Search

BackgroundChronic 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.MethodsForty-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.DiscussionAs 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Background: Recent efforts to prepare healthcare professionals to care for patients/clients with substance use problems have incorporated SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) into graduate education programs. This pilot study adds to the literature by examining the impact of an SBIRT interprofessional education approach for behavioral health graduate students and medical residents as planned by faculty from multiple professions at a state university. It measured changes in attitudes, abilities, skills, and knowledge in these interprofessionally trained students. Methods: Faculty in Counseling, Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Nursing and Social Work departments collaborated to develop an interprofessional curriculum delivered through a small-group and active learning approach. Seventy-one residents and graduate students participated. Pre- and post-training surveys measured self-perceived attitudes, abilities, and skills along with objectively measured knowledge. Analysis examined pre- to post-training changes in scores. Results: Pre-training surveys yielded an 89% response rate; post-training, 85%. Self-perceived attitudes did not change significantly, except a 20% increase in how rewarded students felt while working with patients/clients with alcohol/drug use disorders (P < 0.01). Compared to baseline, there was a statistically significant increase in all items of self-perceived ability (P<0.01) and all items of self-perceived communication skills (P=0.04). Knowledge mean scores also increased significantly (P < 0.001) across both primary care and behavioral health student groups. Conclusions: Interprofessional training in SBIRT produced improvements in ability, skills, knowledge, and some attitudes. Such programs may inform providers who care for patients/clients with substance use problems, improving their personal experience and professional competence.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

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., Presenters Constance van Eeghen, DrPH, MHSA, Rodger Kessler, PhD, ABPP, Levi Bonnell, MPH, PhD Candidate, Jennifer O'Rourke-Lavoie, BS, Juvena Hitt, MPH, Gail Rose, PhD, Benjamin Littenberg, MD, Jessica Clifton, [...]

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p

BackgroundAssessing patient-reported health behaviors is a critical first step in prioritizing prevention in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of point-of-care behavioral health assessment in 9 diverse primary care practices, including 4 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), 4 practice-based research network practices, and a Department of Veterans Affairs practice.MethodsIn this prospective mixed-methods study, practices were asked to integrate a standardized paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment into their workflow for ≥50 patients. We used 3 data sources to examine the implementation process: (1) patient responses to the health assessment, (2) patient feedback surveys about how assessments were used during encounters, and (3) postimplementation interviews.ResultsMost nonurgent patients (71%) visiting the participating practices during the implementation period completed the health assessment, but reach varied by practice (range, 59% to 88%). Unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, and stress were the most common patient problems, with similar frequencies observed across practices. The median number of "positive screens" per patient was similar among FQHCs (3.7 positives; standard deviation [SD], 1.8), practice-based research network practices (3.8 positives; SD, 1.9), and the Veterans Affairs clinic (4.1 positives; SD, 2.0). Primary care clinicians discussed assessment results with patients about half of the time (54%), with considerable variation between practices (range, 13% to 66%; lowest use among FQHC clinicians). Although clinicians were interested in routinely implementing assessments, many reported not feeling confident of having resources or support to address all patients' behavioral health needs.ConclusionsPrimary care practices will need to revamp their patient-reported data collection processes to integrate routine health behavior assessments. Implementation support will be required if health assessments are to be actively used as part of routine primary care.

BACKGROUND: Assessing patient-reported health behaviors is a critical first step in prioritizing prevention in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of point-of-care behavioral health assessment in 9 diverse primary care practices, including 4 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), 4 practice-based research network practices, and a Department of Veterans Affairs practice. METHODS: In this prospective mixed-methods study, practices were asked to integrate a standardized paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment into their workflow for ≥50 patients. We used 3 data sources to examine the implementation process: (1) patient responses to the health assessment, (2) patient feedback surveys about how assessments were used during encounters, and (3) postimplementation interviews. RESULTS: Most nonurgent patients (71%) visiting the participating practices during the implementation period completed the health assessment, but reach varied by practice (range, 59% to 88%). Unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, and stress were the most common patient problems, with similar frequencies observed across practices. The median number of positive screens per patient was similar among FQHCs (3.7 positives; standard deviation [SD], 1.8), practice-based research network practices (3.8 positives; SD, 1.9), and the Veterans Affairs clinic (4.1 positives; SD, 2.0). Primary care clinicians discussed assessment results with patients about half of the time (54%), with considerable variation between practices (range, 13% to 66%; lowest use among FQHC clinicians). Although clinicians were interested in routinely implementing assessments, many reported not feeling confident of having resources or support to address all patients behavioral health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices will need to revamp their patient-reported data collection processes to integrate routine health behavior assessments. Implementation support will be required if health assessments are to be actively used as part of routine primary care.

Background: We evaluated the impact of electronic consultation (eConsult) in reducing the environmental pollutants associated with health care delivery. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the eConsult data between July 2018 and December 2022 was extracted from the electronic health record (Epic). Travel time and mileage from the patient home to the academic medical center (AMC) were calculated along with fuel expenditure and greenhouses gas savings. Projected savings through the end of the decade were forecast using a random walk model. Results: A total of 15,499 eConsults were submitted to AMC specialist providers from community primary care providers. Completed eConsults (n = 11,590) eliminated the need for a face-to-face visit with a specialist provider, eliminating mileage, fuel, time, and pollutants associated with face to face visits. In-state travel distance saved was 310,858 miles, travel time saved was 5,491 h, with an associated fuel reduction of 13,575 gallons and $56,893 savings. This reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 128 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 0.022 tons of nitrogen oxide, 0.005 tons of methane, and 0.001 tons of nitrous oxide. Out of state travel distance saved was 188,346 miles with 2,842 h reduced travel time, and associated fuel reduction of 8,225 gallons and of $34,118. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions were equivalent to 77 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 0.0132 tons of nitrogen oxide, 0.0033 tons of methane, and 0.0007 tons of nitrous oxide. Conclusion: This study indicates that medical care provided through telehealth modalities reduces the environmental impact of pollutants associated with face to face visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. Methods This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. Discussion The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746

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 [...]

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 [...]

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 – 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative care has increased dramatically in the past decade, yet the variability in collaborative strategies and the diversity of settings in which collaboration is being implemented make it difficult to [...]