Drug Testing Interpretation in the Peripartum Setting: Results of Clinician Survey.

IF 4.2 3区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Journal of Addiction Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1097/ADM.0000000000001322
Theresa Kurtz, Elizabeth Charron, Julie Shakib, Marcela C Smid
{"title":"Drug Testing Interpretation in the Peripartum Setting: Results of Clinician Survey.","authors":"Theresa Kurtz, Elizabeth Charron, Julie Shakib, Marcela C Smid","doi":"10.1097/ADM.0000000000001322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this study were to (1) survey obstetrical and pediatric clinicians' experience, confidence, and training in maternal and neonatal drug testing interpretation; (2) determine their proficiency in drug test interpretation; and (3) assess predictors of correct interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of clinicians caring for pregnant people or newborns at an urban academic center. We assessed clinicians' demographic characteristics, experience, confidence, and prior training in interpretation of maternal and newborn drug tests. We assessed proficiency in interpreting drug tests using 11 clinical vignettes and categorized scores as poor (0-2), fair (3-5), and good (≥6) performance to facilitate data interpretation. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of clinician characteristics and score category (reference category: poor performance).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 103 respondents completed the survey including 60 obstetrical clinicians (58.3%), 19 family medicine physicians (18.5%), 21 pediatric clinicians (20.4%), and 3 social workers (2.9%) (response rate, ~40%). The mean correct response was 4.1 (SD, 2.17; range, 0-11). Most respondent scores were fair (n = 47.6%), followed by good (n = 28.2%) and poor (n = 24.3%). Increased frequency, confidence, and training in interpreting maternal screening and confirmatory tests were associated with higher proficiency. Increased confidence and training in interpreting neonatal screening and confirmatory tests, but not frequency, were associated with higher proficiency.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most clinicians demonstrated fair proficiency in interpreting drug tests. Predictors of proficiency were confidence and prior training for drug test interpretation, suggesting that educational interventions could improve proficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":14744,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Addiction Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"595-598"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Addiction Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000001322","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) survey obstetrical and pediatric clinicians' experience, confidence, and training in maternal and neonatal drug testing interpretation; (2) determine their proficiency in drug test interpretation; and (3) assess predictors of correct interpretation.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of clinicians caring for pregnant people or newborns at an urban academic center. We assessed clinicians' demographic characteristics, experience, confidence, and prior training in interpretation of maternal and newborn drug tests. We assessed proficiency in interpreting drug tests using 11 clinical vignettes and categorized scores as poor (0-2), fair (3-5), and good (≥6) performance to facilitate data interpretation. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of clinician characteristics and score category (reference category: poor performance).

Results: In total, 103 respondents completed the survey including 60 obstetrical clinicians (58.3%), 19 family medicine physicians (18.5%), 21 pediatric clinicians (20.4%), and 3 social workers (2.9%) (response rate, ~40%). The mean correct response was 4.1 (SD, 2.17; range, 0-11). Most respondent scores were fair (n = 47.6%), followed by good (n = 28.2%) and poor (n = 24.3%). Increased frequency, confidence, and training in interpreting maternal screening and confirmatory tests were associated with higher proficiency. Increased confidence and training in interpreting neonatal screening and confirmatory tests, but not frequency, were associated with higher proficiency.

Conclusions: Most clinicians demonstrated fair proficiency in interpreting drug tests. Predictors of proficiency were confidence and prior training for drug test interpretation, suggesting that educational interventions could improve proficiency.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
围产期药物检测的解释:临床医生调查结果。
目标:本研究的目的是:(1) 调查产科和儿科临床医生在解释孕产妇和新生儿药物检测方面的经验、信心和培训情况;(2) 确定他们解释药物检测的熟练程度;(3) 评估正确解释的预测因素:我们对一家城市学术中心负责孕妇或新生儿护理的临床医生进行了横断面调查。我们评估了临床医生的人口统计学特征、经验、信心以及在解释孕产妇和新生儿药物测试方面接受过的培训。我们使用 11 个临床小故事来评估解读药物测试的熟练程度,并将得分分为差(0-2 分)、一般(3-5 分)和好(≥6 分),以方便数据解读。我们使用描述性统计来总结回答。多项式逻辑回归用于确定临床医生特征与评分类别(参考类别:表现差)之间的关联:共有 103 名受访者完成了调查,其中包括 60 名产科临床医生(58.3%)、19 名家庭医生(18.5%)、21 名儿科临床医生(20.4%)和 3 名社会工作者(2.9%)(回复率约为 40%)。平均正确率为 4.1(标准差,2.17;范围,0-11)。大多数受访者的回答为 "一般"(47.6%),其次是 "好"(28.2%)和 "差"(24.3%)。解释孕产妇筛查和确诊试验的频率、信心和培训的增加与熟练程度的提高有关。在解释新生儿筛查和确证试验方面,信心和培训的增加与熟练程度的提高有关,但与频率无关:结论:大多数临床医生对药物检测的解释能力尚可。熟练程度的预测因素是信心和之前接受过的药物检测解读培训,这表明教育干预可以提高熟练程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Addiction Medicine
Journal of Addiction Medicine 医学-药物滥用
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
260
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of Journal of Addiction Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, is to promote excellence in the practice of addiction medicine and in clinical research as well as to support Addiction Medicine as a mainstream medical sub-specialty. Under the guidance of an esteemed Editorial Board, peer-reviewed articles published in the Journal focus on developments in addiction medicine as well as on treatment innovations and ethical, economic, forensic, and social topics including: •addiction and substance use in pregnancy •adolescent addiction and at-risk use •the drug-exposed neonate •pharmacology •all psychoactive substances relevant to addiction, including alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, marijuana, opioids, stimulants and other prescription and illicit substances •diagnosis •neuroimaging techniques •treatment of special populations •treatment, early intervention and prevention of alcohol and drug use disorders •methodological issues in addiction research •pain and addiction, prescription drug use disorder •co-occurring addiction, medical and psychiatric disorders •pathological gambling disorder, sexual and other behavioral addictions •pathophysiology of addiction •behavioral and pharmacological treatments •issues in graduate medical education •recovery •health services delivery •ethical, legal and liability issues in addiction medicine practice •drug testing •self- and mutual-help.
期刊最新文献
Recommendations for the Design and Implementation of Alcohol Pharmacotherapy Trials: Perspectives of Women With HIV Participating in the WHAT-IF Study. The Associations of Kratom (Mitragynine), Opioids, Other Substances, and Sociodemographic Variables to Drug Intoxication-related Mortality. The Impact of Telehealth on Buprenorphine Prescribing at a Large Federally Qualified Health Center during COVID-19. Promoting Race and Ethnic Diversity in a Hospital-Based Randomized Clinical Trial to Address Untreated Alcohol Use Disorder: Initial Lessons Learned. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Referral Rejection from Postacute Care Facilities among People with Opioid Use Disorder in Massachusetts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1