|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 329
13 Implementing the Vision:
Toward Treatment Systems
To provide the reader with an overview of its conclusions on the treatment of
alcohol problems, in the first chapter of this report the committee presented its perceptions
about the probable form toward which the treatment effort is evolving. The preceding four
chapters in this section of the report have discussed some important components of this
proposed treatment system: the community share of treatment, which involves the
identification of alcohol problems by community agencies, as well as dealing with them
either by brief intervention and referral for specialized treatment; and the specialized
treatment of alcohol problems, which involves the processes of comprehensive assessment,
matching of individuals to the most appropriate treatment options, and determining the
outcomes of the treatments provided. It is now time to revisit the structure that ensues
when these components and others are combined into an integrated whole (Figure 13-1~.
In this system, which was previously discussed in Chapter 1, a concerted effort is
made by community agencies to identify all persons with alcohol problems by evaluating
those individuals who come to their attention. (Some proportion of persons with alcohol
problems will, of course, enter the treatment process after identifying themselves as having
alcohol problems.) Those persons who are identified are dealt with through brief
interventions provided by the various community agencies if their problems are mild or
moderate or are referred for specialized treatment if their problems are substantial or
severe.
Those referred for specialized treatment are first provided with a comprehensive
assessment that specifies in detail both their alcohol problems and those of their individual
needs and characteristics that are treatment relevant. This information is then used to
select the treatment that is most likely to facilitate a positive outcome. In moving between
the elements of the specialized treatment sector, which is sometimes a difficult process for
some individuals, provision is made for the assurance of continuity of care. Following the
completion of treatment, the outcome achieved is monitored at regular intervals to
determine whether it has been positive. This information is used both to reach a decision
regarding future treatment of the individual and to provide guidance for the more precise
matching of other individuals seeking treatment.
What is outlined in Figure 13-1 and the accompanying text is simply an example
of one possible systems approach. Systems designs often differ greatly in form, but they
serve similar purposes. Fundamentally, they are carefully planned approaches for the
efficient and cooperative solution of various problems. It is this generic approach that the
committee frauds compelling, rather than any specific design, although the presence of certain
elements is viewed as critical. Most of the elements have been developed at length in their
own chapters; the system is simply a way of linking the elements together into a coherent
whole. There are parallels in the development of the computer chip, also by definition a
system, in which the principal innovation was the inclusion of the links between elements
as an integral element (Reid, 1984~.
To components of the committee's proposed system for treating alcohol problems
still require consideration here: the assurance of continuity of care and the feedback of
outcome information. They are discussed below as a preface to an audit of the
implementation and evaluation of such systems.
329
OCR for page 330
330 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
Assuring Continuity of Care
Care is appropriately provided for those who require it because they have problems
of various kinds. On account of these problems, as well as for other reasons (for example,
Community
Treatment of Alcohol Problems
Health Care
Identification
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Brie!
Int`!rvention
octal Servic
Identificatio
Brief
Intervention
Workplace
1 dentirication
Brief
Intervention
. .
Other.
dentitication
l Brief
Intervention
*Other=Education, Criminal Justice, etc.
Specialist
Treatment of Alcohol Problems
( Continuity of Care )
Comprehensive
Assessment
Feedback
F
l
1
o
or
u
p
o
r
0
u
t
c
0
m
e
. ~
| Type "a" l
| Intervention |-
Type "B"
Intervention _
Type "C" _
intervention
Type "D"
intervention _
\ | Type "X" L
intervention _
FIGURE 13-1 The committee's view of the evolving treatment system. All persons seeking services from
community agencies are screened for alcohol problems. A brief intervention is provided by agency personnel for
persons with mild or moderate problems. Persons with substantial or severe problems are referred for a specialized
comprehensive assessment. Where treatment is indicated, they are matched to the most appropriate specialized
type of intervention. The outcome of treatment is determined and feedback of outcome information is used to
improve the matching Guidelines. Continuitv of care is provided as required to guide individuals through the
treatment system.
because of personal characteristics and attributes such as diminished capacity to understand,
impaired sensory functioning, and so forth), some persons will require guidance through the
process of care in order to engage it effectively. The need for such guidance is neither a
new concept nor one uniquely related to alcohol problems; it has been claimed that all
societies have created functionaries Who can listen, clarify needs, provide responses, and
who will bear the responsibility for the continuity of care" (Parker, 1974:16~.
Terminology has flourished in the area of continuity assurance, which creates some
difficulties for the present discussion. Case manager" has been most frequently used to
refer to those who provide continuity assurance. Other terms enjoying some frequency of
use include primary care worker, indigenous paraprofessional, mental health expediter,
integrator, broker, ombudsman, advocate, patient representative, personal program
coordinator, systems agent, continuity agent, clinical secretary, and (in one extremely large
individual program offering multiple services) personal services shopper (cf. Intagliata,
OCR for page 331
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS
331
1982~. These differing terms may be understood to designate the same individual perform-
ing similar functions, but the various terms give particular emphasis to one among the
many possible functions that may accrue to the role.
What makes Case managers problematic for the committee in the current discussion
is the association of that term with managed care in the treatment of alcohol problems
(Korcok, 1988; Lewis, 1988~. The committee believes that the term has become linked to
the notion of making decisions regarding care with a principal regard to cost savings. It
is aware that distinctions have been made between Financial case management" and Clinical
case management," but it prefers in this discussion to avoid the use of the term altogether.
The committee's concept of continuity assurance is not tied to notions of cost containment,
although savings may, indeed, be effected. In what follows, then, reference will simply be
made to "the person who assures continuity of care, except in cases in which direct
quotation of other sources involves alternative designations.
Discussions of continuity assurance in the literature are characteristically framed
in terms of the individuals designated to fulfill this function. Although the discussion in
this chapter will follow suit, it is worth noting that alternative strategies are available. One
is to design the treatment system in such a way that the system itself, rather than specific
individuals within it, provides for the assurance of continuity. For example, highly
structured interrelationships among components of the system could serve this purpose.
Another approach is to make the individual seeking treatment responsible for the continuity
of care. The committee considers any or all of these to be effective strategies in particular
circumstances. lhe crucial matter is that continuity of care be assured; how this is accomplished
Is of secondary importance. However, because the most prevalent approach is to assign the
role of continuity assurance to an individual or individuals, the committee's discussion will
continue in this vein.
In recent years the provision of continuity assurance has received increased
emphasis because of the growth in size and complexity of treatment services. It is a
practice that is more common in areas other than the treatment of alcohol problems for
example, in the treatment of the chronically mentally ill, in which it has attained great
importance in the wake of deinstitutionalization initiatives. There are many definitions of
the function, but Their common theme suggests that case management is a process or
method for ensuring that consumers are provided with whatever services they need in a
coordinated, effective, and efficient manner" (Intagliata, 1982:657~. The same authority goes
on to say that The specific meaning of case management . . . depends upon the system that
is developed to provide its (p. 657~.
There are some examples of continuity assurance in the treatment of alcohol
problems. The role of the AA sponsor comes to mind (although this role, as with other
examples, tends to serve more than continuity assurance functions). For many years the
Donwood Institute in Toronto, a treatment facility for alcohol and drug problems, made
use of "clinical secretaries, lay persons who served continuity assurance and other functions
for small groups of individuals in treatment; regrettably, there appears to be no published
record of this experience. One of the functions of the primary care workers in the
Core-Shell Treatment System Project at the Addiction Research Foundation was continuity
assurance (Glaser, 1984; Pearlman, 1984a, by. It is likely that there are other examples of
personnel who serve the function of continuity assurance in treatment for alcohol problems
that have not come to the notice of the committee, but it can probably be said with
confidence that the practice has not been widespread.
Other elements of the system, such as assessment, matching, treatment, and the
determination of outcome, can be viewed as the vertical components of care; they occur in
more or less serial order and are time limited. Continuity assurance is the horizontal
element in the system, cutting across the other elements and providing a coherent
experience for the individual. The continuity assurance role is usually played by the same
OCR for page 332
332 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
person during a given episode of care and ideally thereafter; should a problem develop
again after an episode of care has been concluded, the person who provided continuity
assurance is the logical point of recontact.
A common example will perhaps help to bring home the importance of designating
a specific individual as responsible for continuity of care. Following the completion of a
period of inpatient care, it is common to refer many persons to outpatient care. Let us
suppose, however, that the referred person does not keep the first outpatient appointment.
Under such circumstances, continuity of care can fall victim to a disjuncture in the
treatment system. The inpatient service has discharged its responsibility by making the
referral and therefore has no sense of responsibility for the individual's care. The
outpatient service has not seen the individual and therefore has no sense of responsibility
for his or her care. Thus, no one is responsible for continuity assurance, and the individual
may be lost to care. If, however, responsibility for continuity of care is a specifically
designated function-if some particular staff person is responsible for it it is that person's
job to bridge the gap and reestablish the thread of continuity.
Although many professional persons and such highly trained nonprofessional
persons such as counselors could carry out the role well, an additional and perhaps more
suitable source of personnel to assume the continuity assurance function may be the lay
public. Those with extensive training might more appropriately occupy the formal thera-
peutic roles in the system. Assigning the continuity assurance function to lay persons does
not gainsay the need for careful selection, training, and supervision, as in any role that has
responsibility for the care of others. Yet the literature on continuity assurance stresses the
importance of the personal qualities of those who assume this function. Consider the
following list of attributes that are desirable for a Primary care workers (slightly modified
from Pearlman, 1984a):
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
14.
perseverance-an ability to follow through;
comfort in working with difficult, marginally motivated patients;
knowledge about and comfort in a supportive counseling role;
knowledge about community resources;
comfort in working in a secondary capacity with other treatment staff;
relative ease in handling crises;
an ability to relate to and cope with many people and problems
simultaneously;
thoroughness, organization and responsibility in the area of recordkeeping;
willingness to get involved in a relatively unstructured and evolving work
role;
flexibility in terms of relating differentially to patients in a less formal,
structured manner than is characteristic of psychotherapy;
patience and a sense of humor;
some knowledge of alcohol and drug dependency and the pharmacology of
alcohol and drug abuse;
an ability to formulate and sustain realistic expectations for self and patient;
and
ease in shifting among the various roles and functions inherent in the
primary care role-counselor, ombudsman, facilitator, problems solver, and
coordinator.
These are largely personal characteristics. They tend to be present in a given
individual independently of the professional training he or she may have received, or
perhaps even in spite of it (Becker et al., 1961; Shem, 1978; LeBaron, 1981~. The literature
on the effectiveness of nonprofessional therapists supports the presence in lay people of
OCR for page 333
IMPLEMENTING ITIE VISION: TOWARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Aim
interpersonal characteristics favorable to positive therapeutic outcomes (Carkhuff, 1968;
Lynch et al., 1968; Bergin, 1971; Emrick et al., 1978~.
The foregoing should not be read as a brief against professional therapists.
Continuity assurance is not in itself therapy. It might be said that therapeutic effects ensue
from the efforts of those who provide continuity assurance, but are not pursued by them.
That is, they provide continuity of care as an essential component of treatment in its own
right and not because it may have a therapeutic effect which it sometimes does. Those
who assure continuity primarily facilitate the therapeutic efforts of the system as a whole,
and therefore are a key element in whatever success the system may have.
Research on the impact of continuity assurance has been limited to the study of
case management in the aftercare of the chronically mentally ill. One review noted mixed
results: some studies had positive outcomes while others showed no significant addition
to outcome over customary mental health altercate services (Anthony et al., 1988~.
However, a recent study in which individuals who received case management were compared
to matched controls found that the case managed individuals exhibited better occupational
functioning, improved living conditions, and were less socially isolated (Goering et al.,
1988~.
Certainly, further research is needed on this important function. Indeed, the whole
area of what happens following the initial treatment effort with the individual is one that
requires much further investigation (cf. Moos et al., 1988; Moos et al., 1990~. For example,
two studies have already suggested that matching individuals to the appropriate inter-
vention approach in this phase of their treatment is associated with more positive outcomes
(McLachlan, 1972, 1974; Kadden et al., 1989~. With the further development of relapse
prevention techniques a variety of highly suitable approaches for this crucial phase of
treatment are becoming available (Marlatt and Gordon, 1985; Annis, 1986~.
Nevertheless, the committee believes that, attract for some persona, continui~assurar~ce
is a pressing and immediate requirement tam should be acted union' forthwith. As services in
general increase in number and complexity, the need will be even greater. There are
already a variety of implementation strategies, as has been discussed above. Practical and
theoretical advantages may be found for all of these options. That the function be available
to those who need it is the crucial consideration.
Feedback of Outcome Information
Feedback may be defined as the use of information to modify the system that
gathered the information. Provision for feedback makes a system self-reflecting and greatly
increases its options (Hofstadter, 1979~. Where it is present in biological systems, it
facilitates their ongoing adaptation to current reality (Young, 1957~; what has happened is
taken into consideration, and future action is directed accordingly.
All too frequently a particular treatment is provided repeatedly without knowledge
of its effects. For example, the antialcohol drug disulfiram (Antabuse) has enjoyed
widespread general use in the treatment of alcohol problems since its introduction into
clinical use more than 40 years ago (Hald and Jacobsen, 1948~. Only recently have the
results that accrue to its use been definitively examined in a large-scale investigation (Fuller
et al., 1986~. Those results suggest a much more discriminate and selective use of the drug
than has often obtained in the past. It is good to have this information, but it would have
been preferable to have it within a shorter time frame. Feedback has eventually occurred
but has been much delayed.
The feedback that the committee sees as an integral part of the proposed treatment
system is the feedback of outcome results in order to modify guidelines for matching
persons to treatments. Simply put, if a particular set of matching guidelines is not
OCR for page 334
334 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
productive of a reasonable level of positive outcomes, that information should be available
within a reasonable time frame and should lead to a modification and retesting of those
guidelines. Nor does the committee foresee a time when this process will not be necessary
and when matching guidelines can be permitted to go untested by outcome results. There
is too much change in too many of the key parameters of treatment on too regular a basis
to assume that the guidelines will remain optimal for a prolonged period (cf. McLellan
et al., 1983a). Rather, they must be tested constantly against the realities of outcome and
readjusted frequently according to what is learned.
Active feedback of this kind permits the responsible evaluation of matching
guidelines within standard clinical settings and within a shorter time frame than is possible
using more rigorous methodologies-for example, the randomized controlled trial. RCIs
have an important role to play in the evaluation of treatment, but so, too, do observational
outcome studies of the kind the committee envisions as informing this sort of feedback (cf.
Chapters 5 and 12; GelIjns, 1989; Greenfield, 1989~. More of both are required, but
outcome monitoring is more congruent with the circumstances of clinical treatment than
is the conduct of RCIs. Outcome monitoring is also able to focus much more precisely
on particular treatment programs, which is very much to the point.
Over the longer term there is another use to which the feedback of outcome
information can be put. It may happen that, however creatively matching guidelines are
modified during several iterations of the modification process, some proportion of
individuals seeking treatment may persistently fail to achieve positive outcomes. These
failures may signify a gap in treatment services; that is, some treatment that is not currently
being provided may be necessary for a particular subgroup of the population being served.
Given, however, the existence of the feedback loop that facilitated this conclusion, a new
treatment can be identified, set in place, and evaluated in the same manner as already
described. Thus, the successful closure of potential gaps in treatment services is another
possible benefit of feedback.
Finally, it is worth stressing that generating outcome data is one thing, but using
it to provide feedback is something else again. The first is a precondition to the
second-outcomes that are not known cannot be used to provide feedback- but feedback
does not necessarily occur simply because the results of treatment are available. Effort,
planning, and vigilance will be required to ensure that outcome information is developed
and is actually used to modify the functioning of treatment. Feedback will not happen
automatically.
An Audit of the Systems Approach
The committee has now identified and described the key components of its
proposed treatment system. To summarize briefly, they include (in addition, of course, to
the availability of a reasonable number of alternative treatments) a community component,
consisting of identification followed by brief intervention or referral for specialized
treatment; and a specialized treatment component, consisting of comprehensive pre-
treatment assessment, matching to a variety of treatment options, assurance of continuity
of care, determination of outcome, and the effective feedback of outcome information. It
now seems in order to audit the degree to which the system has been implemented in
practice, and the existing evidence that, taken as a whole, it works.
As a preface to the audit, it is worth noting that there are considerable practical
difficulties in implementing a systems approach. Most treatment programs do not offer
more than a single treatment option (cf. Glaser et al., 1978~. Perhaps because in the
absence of treatment alternatives there seems little reason for it, neither do most offer the
kind of comprehensive assessment discussed in this report. Even if they did, the assessment
OCR for page 335
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS
335
could not be carried out prior to a commitment to a particular kind of treatment; where
only one treatment option is available, admission to the program entails a commitment to
that treatment.
With only a single treatment option, matching cannot be carried out, as it requires
the availability of multiple treatment options. Although external referral could serve the
purpose of matching, it is rare in practice (Pattison, 1974; Glaser et al., 1978) and in a
fee-for-service system there are financial incentives against it. Finally, few treatment
programs engage in comprehensive outcome monitoring, and without monitoring there can
be no feedback. Reasoning from this perspective, it is unreasonable to expect more than
a few examples of the implementation of a systems approach.
On the other hand, the organization of activities into planned systems to achieve
particular goals in an efficient and effective manner, as an alternative to independent
activity at multiple sites, has a long history. An early example was the rapid re-outfitting
of Admiral Nelson's fleet during the Napoleonic wars. Pulley-blocks were the problem.
They were traditionally made, very well but very slowly, by individual craftsmen. Under the
supervision of the engineers Sir M. I. Brunei (1769-1849) and H. Maudslay (1771-1831),
the work was systematically organized, and the blocks were produced very well, very rapidly,
and in large numbers. The improved condition of the fleet was a major factor in the
victory at Trafalgar in 1805.
The integration of the Assessment devices" of the newly developed radar and
ground observers with a central command structure and multiple ~interventions" (e.g.,
antiaircraft defenses and the many fighter squadrons) was essential to victory in the Battle
of Britain in September, 1940. Out of this and other wartime experiences evolved
operations research, the beginning of the formal study and application of systems
approaches (Miser, 1980~. To date the adoption of systems approaches has been
widespread in health care generally (cf. Van Eimeren and Kopcke, 1979; Tilquin, 1981~.
From this historical perspective, then, there might be some reason to expect the applica-
tion of systems approaches in the treatment of alcohol problems.
In searching the literature, the committee has concluded that both of its
presumptions are correct. The components of the proposed system are not represented in
most treatment that is currently provided for alcohol problems. On the other hand, there
are a number of examples in which one or more of the components are represented in
programs that have existed, are currently viable, or are planned for the future. It is
unlikely that all such programs have come to the committee's attention; and with some that
have, the information is less complete than might be hoped. Bearing these cautions in
mind, Table 13-1 summarizes this information by indicating those components of the
system that are represented in particular treatment efforts.
Description of the Table
To facilitate an understanding of the table, the committee briefly discusses each of
the individual examples offered. It should be understood that the designations in the table
are often arbitrary because information on a number of the examples is incomplete or
dated or both, and that the exercise is intended to be illustrative rather than definitive.
The following section discusses the conclusions that arise from the table as a whole.
Oklahoma State System This system is basically for outcome monitoring, and was
discussed earlier (see page 315; see also Paredes et al., 1981~. The system collects initial
data on individuals, but the data are gathered after admission to treatment programs and
are not used to determine which treatment is to be delivered. Outcome determinations are
made on a systematic sample of individuals admitted to treatment.
OCR for page 336
336
Ct
.c
o
Hi
.
a
a
-
o
to
o
-
E
Ct
s
-
o
-
J::
Cal
do
Q.
Q.
U)
E
:~`
-
o
-
._
o
C)
Ct
ID
C:
o
._
-
_ ._
o ~
_ _
O ~
3 ~
:' ~
¢: Ct
.
-
.~
C: ~ ~
E a
an
A:
a OF
~ C)
Ct
A_
~-
a ~
Ct
-
vat a
~a
_ Cal
t3.,
Cal
Cal
Cal ~
o .
Cal ~ a
At: ~ ~
0 of
^:
=~
Q
~0
-
a ~
iU
-
~0
~- C~- ~ g
o
~E
.
_
~ a E
._
s
-
ct
c'
.7
.~
ct
-
- o
.~
-
0
_
Z
_'
43.)
c'
co D
C: ~
O V)
-
~:
._ _
O
<;
~:
S O
O
Z ~
G
C
C
5)
o
G
11
X
a~
~C
o
Q.
a
-
a
.
.
-
V)
-
5
G
C~
~11
. .
o
z
OCR for page 337
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARD TREAI~IENT SYSTEMS
2 ~ 7
Ontario Assessment and Referral System In this system of multiple independent
assessment and referral programs, a pretreatment assessment is carried out, and the data
are used to match individuals seeking treatment to the most appropriate programs (see
pages 265-266; see also Marshman et al., 1978; Ogborne et al., 1984; Malta et al., 1985;
Rush, 1988~. Other components of the committee's system have not been a planned part
of this approach. Although there is an extensive program of prevention activities in the
province, they do not appear to be explicitly connected with the assessment and referral
system.
Brookffeld Clinics A private treatment program operating at multiple sites in
Michigan and Ohio, the Brookfield Clinics have adapted practices of the core-~ne~
Treatment System Project (see the discussion below) to their operations (MacDonnell,
1981a,b; O'Dwyer, 1984, n.d.~. They provide an individualized pretreatment assessment that
is used to match individuals to very carefully specified treatments by using explicit
guidelines. Continuity assurance is also provided.
Chemical Abuse/Addiction Treatment Outcome Registry (CATOR) CATOR is a
private St. Paul-based program that provides outcome monitoring (see page 316; Harrison
and Belille, 1987; Harrison and Hoffmann, 1987; Harrison and Hoffmann, 1988~. It was
also the primary contractor in the development of the so-called Cleveland criteria, which
are designed to match individuals to various "levels of care" (see pages 289, 303-312; see
also Hoffmann et al., 1987~. In addition to outcome determination, CATOR provides
feedback on this information to its subscribers, but whether it is used to modify the
operations of those subscribers (an integral part of the definition of feedback) is uncertain.
Although in the course of its usual operations CATOR, like the Oklahoma State system,
obtains staff-generated information on individuals after admission to treatment, the Cleve-
land criteria are clearly intended to be used prior to treatment and to match individuals
to the appropriate "level of care."
Minnesota State System In the state of Minnesota the legislature has mandated
a pretreatment assessment to determine the appropriate treatment setting through matching
guidelines that are required by law and specified in explicit regulations (see Chapter 10~.
Yet whether this pretreatment assessment can accurately be described as comprehensive is
questionable. Although the gathering of additional information on individuals entering
treatment is also mandated (through the state's own Drug and Alcohol Abuse Normative
Evaluation System [DAANES] or an acceptable equivalent), this additional information is
not at present used in matching. Determining the outcome of treatment is also mandated,
and staff of the state program have begun to use this information to examine the state's
matching guidelines.
Managed care systems A feature of recent years has been the growth of managed
care in the treatment of alcohol problems (Korcok, 1988; Lewis, 1988) as well as in medical
treatment generally. The data presented in the table are based on an imaginary composite
of such programs and must be considered only approximate, as managed care programs vary
a good deal. Almost all provide a pretreatment assessment of some sort and use this
information to place individuals seeking treatment; however, the information gathering often
cannot be realistically described as comprehensive. Monitoring of the individual's status
while in treatment and afterwards is a reasonably consistent features of these programs.
Penn-VA Project Investigators in this research project, conducted jointly at the
University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia and Coatesville Veterans Administration
Hospitals. first described a system of care involving many of the components of the
.
rid ~ ~ -.. . . _.
committee's vision (McLellan et al., 1980b). They then conducted a prospective study using
the system in which the outcomes of those matched to treatment and those not matched
were compared (McLellan et al., 1983a; see also below). A particular feature of this series
of exercises was their stress on the use of feedback data to modify matching guidelines.
The investigators continue to examine issues related to assessment and matching on a
OCR for page 338
338 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
research basis; it is uncertain whether the program is used in either setting as a basis for
routine clinical operations.
National Collaborative Matching Project Recently announced by the Treatment
Research Branch of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (RFA
AA-89-02A and AA AA-89-02B), this project will set up multiple clinical research units
and a coordinating unit to conduct "multisite trials of patient-treatment matching." In these
studies, individuals seeking treatment will be assessed on relevant variables, randomly
assigned to treatment conditions, and be followed up to determine the outcomes of
treatment. The purpose of these studies is to test matching guidelines that may
subsequently be utilized by other treatment programs. They are expected to be completed
in approximately five years, that is, in approximately mid-1994.
The Core-Shell Treatment System Project During the period 1975-1981 a model
treatment system was evaluated in the Clinical Institute of the Addiction Research
Foundation in Toronto (Glaser et al., 1984~. Persons seeking treatment were given a
lengthy and uniform pretreatment assessment in a discrete assessment unit; they were then
assigned to treatment through a detailed set of explicit matching guidelines. Continuity
assurance was the responsibility of the Primary Care Unit. Determination of treatment
outcomes for the clinical population and the use of this information to modify the matching
guidelines were a prominent part of the plans for this project but were not implemented.
Northern Addictions Centre Some years ago the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse Commission (AADAC) prepared plans for an adaptation of the Core-Shell treatment
system model to be located in Grande Prairie, a rural setting (Bazant, n.d.; Glaser and
Hubbard, 1985; Skirrow, 1986~. Its original implementation was delayed by an economic
recession, but the project was reactivated recently and is expected to receive persons seeking
treatment in its specially designed facility within two years. Pretreatment assessment,
matching to a variety of interventions, continuity assurance, outcome determination, and
modification of matching guidelines through feedback are planned. Although prevention
activities for the region are to be carried out by an office located in the same facility, no
specific connection between the prevention and treatment activities has been articulated.
Regional Youth Substance Abuse Project A United Way program located in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, this project recently received a grant from the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation to set up the Youth Evaluation Service (YES) in cooperation with the
Alcohol Research Center at the University of Connecticut (Babor and Del Boca, 1988~.
Focusing on adolescent problem drinkers and drug abusers, the program includes the
following components: (1) a community action component that is concerned with access
to treatment, availability of services, integration of services, and identification of high risk
youth; (2) comprehensive pretreatment assessment using standardized questionnaires,
structured interviews, and laboratory tests; (3) a rational treatment matching strategy that
presents the individual with a long-term treatment plan and referral options; (4) continuity
assurance guaranteed by a case manager who follows the individual for up to 18 months;
(5) outcome monitoring by an independent university research center; and (6) feedback
of outcome and process evaluations to improve treatment response.
Although composers of the committee's system are not at present to be found in most
treatment sewage, there are (or have beef a number of settings in which they have been present
to a variable degree. The data in the table represent a conservative estimate; there are
probably other relevant programs that are not listed of which the committee is unaware.
Also, some that are known are not listed; for example, a system with many of the proposed
components has been proposed for the state of Michigan (Alto et al., 1988), but is not
included because its implementation at present is uncertain.
Of the proposed components only one program, the Regional Youth Substance
Abuse Project, which is planned for the future, embodied all six components (it was the
only one to have a community component similar to that envisioned by the committee).
OCR for page 339
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS
339
The community component and the continuity assurance component were the two elements
least in evidence in the examples discussed. Comprehensive pretreatment assessment,
matching, and outcome determination were most frequently present in these examples.
Feedback occupied a middle ground, and was more often planned than implemented.
Evaluation of the Systems Approach
It is reasonable to ask for evidence that the approach embodied in the committee's
perception of the future is valid, that is, that it will improve outcomes following treatment
compared with possible alternative approaches. The comparative effectiveness of most of
the implemented programs in Table 13-11 has not at this writing been evaluated. The
National Collaborative Matching Project offers the possibility of comparing the outcomes
of those who are and are not matched to treatment on relevant variables. The Northern
Additions Centre and the Regional Youth Substance Abuse Project will determine
outcomes in individual cases; however, a comparison with alternative approaches is not
contemplated in either project at present.
Because the Penn-VA project was a prospective study of the effectiveness of an
approach resembling that of the committee, a brief summary of it seems in order. Four
hundred seventy-six male veterans were assessed prior to treatment using the Addiction
Severity Index (ASI) (McLellan et al., 1980a; McLellan et al., 1985~; 178 are described as
alcohol dependent and 298 as drug dependent. Previous work with the ASI had suggested
that its scale for rating the severity of psychiatric symptomatology was predictive of
outcome in various kinds of treatment. Together with other data, this information was
used to construct explicit "program assignment decision criteria" for the alcohol-dependent
and the drug-dependent groups. Because the construction of these criteria was based on
the known outcomes of persons fully characterized prior to treatment, the criteria used in
the study are a product of feedback.
Although an attempt was made to match all patients to treatment using these
criteria, only 62 percent of the alcohol dependent and 48 percent of the drug dependent
patients could be so matched, due largely to such practical matters as lack of treatment
slots in the appropriate settings. Treatment staff were blinded to whether a given
individual had been appropriately matched. Outcome data were collected on all patients
six months after their admission to treatment. For the patients who were dependent on
alcohol, 17 of the 19 dimensions on which their outcomes were compared showed better
outcome status in the matched patients; 8 such comparisons achieved statistical signifi-
cance. The authors stated their belief that Our ongoing 'matching' strategy will continue
to be helpful in optimizing outcome" (McLellan et al., 1983a:604~.
Yet a number of methodological shortcomings, pointed out by the authors
themselves, constrain the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Assignment to
treatment was not random, although multivariate statistical techniques were employed in
an attempt to equate the two comparison groups on initial characteristics. The follow-up
period was brief and differed for different individuals. Nevertheless, this was a large-scale,
creative study. The results are consistent with the potential effectiveness of treatment
conducted along the lines envisioned by the committee.
There have been other prospective studies of matching of persons with alcohol
problems to treatment (see Table 11-1) that have produced positive results. Although not
in the area of alcohol treatment, a study of a geriatric assessment unit (GEU) in a VA
Hospital in California met methodological criteria similar to those used in screening for the
table and produced similarly positive results (Rubenstein et al., 19844. Thus, there is some
if not an inordinate amount of evidence for the efficacy of the approach envisioned by the
OCR for page 340
340 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
committee. Additional evidence is likely to come from at least one of the major projects
planned for the future, the National Collaborative Study on Matching.
More evidence would be welcome indeed. Perhaps those responsible for similar
projects (e.g., the Northern Treatment Centre and the Regional Youth Substance Abuse
Project) will be able to work out ways of including comparative efficacy considerations
within their scope of work. Little else is on the horizon. Unfortunately, health services
research, the name given to the kind of research aimed at studying questions of this kind,
is not currently considered to be of unusual urgency; At the present time, research on
alcohol service systems receives a relatively low priority within the Federal Government and
in the alcoholism field generally" (Wallen, 1988:605~.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The committee views the treatment of alcohol problems as evolving toward a
system in which an active component of care undertaken by community agencies and
consisting of identification, brief intervention, and referral is closely coupled with a
specialized treatment sector that includes a comprehensive pretreatment assessment, the
matching of individuals to a variety of treatment interventions, the assurance of continuity
of care, the regular determination of outcome, and the feedback of outcome information.
Many of the components of this system have been separately deployed and tested. The
results have been documented in this section of the report and have generally been positive.
The committee recognizes the need for a further deployment and evaluation of
these individual components of the system. It also recognizes that some work has already
been done (Table 13-1) in bringing combinations of these components together. The
committee lauds such efforts but believes that they have been too few and far between.
It concludes that what is row most rzeeded Is a major initiative to combine these separate
components into fulb integrated treaimer~t systems of the sort envisioned in this report and to
conduct careful and complete process and outcome evaluations of these model systems. It is likely,
and desirable, that alternative versions of such a systems approach should be mounted in
a variety of different settings and directed at diverse populations-for example, with
medically indigent persons in a public treatment system, with insured persons in a
proprietary treatment system, and with particular subgroups such as those discussed in the
next section of this report. Ideally, outcomes obtained through the treatment system would
be rigorously compared with outcomes obtained through nonsystematic treatment.
A purpose of this series of demonstration projects would be to define effective
models that could be transferred to the treatment field in general; they would also provide
timely evaluation data to guide the formulation of treatment policy. Funds should be made
available through public or private sources, or through a combination of sources, sufficient
to support a minimum of four to five such demonstrations. Previous and current efforts,
such as those discussed in this chapter, could serve as prototypes for these projects.
The committee recognizes that this is both a major and a novel undertaking, even
though its continuity with the current thrust in the field is quite clear. It is a formidable
task. But an undertaking of appropriate magnitude is required if the challenge of alcohol
problems is to be met. There is also the promise that what is learned may be useful in
advancing the ability of our society to cope with the many other health problems with
which it is faced.
OCR for page 341
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARI:) TREATMENT SYSTEMS
REFERENCES
341
Alla, C. D., B. Mintzes, and R. C. Brook. 1988. What purchasers of treatment services want from evaluation.
Alcohol Health and Research World 12:162-167.
Annis, H. M. 1986. A relapse prevention model for treatment of alcoholics. Pp. 407433 in Treating Addictive
Behaviors: Process" of Change, W. R. Miller and N. Heather, eds. New York: Plenum Press.
Anthony, W. A., M. Cohen, M. Farkas, and B. F. Cohen. 1988. Case Management-More than a Response to a
Dysfunctional System. Boston: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Boston University.
Babor, T. F., and F. Del Boca. 1988. Evaluation of Regional Youth Substance Abuse Project. Prepared for the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Farmington, Connecticut: Alcohol Research Center, University of Connecticut.
Bazant, W. F. N.d. Program Proposal for the Establishment of an A. A. D. A. C. Centre at Grande Prairie,
Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission.
Becker, H., B. Geer, E. C. Hughes, and A. L. Strauss. 1961. Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bergin, A. E. 1971. The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. Pp. 217-270 in Handbook of Psychotherapy and
Behavior Change: An Empirical Analysis, A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Carkhuff, R. R. 1968. Differential functioning of lay and professional helpers. Journal of Consulting Psychology
15:117-126.
Emrick, C. D., C. L. Lassen, and M. T. Edwards. 1978. Nonprofessional peers as therapeutic agents. Pp. 120-161
in Effective Psychotherapy: A Handbook of Research, A. S. Gurman and A. M. Razin, eds. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Fuller, R. K, ~ Branchey, D. R. Brightwell, R. M. Derman, C. D. Emrick, F. L. Iber, K E. James, R. B.
Lacoursiere, K K Lee, I. Lowenstam, I. Maany, D. Neiderhiser, J. J. Nocks, and S. Shawl 1986. Disulfiram
treatment of alcoholism: A Veterans Administration cooperative study. Journal of the American Medical
Association 256:1449-1455.
Gelijas, A. C. 1989. Technological Innovation: Comparing Development of Drugs, Devices, and Procedures in
Medicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Glaser, F. B. 1984. The nature of primary care. Pp. 3-34 in A System of Health Care Delivery, vol. 2, F. B. Glaser,
H. M. Annis, H. A. Skinner, S. Pearlman, R. L. Segal, B. Sisson, A. C. Ogborne, E. Bohnen, P. Gazda, and T.
Zimmerman. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
Glaser, F. B., and R. N. Hubbard. 1985. Application of a treatment system model in rural Alberta. Presented at
the 34th International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Calgary, Alberta.
Glaser, F. B., S. W. Greenberg, and M. Barrett. 1978. A Systems Approach to Alcohol Treatment. Toronto: ARF
Books.
Glaser, F. B., H. M. Annis, H. A. Skinner, S. Pearlman, R. L. Segal, B. Sisson, A. C. Ogborne, E. Bohnen, P.
Gazda, and T. Zimmerman. 1984. A System of Health Care Delivery, 3 vols. Toronto: Addiction Research
Foundation.
Goering, P. N., D. A. Wasylenki, M. Farkas, W. J. Lancee, and R. Ballantyne. 1988. What difference does case
management make? Hospital and Community Psychiatry 39:272-276.
Greenfield, S. 1989. The state of outcome research: Are we on target? New England Journal of Medicine
320:1142-1143.
Hald, J., and E. Jacobsen. 1948. A drug sensitising the organism to ethyl alcohol. Lancet 2:1001-1004.
Harrison, P. ^, and C. ~ Belille. 1987. Women in treatment: Beyond the stereotype. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol 48:574-578.
OCR for page 342
342 BROADENING THE BASE OF TREATMENT FOR ALCOHOL PROBLEMS
Harrison, P. A., and N. G. Hoffmann. 1987. CATOR 1986 Report: Adolescent Residential Treatment: Intake and
Follow-up Findings. Saint Paul, Minn.: Chemical Abuse/Addiction Treatment Outcome Registry (CATOR), Ramsey
Clinic.
Harrison, P. A., and N. G. Hoffmann. 1988. CATOR 1987 Report: Adult Outpatient Treatment: Perspectives on
Admission and Outcome. Saint Paul, Minn.: Chemical Abuse/Addiction Treatment Outcome Registry (CATOR),
Ramsey Clinic.
Hoffmann, N. G., J. A. Halikas, and D. Mee-Lee. 1987. The Cleveland Admission, Discharge, and Transfer Criteria:
Model for Chemical Dependency Treatment Programs. Cleveland, Ohio: The Greater Cleveland Hospital
Association.
Hofstadter, D. R. 1979. Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books.
Intagliata, J. 1982. Improving the quality of community care for the chronically mentally disabled: The role of case
management. Schizophrenia Bulletin 8:655-674.
Kadden, R. M., N. L. Cooney, H. Getter, and M. D. Litt. 1989. Matching alcoholics to coping skills or interactional
therapies: Posttreatment results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57:698-704.
Korcok, M. 1988. Managed Care and Chemical Dependency: A Troubled Relationship. Providence, R.I.: Manisses
Communications Group, Inc.
LeBaron, C. 1981. Gentle Vengeance: An Account of the First Year at Harvard Medical School. New York:
Richard Marek Publishers.
Lewis, J. 1988. Growth in managed care forcing providers to adjust. Alcoholism Report 16(24):n.p.
Lynch, M., E. A. Gardner, and S. B. Felzer. 1968. The role of indigenous personnel as clinical therapists: Training
and implications for new careers. Archives of General Psychiatry 19:428-434.
MacDonnell, F. J. 1981a. Alcoholism in the work place: differential diagnosis. Occupational Health Nursing
29:14-16.
MacDonnell, F. J. 1981b. How effective are our current methodologies for the treatment of alcoholism? EAP
Digest 2(1):32-35.
Malta, A. K, B. Rush, M. Gavin, and G. Cooper. 1985. A community-centred alcoholism assessment/treatment
service: A descriptive study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 30:35-43.
Marlatt, G. A., and J. R. Gordon, eds. 1985. Relapse Prevention. New York: The Guilford Press.
Marshman, J. A., R. D. Fraser, C. Lambert, A. C. Ogborne, S. J. Saunders, P. W. Humphries, D. W. Macdonald,
J. G. Rankin, and W. Schmidt. 1978. The Treatment of Alcoholics: An Ontario Perspective. Toronto: Addiction
Research Foundation.
McLachlan, J. F. C. 1972. Benefit from group therapy as a function of patient-therapist match on conceptual level.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice 9:317-323.
McLachlan, J. F. C. 1974. Therapy strategies, personality orientation, and recovery from alcoholism. Canadian
Psychiatric Association Journal 19:25-30.
McLellan, A. T., L. Luborsky, G. E. Woody, and C. P. O'Brien. 1980a. An improved diagnostic evaluation
instrument for substance abuse patients: The Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
168:26-33.
McLellan, A. T., C. P. O'Brien, R. Kron, A. I. Alterman, and K A. Druley. 1980b. Matching substance abuse
patients to appropriate treatments: A conceptual and methodological approach. Drug and Alcohol Dependence
5:189-195.
McLellan, A. T., G. E. Woody, L. Luborsky, C. P. O'Brien, and K A. Druley. 1983a. Increased effectiveness of
substance abuse treatment: A prospective study of patient-treatment "matching." Journal of Nervous and Mental
Diseases 171:597-605.
OCR for page 343
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION: TOWARD TREATMENT SYSTEMS
343
MeLellan, A. T., L. Luborsky, G. E. Woody, C. P. O'Brien, and K A. Druley. 1983b. Predicting response to
alcohol and drug abuse treatments: Role of psychiatric severity. Archives of General Psychiatry 40:620~25.
MeLellan, A. T., L. Luborsky, J. Caeeiola, J. Griffith, P. MeGahan, and C. P. O'Brien. 1985. Guide to the
Addiction Severity Index. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Miser, H. J. 1980. Operations research and systems analysis. Seienee 2.09:139-146.
Moos, R. H., J. W. Finney, and R. C. Cronkite. 1990. Alcoholism Treatment: Context, Process, and Outcome. New
York: Oxford University Press.
O'Dwyer, P. 1984. Cost effective rehabilitation: A process of matching. EAP Digest 4(2):33-34.
O'Dwyer, P. N.d. A Systems Approach to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment. Garden City, Mieh.:
Brookf~eld Clinics.
Osborne, A. C., D. Dwyer, and A. Ekdahl. 1984. The Niagara Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service: Referral
Patterns, Client Characteristics, and Community Reactions. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
Paredes, A., D. Gregory, and O. H. Rundell. 1981. Empirical analysis of the alcoholism services delivery system.
Pp. 371-404 in Research Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, vol. 6, Y. Israel, F. B. Glaser, H. Malant, R.
E. Popham, W. Schmidt, and R. G. Smart, eds. New York: Plenum Press.
Parker, A. W. 1974. The dimensions of primary care: Blueprints for change. Pp. 15-80 in Primary Care: Where
Medicine Fails, S. Andreopoulos, ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pattison, E. M. 1974. Rehabilitation of the chronic alcoholic. Pp. 587~58 in Clinical Pathology Vol. 3 of The
Biology of Alcoholism, B. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds. New York: Plenum Press.
Pearlman, S. 1984a. Early experiences with primary care. Pp. 35-48 in A System of Health Care Delivery, vol. 2,
F. B. Glaser, H. M. Annis, H. A. Skinner, S. Pearlman, R. L. Segal, B. Sisson, A. C. Ogborne, E. Bohnen, P.
Gazda, and T. Zimmerman. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
Pearlman, S. 1984b. Later experiences with primary care. Pp. 49 66 in A System of Health Care Delivery, vol. 2,
F. B. Glaser, H. M. Annis, H. A. Skinner, S. Pearlman, R. L. Segal, B. Sisson, A. C. Ogborne, E. Bohnen, P.
Gazda, and T. Zimmerman. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.
Reid, T. R. 1984. The Chip: How Two Americans Invented the Microchip and Launched a Revolution. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Rubenstein, L. Z., K R. Josephson, G. D. Wieland, P. A. English, J. A. Sayre, and R. L. Kane. 1984. Effectiveness
of a geriatric evaluation unit: A randomized clinical trial. New England Journal of Medicine 311:1664-1670.
Rush, B. 1988. Executive Summary: Assessment procedures and specialized assessment in Ontario. Prepared for
the IOM Committee for the Study of Treatment and Rehabilitation Services for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.
Shem, S. 1978. The House of God. New York: Richard Marek Publishers.
Skirrow, J. 1986. Waging the war against alcohol abuse. Canadian Medical Association Journal 135:434.
Tilquin, C. 1981. Systems Science in Health Care: Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Science
in Health Care, Montreal, July 1980, 2 vols. Toronto: Pergamon Press.
Van Eimeren, W., and W. Kopeke. 1979. State of the Art Repon: Health Systems Research. 2 vols. Munich:
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Statistics, and Biomathematies.
Wallen, J. 1988. Alcoholism treatment service systems: A health services research perspective. Public Health
Reports 103:605~11.
Young, J. Z. 1957. The control of living systems. Pp. 1-30 in The Life of Mammals, J. Z. Young. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
matching guidelines
