Search

Background: Engaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG). Objective: Describe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships. Design: Observational report of study intervention component. Participants: Diverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics. Intervention: The PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators. Main Measures: Observations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team. Key Results: Of 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams. Conclusions: Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Introduction: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. Method: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. Results: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. Discussion: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. Public Significance Statement: This article presents a revised version of a previously validated survey that measures the extent to which primary care practices have integrated behavioral health care. The revised survey can be used to support practice improvement in primary care and research on such topics as the determinants of practice-level performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical departments at academic medical centers strive to deliver clinical care, provide education and training, support faculty development, and promote scholarship. These departments have experienced increasing demands to improve the quality, safety, and value of care delivery. However, many academic departments lack a sufficient number of clinical faculty members with expertise in improvement science to lead initiatives, teach, and generate scholarship. In this article, we describe the structure, activities, and early outcomes of a program within an academic department of medicine to promote scholarly improvement work. Methods: The Department of Medicine at the University of Vermont Medical Center launched a Quality Program with three primary goals: (a) improve care delivery, (b) provide education and training, and (c) promote scholarship in improvement science. The program serves as a resource center for students, trainees and faculty, offering education and training, analytic support, consultation in design and methodology, and project management. It strives to integrate education, research, and care delivery to learn, apply evidence and improve health care. Results: Over the first 3 years of full implementation, the Quality Program supported an average of 123 projects annually, including prospective clinical quality improvement initiatives, retrospective assessment of clinical programs and practices, and curriculum development and evaluation. The projects have yielded a total of 127 scholarly products, defined as peer‐reviewed publications and abstracts, posters, and oral presentations at local, regional, and national conferences. Conclusions: The Quality Program may serve as a practical model for promoting care delivery improvement, training, and scholarship in improvement science while advancing the goals of a learning health system at the level of an academic clinical department. Dedicated resources within such departments offer the potential to enhance care delivery while promoting academic success for faculty and trainees in improvement science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We developed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) to measure the degree of behavioral health integration in clinical practices with a focus on primary care (PC). Its 30 items, completed by providers, managers, and staff, provide an overall score and 6 domain scores derived from the Lexicon of Collaborative Care. We describe its history and psychometric properties.Method: The PIP was tested in a convenience sample of practices. Linear regression compared scores across integration exemplars, PC with behavioral services, PC without behavioral services, and community mental health centers without PC. An additional sample rated 4 scenarios describing practices with varying degrees of integration.Results: One hundred sixty-nine surveys were returned. Mean domain scores ran from 49 to 65. The mean total score was 55 (median 58; range 0-100) with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .95). The lowest total scores were for PC without behavioral health (27), followed by community mental health centers (44), PC with behavioral health (60), and the exemplars (86; p < .001). Eleven respondents rerated their practices 37 to 194 days later. The mean change was + 1.5 (standard deviation = 11.1). Scenario scores were highly correlated with the degree of integration each scenario was designed to represent (Spearman's ρ = -0.71; P = 0.0005).Discussion: These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration.Methods: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration.Discussion: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Despite a growing commitment to integrating behavioral health (IBH) in primary care (PC), high levels of integration that improve care and outcomes are elusive. As previously reported to NAPCRG (2021), "IBH-PC" studied the effectiveness of an intervention to support BH integration in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A small improvement in BH integration was detected; there was no observed effect on patient outcomes. Objective: Secondary analysis to understand relationships among intervention completion, timing of study measures relative to COVID-19, level of BH integration, and patient reported outcomes. Study Design: Post-hoc analysis of pragmatic RCT. Setting: 42 primary care clinics with on-site BH services, in 13 states, Sep 2017-Dec 2020. Population: 2,426 adults with multiple chronic behavioral and medical conditions. Intervention: Clinic-level support to implement IBH using online curricula, workbooks, remote coaching, and online learning community. Outcomes and Predictors: Change in mean Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores (PROMIS) and median Practice Integration Profile (PIP); timing relative to COVID-19; and completion of the implementation stage of the intervention. Results: Higher PIP scores were associated with better patient outcomes in all 8 PROMIS domains at baseline and follow-up. This association was significant for Anxiety (CI -0.12, 0.00, P=0.05 and CI -0.09, -0.01, P=0.01, respectively), Social Participation (CI +0.01, +0.09, P=0.02 and CI +0.02, +0.10, P=0.01), and Mental Health Summary (CI 0.00, +0.09, P=0.05 and CI 0.00, +0.09, P=0.04). Additional analysis found that a longer lapse between the start of COVID-19 and collection of final outcomes was associated with smaller improvement in PIP (P=0.04). Among clinics in the intervention arm (n=20), those that completed implementation (n=13) had significantly larger improvement in PIP scores (P=0.013) than those that did not; their patients also reported more improvement in PROMIS scores for Mental Health Summary (P=0.02), Social Participation (P=0.01), and Fatigue (P=0.04). Conclusions: Post-hoc analyses identified associations among level of integration, improved patient reported health outcomes, and intervention completion. COVID-19 may have affected intervention completion. To help the field advance, future study must identify necessary conditions for successful implementation of IBH and the relationship between integration and health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To perform a factor analysis of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a 30-item practice-level measure of primary care and behavioral health integration derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration.Data Sources: The PIP was completed by 735 individuals, representing 357 practices across the United States.Study Design: The study design was a cross-sectional survey. An exploratory factor analysis and assessment of internal consistency reliability via Cronbach's alpha were performed.Data Collection Methods: Participant responses were collected using REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture tool.Principal Findings: Five of the PIP's six domains had factor loadings for most items related to each factor representing the PIP of 0.50 or greater. However, one factor had items from two PIP domains that had loadings >0.50. A five-factor model with redistributed items resulted in improved factor loadings for all domains along with greater internal consistency reliability (>0.80).Conclusions: Five of the PIP's six domains demonstrated excellent internal consistency for measures of health care resources. Although minor improvements to strengthen the PIP are possible, it is a valid and reliable measure of the integration of primary care and behavioral health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insufficient knowledge exists regarding how to measure the presence and degree of integrated care. Prior estimates of integration levels are neither grounded in theory nor psychometrically validated. They provide scant guidance to inform improvement activities, compare integration efforts, discriminate among practices by degree of integration, measure the effect of integration on quadruple aim outcomes, or address the needs of clinicians, regulators, and policymakers seeking new models of health care delivery and funding. We describe the development of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a novel instrument designed to measure levels of integrated behavioral health care within a primary care clinic. The PIP draws upon the Agency for Health care Research & Quality's (AHRQ) Lexicon of Collaborative Care which provides theoretic justification for a paradigm case of collaborative care. We used the key clauses of the Lexicon to derive domains of integration and generate measures corresponding to those key clauses. After reviewing currently used methods for identifying collaborative care, or integration, and identifying the need to improve on them, we describe a national collaboration to describe and evaluate the PIP. We also describe its potential use in practice improvement, research, responsiveness to multiple stakeholder needs, and other future directions. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with a history of low back pain (LBP) exhibit altered responses to postural perturbations, and the central neural control underlying these changes in postural responses remains unclear. To characterize more thoroughly the change in muscle activation patterns of people with LBP in response to a perturbation of standing balance, and to gain insight into the influence of early- vs. late-phase postural responses (differentiated by estimates of voluntary reaction times), this study evaluated the intermuscular patterns of electromyographic (EMG) activations from 24 people with and 21 people without a history of chronic, recurrent LBP in response to 12 directions of support surface translations. Twofactor general linear models examined differences between the 2 subject groups and 12 recorded muscles of the trunk and lower leg in the percentage of trials with bursts of EMG activation as well as the amplitudes of integrated EMG activation for each perturbation direction. The subjects with LBP exhibited 1) higher baseline EMG amplitudes of the erector spinae muscles before perturbation onset, 2) fewer early-phase activations at the internal oblique and gastrocnemius muscles, 3) fewer late-phase activations at the erector spinae, internal and external oblique, rectus abdominae, and tibialis anterior muscles, and 4) higher EMG amplitudes of the gastrocnemius muscle following the perturbation. The results indicate that a history of LBP associates with higher baseline muscle activation and that EMG responses are modulated from this activated state, rather than exhibiting acute burst activity from a quiescent state, perhaps to circumvent trunk displacements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]