Search

Background The Collaborative Care Model is a well-established, evidence-based approach to treating depression and other common behavioral health conditions in primary care settings. Despite a robust evidence base, real world implementation of Collaborative Care has been limited and very slow. The goal of this analysis is to better describe and understand the progression of implementation in the largest state-led Collaborative Care program in the nation—the New York State Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. Data are presented using the RE-AIM model, examining the proportion of clinics in each of the model’s five steps from 2014 to 2019. Methods We used the RE-AIM model to shape our data presentation, focusing on the proportion of clinics moving into each of the five steps of this model over the years of implementation. Data sources included: a New York State Office of Mental Health clinic tracking database, billing applications, quarterly reports, and Medicaid claims. Results A total of 84% of clinics with which OMH had an initial contact [n = 611clinics (377 FQHCs and 234 non-FQHCs)] received some form of training and technical assistance. Of those, 51% went on to complete a billing application, 41% reported quarterly data at least once, and 20% were able to successfully bill Medicaid. Of clinics that reported data prior to the first quarter of 2019, 79% (n = 130) maintained Collaborative Care for 1 year or more. The receipt of any training and technical assistance was significantly associated with our implementation indices: (completed billing application, data reporting, billing Medicaid, and maintaining Collaborative Care). The average percent of patient improvement for depression and anxiety across 155 clinics that had at least one quarter of data was 44.81%. Training and technical assistance source (Office of Mental Health, another source, or both) and intensity (high/low) were significantly related to implementation indices and were observed in FQHC versus non-FQHC samples. Conclusions Offering Collaborative Care training and technical assistance, particularly high intensity training and technical assistance, increases the likelihood of implementation. Other state-wide organizations might consider the provision of training and technical assistance when assisting clinics to implement Collaborative Care.

IntroductionEffective, brief, low-cost interventions for suicide attempt survivors are essential to saving lives and achieving the goals of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention and Zero Suicide. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP) in averting suicide reattempts in the United States healthcare system, its psychological mechanisms as predicted by the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, and the potential implementation costs, barriers and facilitators for delivering it.Methods and analysisThis study is a hybrid type 1 effectiveness–implementation randomised controlled trial (RCT). ASSIP is delivered at three outpatient mental healthcare clinics in New York State. Participant referral sites include three local hospitals with inpatient and comprehensive psychiatric emergency services, and outpatient mental health clinics. Participants include 400 adults who have had a recent suicide attempt. All are randomised to ‘Zero Suicide-Usual Care plus ASSIP’ or ‘Zero Suicide-Usual Care’. Randomisation is stratified by sex and whether the index attempt is a first suicide attempt or not. Participants complete assessments at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 and, 18 months. The primary outcome is the time from randomisation to the first suicide reattempt. Prior to the RCT, a 23-person open trial took place, in which 13 participants received ‘Zero Suicide-Usual Care plus ASSIP’ and 14 completed the first follow-up time point.Ethics and disseminationThis study is overseen by the University of Rochester, with single Institutional Review Board (#3353) reliance agreements from Nathan Kline Institute (#1561697) and SUNY Upstate Medical University (#1647538). It has an established Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, presented at scientific conferences, and communicated to referral organisations. Clinics considering ASSIP may use a stakeholder report generated by this study, including incremental cost-effectiveness data from the provider point of view.Trial registration numberNCT03894462.

Background The treatment of suicidal patients often suffers owing to a lack of integrated care and standardized approaches for identifying and reducing risk. The National Strategy for Suicide Prevention endorsed the Zero Suicide (ZS) model, a multi-component, system-wide approach to identify, engage, and treat suicidal patients. The ZS model is a framework for suicide prevention in healthcare systems with the aspirational goal of eliminating suicide in healthcare. While the approach is widely endorsed, it has yet to be evaluated in a systematic manner. This trial evaluates two ZS implementation strategies statewide in specialty mental health clinics. Methods/study design This trial is the first large-scale implementation of the ZS model in mental health clinics using the Assess, Intervene, and Monitor for Suicide Prevention (A-I-M) clinical model. Using a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 design, we are testing the effectiveness of ZS implementation in 186 mental health clinics in 95 agencies in New York State. Agencies are randomly assigned to either: “Basic Implementation” (BI; a large group didactic learning collaboratives) or “Enhanced Implementation” (EI; participatory small group learning collaboratives; enhanced consultation for site champions). Primary outcomes include suicidal behaviors, hospitalizations and Emergency Department visits; implementation outcomes include protocol adoption, protocol fidelity and barriers/facilitators to implementation. Discussion This project has the potential to have a significant public health impact by determining the effectiveness of the ZS model in mental health clinics, a setting where suicide attempts and suicides occur at a higher rate than any other healthcare setting. It will also provide guidance on the implementation level required to achieve uptake and sustainability of ZS. Trial registration: N/A.

Background In a large statewide initiative, New York State implemented collaborative care (CC) from 2012 to 2014 in 32 primary care settings where residents were trained and supported its sustainability through payment reforms implemented in 2015. Twenty-six clinics entered the sustainability phase and six opted out, providing an opportunity to examine factors predicting continued CC participation and fidelity. Methods We used descriptive statistics to assess implementation metrics in sustaining vs. opt-out clinics and trends in implementation fidelity 1 and 2 years into the sustainability phase among sustaining clinics. To characterize barriers and facilitators, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists, clinic administrators, primary care physicians, and depression care managers (24 at sustaining, 7 at opt-out clinics). Results At the end of the implementation phase, clinics opting to continue the program had significantly higher care manager full-time equivalents (FTEs) and achieved greater clinical improvement rates (46% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.004) than opt-out clinics. At 1 and 2 years into sustainability, the 26 sustaining clinics had steady rates of depression screening, staffing FTEs and treatment titration rates, significantly higher contacts/patient and improvement rates and fewer enrolled patients/FTE. During the sustainability phase, opt-out sites reported lower patient caseloads/FTE, psychiatry and care manager FTEs, and physician/psychiatrist CC involvement compared to sustaining clinics. Key barriers to sustainability noted by respondents included time/resources/personnel (71% of respondents from sustaining clinics vs. 86% from opt-out), patient engagement (67% vs. 43%), and staff/provider engagement (50% vs. 43%). Fewer respondents mentioned early implementation barriers such as leadership support, training, finance, and screening/referral logistics. Facilitators included engaging patients (e.g., warm handoffs) (79% vs. 86%) and staff/providers (71% vs. 100%), and hiring personnel (75% vs. 57%), particularly paraprofessionals for administrative tasks (67% vs. 0%). Conclusions Clinics that saw early clinical improvement and who invested in staffing FTEs were more likely to elect to enter the sustainability phase. Structural rules (e.g., payment reform) both encouraged participation in the sustainability phase and boosted long-term outcomes. While limited to settings with academic affiliations, these results demonstrate that patient and provider engagement and care manager resources are critical factors to ensuring sustainability. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0818-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We report on a partnership between the NYS Department of Health and Office of Mental Health that delivered the full integration of depression care into primary medical care. Called the NYS Collaborative Care Initiative (NYS-CCI), nineteen NYS academic medical centers participated. Based on principles of chronic illness care, Collaborative Care detects and manages depression in primary care using a highly prescriptive protocol (University of Washington AIMS Center website: http://uwaims.org/ ). Fidelity was ensured by measuring screening rates, diagnosis, enrollment, and improvement among those in treatment for 16 weeks. There was significant, progressive performance improvement in sites that served over 1 million patients over the course of the two and a half year grant. Clinics also reported satisfaction with the CC model. Based on the experience gained, we recommend a number of critical actions necessary for the successful implementation and scaling-up of CC throughout any state undertaking this endeavor.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.