 844- 847
PubMed
Harwood  H Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods, and Data.  Bethesda, MD National Institutes of Health2000;
Soderstrom  CADischinger  PCKerns  TJKufera  JAMitchell  KAScalea  TM Epidemic increases in cocaine and opiate use by trauma center patients: documentation with a large clinical toxicology database. J Trauma 2001;51 (3) 557- 564
PubMed
Marcin  JPPretzlaff  RKWhittaker  HLKon  AA Evaluation of race and ethnicity on alcohol and drug testing of adolescents admitted with trauma. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10 (11) 1253- 1259
PubMed
Kon  AAPretzlaff  RKMarcin  JP The association of race and ethnicity with rates of drug and alcohol testing among US trauma patients. Health Policy 2004;69 (2) 159- 167
PubMed
American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank Reference Manual: Background, Caveats, and Resources.  Chicago, IL American College of Surgeons2004;
Hardin  JHilbe  J Generalized Linear Models and Extensions.  College Station, TX Stata Press2001;
Schermer  CRBloomfield  LALu  SWDemarest  GB Trauma patient willingness to participate in alcohol screening and intervention. J Trauma 2003;54 (4) 701- 706
PubMed
Dunn  CWDonovan  DMGentilello  LM Practical guidelines for performing alcohol interventions in trauma centers. J Trauma 1997;42 (2) 299- 304
PubMed
Soderstrom  CADailey  JTKerns  TJ Alcohol and other drugs: an assessment of testing and clinical practices in US trauma centers. J Trauma 1994;36 (1) 68- 73
PubMed
Schermer  CRGentilello  LMHoyt  DB  et al.  National survey of trauma surgeons' use of alcohol screening and brief intervention. J Trauma 2003;55 (5) 849- 856
PubMed
Roche  AMFreeman  T Brief interventions: good in theory but weak in practice. Drug Alcohol Rev 2004;23 (1) 11- 18
Gentilello  LMDuggan  PDrummond  D  et al.  Major injury as a unique opportunity to initiate treatment in the alcoholic. Am J Surg 1988;156 (6) 558- 561
PubMed
Bombardier  CHEhde  DKilmer  J Readiness to change alcohol drinking habits after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78 (6) 592- 596
PubMed
Bombardier  CHRimmele  CT Alcohol use and readiness to change after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79 (9) 1110- 1115
PubMed
Longabaugh  RMinugh  PANirenberg  TDClifford  PRBecker  BWoolard  R Injury as a motivator to reduce drinking. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2 (9) 817- 825
PubMed
Apodaca  TRSchermer  CR Readiness to change alcohol use after trauma. J Trauma 2003;54 (5) 990- 994
PubMed
Gentilello  LMRivara  FPDonovan  DM  et al.  Alcohol interventions in a trauma center as a means of reducing the risk of injury recurrence. Ann Surg 1999;230 (4) 473- 483
PubMed
Spirito  AMonti  PMBarnett  NP  et al.  A randomized clinical trial of a brief motivational intervention for alcohol-positive adolescents treated in an emergency department. J Pediatr 2004;145 (3) 396- 402
PubMed
Monti  PMColby  SMBarnett  NP  et al.  Brief intervention for harm reduction with alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital emergency department. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67 (6) 989- 994
PubMed
Longabaugh  RWoolard  RENirenberg  TD  et al.  Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62 (6) 806- 816
PubMed
Smith  AJHodgson  RJBridgeman  KShepherd  JP A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention after alcohol-related facial injury. Addiction 2003;98 (1) 43- 52
PubMed
Danielsson  PERivara  FPGentilello  LMMaier  RV Reasons why trauma surgeons fail to screen for alcohol problems. Arch Surg 1999;134 (5) 564- 568
PubMed
Soderstrom  CACole  FJPorter  JM Injury in America: the role of alcohol and other drugs: an EAST position paper prepared by the Injury Control and Violence Prevention Committee. J Trauma 2001;50 (1) 1- 12
PubMed
Rivara  FPTollefson  STesh  EGentilello  LM Screening trauma patients for alcohol problems: are insurance companies barriers? J Trauma 2000;48 (1) 115- 118
PubMed
Rockett  IRPutnam  SLJia  HChang  CFSmith  GS Unmet substance abuse treatment need, health services utilization, and cost: a population-based emergency department study. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45 (2) 118- 127
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Incidence rate ratios for substance use by year of admission for the entire cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Incidence rate ratios for substance use by year of admission for the select cohort.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Population Characteristicsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Univariate Poisson Regression for the Entire Cohorta
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Univariate Poisson Regression for the Select Cohorta
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Multivariate Poisson Regression for the Entire Cohorta
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Multivariate Poisson Regression for the Select Cohorta

References

Rivara  FPGrossman  DCCummings  P Injury prevention: first of two parts. N Engl J Med 1997;337 (8) 543- 548
PubMed
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies, Overview of the Findings From the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.  Rockville, MD Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Applied Studies2005;
Demetriades  DGkiokas  GVelmahos  GCBrown  CMurray  JNoguchi  T Alcohol and illicit drugs in traumatic deaths: prevalence and association with type and severity of injuries. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199 (5) 687- 692
PubMed
Rivara  FPJurkovich  GJGurney  JG  et al.  The magnitude of acute and chronic alcohol abuse in trauma patients. Arch Surg 1993;128 (8) 907- 913
PubMed
Rivara  FPGurney  JGRies  RKSeguin  DACopass  MKJurkovich  GJ A descriptive study of trauma, alcohol, and alcoholism in young adults. J Adolesc Health 1992;13 (8) 663- 667
PubMed
Rivara  FPMueller  BAFligner  CL  et al.  Drug use in trauma victims. J Trauma 1989;29 (4) 462- 470
PubMed
Tominaga  GTGarcia  GDzierba  AWong  J Toll of methamphetamine on the trauma system. Arch Surg 2004;139 (8) 844- 847
PubMed
Harwood  H Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods, and Data.  Bethesda, MD National Institutes of Health2000;
Soderstrom  CADischinger  PCKerns  TJKufera  JAMitchell  KAScalea  TM Epidemic increases in cocaine and opiate use by trauma center patients: documentation with a large clinical toxicology database. J Trauma 2001;51 (3) 557- 564
PubMed
Marcin  JPPretzlaff  RKWhittaker  HLKon  AA Evaluation of race and ethnicity on alcohol and drug testing of adolescents admitted with trauma. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10 (11) 1253- 1259
PubMed
Kon  AAPretzlaff  RKMarcin  JP The association of race and ethnicity with rates of drug and alcohol testing among US trauma patients. Health Policy 2004;69 (2) 159- 167
PubMed
American College of Surgeons, Committee on Trauma, National Trauma Data Bank Reference Manual: Background, Caveats, and Resources.  Chicago, IL American College of Surgeons2004;
Hardin  JHilbe  J Generalized Linear Models and Extensions.  College Station, TX Stata Press2001;
Schermer  CRBloomfield  LALu  SWDemarest  GB Trauma patient willingness to participate in alcohol screening and intervention. J Trauma 2003;54 (4) 701- 706
PubMed
Dunn  CWDonovan  DMGentilello  LM Practical guidelines for performing alcohol interventions in trauma centers. J Trauma 1997;42 (2) 299- 304
PubMed
Soderstrom  CADailey  JTKerns  TJ Alcohol and other drugs: an assessment of testing and clinical practices in US trauma centers. J Trauma 1994;36 (1) 68- 73
PubMed
Schermer  CRGentilello  LMHoyt  DB  et al.  National survey of trauma surgeons' use of alcohol screening and brief intervention. J Trauma 2003;55 (5) 849- 856
PubMed
Roche  AMFreeman  T Brief interventions: good in theory but weak in practice. Drug Alcohol Rev 2004;23 (1) 11- 18
Gentilello  LMDuggan  PDrummond  D  et al.  Major injury as a unique opportunity to initiate treatment in the alcoholic. Am J Surg 1988;156 (6) 558- 561
PubMed
Bombardier  CHEhde  DKilmer  J Readiness to change alcohol drinking habits after traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78 (6) 592- 596
PubMed
Bombardier  CHRimmele  CT Alcohol use and readiness to change after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79 (9) 1110- 1115
PubMed
Longabaugh  RMinugh  PANirenberg  TDClifford  PRBecker  BWoolard  R Injury as a motivator to reduce drinking. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2 (9) 817- 825
PubMed
Apodaca  TRSchermer  CR Readiness to change alcohol use after trauma. J Trauma 2003;54 (5) 990- 994
PubMed
Gentilello  LMRivara  FPDonovan  DM  et al.  Alcohol interventions in a trauma center as a means of reducing the risk of injury recurrence. Ann Surg 1999;230 (4) 473- 483
PubMed
Spirito  AMonti  PMBarnett  NP  et al.  A randomized clinical trial of a brief motivational intervention for alcohol-positive adolescents treated in an emergency department. J Pediatr 2004;145 (3) 396- 402
PubMed
Monti  PMColby  SMBarnett  NP  et al.  Brief intervention for harm reduction with alcohol-positive older adolescents in a hospital emergency department. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67 (6) 989- 994
PubMed
Longabaugh  RWoolard  RENirenberg  TD  et al.  Evaluating the effects of a brief motivational intervention for injured drinkers in the emergency department. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62 (6) 806- 816
PubMed
Smith  AJHodgson  RJBridgeman  KShepherd  JP A randomized controlled trial of a brief intervention after alcohol-related facial injury. Addiction 2003;98 (1) 43- 52
PubMed
Danielsson  PERivara  FPGentilello  LMMaier  RV Reasons why trauma surgeons fail to screen for alcohol problems. Arch Surg 1999;134 (5) 564- 568
PubMed
Soderstrom  CACole  FJPorter  JM Injury in America: the role of alcohol and other drugs: an EAST position paper prepared by the Injury Control and Violence Prevention Committee. J Trauma 2001;50 (1) 1- 12
PubMed
Rivara  FPTollefson  STesh  EGentilello  LM Screening trauma patients for alcohol problems: are insurance companies barriers? J Trauma 2000;48 (1) 115- 118
PubMed
Rockett  IRPutnam  SLJia  HChang  CFSmith  GS Unmet substance abuse treatment need, health services utilization, and cost: a population-based emergency department study. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45 (2) 118- 127
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles