Search

PURPOSE Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P = .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a marked increase in telehealth for the provision of primary care-based opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This mixed methods study examines characteristics associated with having the majority of OUD-related visits via telehealth versus in-person, and changes in mode of delivery (in-person, telephone, video) over time. Methods: Logistic regression was performed using electronic health record data from patients with ≥1 visit with an OUD diagnosis to ≥1 of the two study clinics (Rural Health Clinic; urban Federally Qualified Health Center) and ≥1 OUD medication ordered from 3/8/2020-9/1/2021, with >50% of OUD visits via telehealth (vs. >50% in-person) as the dependent variable and patient characteristics as independent variables. Changes in visit type over time were also examined. Inductive coding was used to analyze data from interviews with clinical team members (n = 10) who provide OUD care to understand decision-making around visit type. Results: New patients (vs. returning; OR = 0.47;95%CI:0.27-0.83), those with ≥1 psychiatric diagnosis (vs. none; OR = 0.49,95%CI:0.29-0.82), and rural clinic patients (vs. urban; OR = 0.05; 95%CI:0.03-0.08) had lower odds of having the majority of visits via telehealth than in-person. Patterns of visit type varied over time by clinic, with the majority of telehealth visits delivered via telephone. Team members described flexibility for patients as a key telehealth benefit, but described in-person visits as more conducive to building rapport with new patients and those with increased psychological burden. Conclusion: Understanding how and why telehealth is used for OUD treatment is critical for ensuring access to care and informing OUD-related policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the impacts of a transition to an "integrated managed care" model, wherein Medicaid managed care organizations moved from a "carve‐out" model to a "carve‐in" model integrating the financing of behavioral and physical health care. Data Sources/Study Setting: Medicaid claims data from Washington State, 2014–2019, supplemented with structured interviews with key stakeholders. Study Design: This mixed‐methods study used difference‐in‐differences models to compare changes in two counties that transitioned to financial integration in 2016 to 10 comparison counties maintaining carve‐out models, combined with qualitative analyses of 15 key informant interviews. Quantitative outcomes included binary measures of access to outpatient mental health care, primary care, the emergency department (ED), and inpatient care for mental health conditions. Data Collection: Medicaid claims were collected administratively, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Principal Findings: The transition to financially integrated care was initially disruptive for behavioral health providers and was associated with a temporary decline in access to outpatient mental health services among enrollees with serious mental illness (SMI), but there were no statistically significant or sustained differences after the first year. Enrollees with SMI also experienced a slight increase in access to primary care (1.8%, 95% CI 1.0%–2.6%), but no sustained statistically significant changes in the use of ED or inpatient services for mental health care. The transition to financially integrated care had relatively little impact on primary care providers, with few changes for enrollees with mild, moderate, or no mental illness. Conclusions: Financial integration of behavioral and physical health in Medicaid managed care did not appear to drive clinical transformation and was disruptive to behavioral health providers. States moving towards "carve‐in" models may need to incorporate support for practice transformation or financial incentives to achieve the benefits of coordinated mental and physical health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness.Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators.Results: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators.Conclusions: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease preventive services (aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support) are crucial to controlling cardiovascular diseases. This study draws from 1,248 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW Initiative from 2015-2016 across 12 states to provide practice-level aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support estimates; report the percentage of practices that meet Million Hearts targets; and identify the practice characteristics associated with better performance.Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized linear regression modeling (analyzed in 2020-2021) to examine the association of aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance with practice characteristics that included structural attributes (e.g., size, ownership, rurality), practice capacity and contextual characteristics, health information technology, and patient panel demographics.Results: On average, practice performance on aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality measures was 64% for aspirin, 63% for blood pressure, and 62% for smoking-cessation support. The 2012 Million Hearts goal of achieving the rates of 70% was achieved by 52% (aspirin), 32% (blood pressure), and 54% (smoking) of practices. Practice characteristics associated with aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance included ownership (hospital/health system-owned practices had 11% higher aspirin performance than clinician-owned practices [p=0.001]), rurality (rural practices had lower performance than urban practices in all aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality metrics [difference in aspirin=11.1%, p=0.001; blood pressure=4.2%, p=0.022; smoking=14.4%, p=0.009]), and disruptions (practices that experienced >1 major disruption showed lower aspirin performance [-7.1%, p<0.001]).Conclusions: Achieving the Million Hearts targets may be assisted by collecting and reporting practice-level performance, which can promote change at the practice level and identify areas where additional support is needed to achieve initiative goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), can be administered within primary care; however, little is known about characteristics associated with retention on buprenorphine in these settings. This study examines patient correlates of buprenorphine retention and whether an integrated, interdisciplinary treatment model (buprenorphine and behavioral health) is associated with higher odds of buprenorphine retention than a primarily medication-only treatment model.Methods: Electronic health record data from adult patients with an OUD, ≥1 buprenorphine order and ≥1 visit to either of two primary care clinics between 9/2/2014-6/27/2018 were extracted (N = 494 patients). Two research team members reviewed the medication start and stop dates for each buprenorphine order and classified as retained (≥6 months of orders) or not retained (<6 months of orders). Logistic regressions estimated the odds of retention on buprenorphine by 1) patient characteristics and 2) timing of patient's engagement in buprenorphine treatment (pre- or post-implementation of an integrated treatment model).Results: Of the study sample, 53% had ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders. Almost two times higher odds of retention were found among patients with ≥1 psychiatric comorbidity (versus none) and among those with buprenorphine orders in the post- versus pre-period.Conclusions: An integrated, interdisciplinary model of OUD treatment was associated with ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders among our study population. Continued research is needed in real-world primary care settings to understand the impact of OUD treatment models on patient outcomes. A more nuanced examination of the associations between psychiatric diagnoses and buprenorphine treatment retention is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]