Search

Introduction: Chronic pain is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI), frequently limits daily activities, and is associated with negative outcomes such as decreased community participation. Despite the negative impact of chronic pain, few people with TBI receive effective treatment. This paper describes a collaborative care (CC) intervention, TBI Care, adapted specifically to treat chronic pain in people living with TBI, emphasizing expert clinician input, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques, and other nonpharmacological approaches for decreasing pain interference. Methods: 79participantsengagedintheCCintervention fromtwoacademicmedical rehabilitation clinics with weekly assessments of pain intensity, interference, and medication use. Participant feedback on the intervention was gathered by interview with the care manager (CM) at the last treatment session and/or booster session. Provider feedback was gathered by a confidential survey post intervention. Results: Ninety percent of participants received at least 11 of the target 12 sessions with a care manager (CM), the majority occurring over the phone. Participants endorsed an average of 7 pain locations. All participants received pain education, skills in self-monitoring, goal setting/behavioral activation and relaxation training. Pain interference scores (impact on activity and enjoyment), tracked weekly by the CM, significantly decreased across sessions. 89% of participants received recommendations for CBT skills, 65% received referrals for additional treatments targeting pain interference, and 43% received care coordination. 75% of participants reported 6 or more medications/supplements at both the first and last session, with changes recommended primarily for headache treatment. Feedback from participants and providers was positive. Discussion: TBI Care, a novel patient-centered CC approach, was flexibly delivered, tailored to the needs of those living with TBI and chronic pain, with a high level of participant engagement, and satisfaction among participants and providers. This approach, prioritizing pain self-management strategies and other non-pharmacological approaches, along with optimizing pharmacological treatment, led to significant reductions in self-reported pain interference and intensity during the intervention. Using a CC model in TBI is feasible and successfully improved access to evidence-based treatments for chronic pain as well as outcomes for pain interference and intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe and Enduring Eating Disorders (SEED), in particular SEED-Anorexia Nervosa (SE-AN), may represent the most difficult disorder to treat in psychiatry. Furthermore, the lack of empirical research in this patient group, and, consequently the lack of guidelines, call for an urgent increase in research and discussion within this field. Meanwhile experts concur that effective care should be structured in a collaborative manner. Objective: To identify the challenges in providing care to patients with SE-AN in the Dutch healthcare context, and propose a collaborative care treatment model to address these issues. Methods: A pragmatic mixed-method approach was used, structured as follows: (1) Identifying perceived barriers and treatment needs from the viewpoint of both patients and eating disorder healthcare professionals through an evaluation questionnaire; (2) Investigating current treatment practices for SEED/SE-AN via benchmarking; (3) Gaining insight into the optimal structure and content of care by interviewing network partners and experts-by-experience. Based on these findings, and drawing from literature on severe and enduring disorders, a treatment model for SE-AN was proposed and implemented. Results: The key challenges identified included a lack of knowledge about eating disorders among network partners, treatment ambivalence among patients and poor collaboration between professionals. The proposed model enhances self-management and collaborative relationships with healthcare providers, offers user-friendly and practical guidance, and aims at stabilization, reducing relapses, deterioration, and readmissions, thereby being cost-effective. Importantly, the model operates across levels of care (primary, secondary, tertiary). Conclusion: This study, describing a collaborative care program for SE-AN, developed and implemented in a highly specialized treatment center for eating disorders, sets the stage for further explanatory/efficacy research to build on the findings in this study, with the following aims: addressing the critical gap in care for SEED/SE-AN, improving better healthcare organization, reducing relapse rates, and lowering costs for this often overlooked patient group. Plain English summary: Severe and Enduring Eating Disorders (SEED), and particularly Severe and Enduring Anorexia Nervosa (SE-AN), present significant challenges in psychiatric treatment. This study aimed to understand the obstacles in caring for patients with SEED/SE-AN in the Dutch healthcare system and proposed a collaborative care model to address the issues. Through surveys, interviews, and benchmarking, key challenges were identified, including limited knowledge about eating disorders, patient ambivalence, and poor professional collaboration. The collaborative care model for SE-AN that was proposed in this study emphasizes structured care coordination, education for network partners, and support for eating disorder professionals, combining clinical management and psychotherapy. The study aims to bridge the gap in care for SE-AN and improve healthcare organization for this overlooked patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Driving the overdose epidemic, a significant proportion of adult and adolescent patients seen in neurology practice and hospital settings has substance use disorder. Fortunately, there are effective treatments available, in particular for opioid addiction. Some elements of treatment can be delivered directly in medical office-based settings, while others are best provided from within specialized addiction treatment facilities. In this article, we review the nature of substance use disorders, and the various treatment approaches that can be utilized to stabilize patients and facilitate their building a strong recovery foundation. Some interventions discussed may be directly provided by a physician identifying the disorder, while others involve collaboration with specialized addiction treatment centers and recovery support entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is an evidence-based mental health treatment in primary care. A greater understanding of the determinants of successful CoCM implementation, particularly the characteristics of multi-level implementers, is needed. Methods: This study was a process evaluation of the Collaborative Behavioral Health Program (CBHP) study (NCT04321876) in which CoCM was implemented in 11 primary care practices. CBHP implementation included screening for depression and anxiety, referral to CBHP, and treatment with behavioral care managers (BCMs). Interviews were conducted 4- and 15-months post-implementation with BCMs, practice managers, and practice champions (primary care clinicians). We used framework-guided rapid qualitative analysis with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Version 2.0, focused on the Individuals domain, to analyze response data. These data represented the roles of Mid-Level Leaders (practice managers), Implementation Team Members (clinicians, support staff), Innovation Deliverers (BCMs), and Innovation Recipients (primary care/CBHP patients) and their characteristics (i.e., Need, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation). Results: Mid-level leaders (practice managers) were enthusiastic about CBHP (Motivation), appreciated integrating mental health services into primary care (Need), and had time to assist clinicians (Opportunity). Although CBHP lessened the burden for implementation team members (clinicians, staff; Need), some were hesitant to reallocate patient care (Motivation). Innovation deliverers (BCMs) were eager to deliver CBHP (Motivation) and confident in assisting patients (Capability); their opportunity to deliver CBHP could be limited by clinician referrals (Opportunity). Although CBHP alleviated barriers for innovation recipients (patients; Need), it was difficult to secure services for those with severe conditions (Capability) and certain insurance types (Opportunity). Conclusions: Overall, respondents favored sustaining CoCM and highlighted the positive impacts on the practice, health care team, and patients. Participants emphasized the benefits of integrating mental health services into primary care and how CBHP lessened the burden on clinicians while providing patients with comprehensive care. Barriers to CBHP implementation included ensuring appropriate patient referrals, providing treatment for patients with higher-level needs, and incentivizing clinician engagement. Future CoCM implementation should include strategies focused on education and training, encouraging clinician buy-in, and preparing referral paths for patients with more severe conditions or diverse needs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04321876). Registered: March 25,2020. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) increases access to mental health treatment and improves outcomes among patients with mild to moderate psychopathology; however, it is unclear how effective CoCM is for patients with elevated suicide risk. Methods: We examined data from the Penn Integrated Care program, a CoCM program including an intake and referral management center plus traditional CoCM services implemented in primary care clinics within a large, diverse academic medical system. In this community setting, we examined: (1) characteristics of patients with and without suicidal ideation who initiated CoCM, (2) changes in suicidal ideation (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] item 9), depression (PHQ-9 total scores), and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 scores) from the first to last CoCM visit overall and across demographic subgroups, and (3) the relationship between amount of CoCM services provided and degree of symptom reduction. Results: From 2018 to 2022, 3,487 patients were referred to CoCM, initiated treatment for at least 15 days, and had completed symptom measures at the first and last visit. Patients were 74% female, 45% Black/African American, and 45% White. The percentage of patients reporting suicidal ideation declined 11%-7% from the first to last visit. Suicidal ideation severity typically improved, and very rarely worsened, during CoCM. Depression and anxiety declined significantly among patients with and without suicidal ideation and across demographic subgroups; however, the magnitude of these declines differed across race, ethnicity, and age. Patients with suicidal ideation at the start of CoCM had higher depression scores than patients without suicidal ideation at the start and end of treatment. Longer CoCM episodes were associated with greater reductions in depression severity. Conclusions: Suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety declined following CoCM among individuals with suicidal ideation in a community setting. Findings are consistent with emerging evidence from clinical trials suggesting CoCM's potential for increasing access to mental healthcare and improving outcomes among patients at risk for suicide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate changes in the management of symptomatic fibroids after establishing a multidisciplinary fibroid center with minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS) and interventional radiology (IR). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the fibroid center created in September 2020. Patients were offered same-day consults with both MIGS and IR providers. Data were collected for patients with initial consultations from January to June 2019 (pre-fibroid center) and from January to June 2021 (post-fibroid center). Results: Among 615 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 273 had consultations pre-center and 342 post-center. More patients seen post-center had previously attempted medical management (30.1% vs. 20.2%), with a significant proportion having no prior medical or surgical treatment (53.2% vs. 61.5%). Post-center, there were more MIGS consultations (65.5% vs. 53.1%) and a decrease in general gynecology (GYN) consultations (19.0% vs. 25.6%). More patients sought additional opinions post-center (83.6% vs. 67.0%), particularly with MIGS (58.8% vs. 37.0%). General GYNs referred to MIGS (79.3% vs. 73.1%) and IR specialists (16.0% vs. 13.0%) more often in 2021. In 2021, use of MRI increased (66.5% vs. 52.4%), and more patients underwent uterine artery embolization (UAE) within 1 year of consultation compared to the pre-center period (13.8% vs. 6.9%). Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic fibroids often seek the expertise of specialists to explore treatment options. A multidisciplinary fibroid center that integrates efforts of MIGS and IR enables thorough counseling and a rise in the utilization of minimally invasive procedures, including UAE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Preventing progression to moderate or severe opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who exhibit risky opioid use behavior that does not meet criteria for treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists (subthreshold OUD) is poorly understood. The Subthreshold Opioid Use Disorder Prevention (STOP) Trial is designed to study the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention to reduce risky opioid use and to prevent progression to moderate or severe OUD in adult primary care patients with subthreshold OUD. METHODS: The STOP trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, randomized at the PCP level, conducted in 5 distinct geographic sites. STOP tests the efficacy of the STOP intervention in comparison to enhanced usual care (EUC) in adult primary care patients with risky opioid use that does not meet criteria for moderate-severe OUD. The STOP intervention consists of (1) a practice-embedded nurse care manager (NCM) who provides patient participant education and supports primary care providers (PCPs) in engaging and monitoring patient-participants; (2) brief advice, delivered to patient participants by their PCP and/or prerecorded video message, about health risks of opioid misuse; and (3) up to 6 sessions of telephone health coaching to motivate and support behavior change. EUC consists of primary care treatment as usual, plus printed overdose prevention educational materials and an educational video on cancer screening. The primary outcome measure is self-reported number of days of risky (illicit or nonmedical) opioid use over 180 days, assessed monthly via text message using items from the Addiction Severity Index and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Secondary outcomes assess other substance use, mental health, quality of life, and healthcare utilization as well as PCP prescribing and monitoring behaviors. A mixed effects negative binomial model with a log link will be fit to estimate the difference in means between treatment and control groups using an intent-to-treat population. DISCUSSION: Given a growing interest in interventions for the management of patients with risky opioid use, and the need for primary care-based interventions, this study potentially offers a blueprint for a feasible and effective approach to improving outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04218201, January 6, 2020.

Abstract Background Severe and Enduring Eating Disorders (SEED), in particular SEED-Anorexia Nervosa (SE-AN), may represent the most difficult disorder to treat in psychiatry. Furthermore, the lack of empirical research in this patient group, and, consequently the lack of guidelines, call for an urgent increase in research and discussion within this field. Meanwhile experts concur that effective care should be structured in a collaborative manner. Objective To identify the challenges in providing care to patients with SE-AN in the Dutch healthcare context, and propose a collaborative care treatment model to address these issues. Methods A pragmatic mixed-method approach was used, structured as follows: (1) Identifying perceived barriers and treatment needs from the viewpoint of both patients and eating disorder healthcare professionals through an evaluation questionnaire; (2) Investigating current treatment practices for SEED/SE-AN via benchmarking; (3) Gaining insight into the optimal structure and content of care by interviewing network partners and experts-by-experience. Based on these findings, and drawing from literature on severe and enduring disorders, a treatment model for SE-AN was proposed and implemented. Results The key challenges identified included a lack of knowledge about eating disorders among network partners, treatment ambivalence among patients and poor collaboration between professionals. The proposed model enhances self-management and collaborative relationships with healthcare providers, offers user-friendly and practical guidance, and aims at stabilization, reducing relapses, deterioration, and readmissions, thereby being cost-effective. Importantly, the model operates across levels of care (primary, secondary, tertiary). Conclusion This study, describing a collaborative care program for SE-AN, developed and implemented in a highly specialized treatment center for eating disorders, sets the stage for further explanatory/efficacy research to build on the findings in this study, with the following aims: addressing the critical gap in care for SEED/SE-AN, improving better healthcare organization, reducing relapse rates, and lowering costs for this often overlooked patient group.

Abstract Background The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is an evidence-based mental health treatment in primary care. A greater understanding of the determinants of successful CoCM implementation, particularly the characteristics of multi-level implementers, is needed. Methods This study was a process evaluation of the Collaborative Behavioral Health Program (CBHP) study (NCT04321876) in which CoCM was implemented in 11 primary care practices. CBHP implementation included screening for depression and anxiety, referral to CBHP, and treatment with behavioral care managers (BCMs). Interviews were conducted 4- and 15-months post-implementation with BCMs, practice managers, and practice champions (primary care clinicians). We used framework-guided rapid qualitative analysis with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Version 2.0, focused on the Individuals domain, to analyze response data. These data represented the roles of Mid-Level Leaders (practice managers), Implementation Team Members (clinicians, support staff), Innovation Deliverers (BCMs), and Innovation Recipients (primary care/CBHP patients) and their characteristics (i.e., Need, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation). Results Mid-level leaders (practice managers) were enthusiastic about CBHP (Motivation), appreciated integrating mental health services into primary care (Need), and had time to assist clinicians (Opportunity). Although CBHP lessened the burden for implementation team members (clinicians, staff; Need), some were hesitant to reallocate patient care (Motivation). Innovation deliverers (BCMs) were eager to deliver CBHP (Motivation) and confident in assisting patients (Capability); their opportunity to deliver CBHP could be limited by clinician referrals (Opportunity). Although CBHP alleviated barriers for innovation recipients (patients; Need), it was difficult to secure services for those with severe conditions (Capability) and certain insurance types (Opportunity). Conclusions Overall, respondents favored sustaining CoCM and highlighted the positive impacts on the practice, health care team, and patients. Participants emphasized the benefits of integrating mental health services into primary care and how CBHP lessened the burden on clinicians while providing patients with comprehensive care. Barriers to CBHP implementation included ensuring appropriate patient referrals, providing treatment for patients with higher-level needs, and incentivizing clinician engagement. Future CoCM implementation should include strategies focused on education and training, encouraging clinician buy-in, and preparing referral paths for patients with more severe conditions or diverse needs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT04321876). Registered: March 25,2020. Retrospectively registered.

Abstract Background The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) increases access to mental health treatment and improves outcomes among patients with mild to moderate psychopathology; however, it is unclear how effective CoCM is for patients with elevated suicide risk. Methods We examined data from the Penn Integrated Care program, a CoCM program including an intake and referral management center plus traditional CoCM services implemented in primary care clinics within a large, diverse academic medical system. In this community setting, we examined: (1) characteristics of patients with and without suicidal ideation who initiated CoCM, (2) changes in suicidal ideation (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] item 9), depression (PHQ-9 total scores), and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 scores) from the first to last CoCM visit overall and across demographic subgroups, and (3) the relationship between amount of CoCM services provided and degree of symptom reduction. Results From 2018 to 2022, 3,487 patients were referred to CoCM, initiated treatment for at least 15 days, and had completed symptom measures at the first and last visit. Patients were 74% female, 45% Black/African American, and 45% White. The percentage of patients reporting suicidal ideation declined 11%-7% from the first to last visit. Suicidal ideation severity typically improved, and very rarely worsened, during CoCM. Depression and anxiety declined significantly among patients with and without suicidal ideation and across demographic subgroups; however, the magnitude of these declines differed across race, ethnicity, and age. Patients with suicidal ideation at the start of CoCM had higher depression scores than patients without suicidal ideation at the start and end of treatment. Longer CoCM episodes were associated with greater reductions in depression severity. Conclusions Suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety declined following CoCM among individuals with suicidal ideation in a community setting. Findings are consistent with emerging evidence from clinical trials suggesting CoCM’s potential for increasing access to mental healthcare and improving outcomes among patients at risk for suicide.

INTRODUCTION: Common mental disorders (CMD) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), common health problems among patients seeking primary healthcare, contribute to high economic productivity losses. Collaborative care programs for CMDs and CVDs have shown improvement in clinical outcomes for both conditions; however, data on productivity outcomes are scarce. Objective: Effect of integrated collaborative care on productivity among people with comorbid CMD and CVD in rural Karnataka primary health clinics. METHODS: Participants were recruited within a randomized trial in rural South India, where patients received either collaborative or enhanced standard care. In this substudy, 303 participants were followed for 3 months and assessed with the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). RESULTS: We found a reduction in the proportion of individuals reporting productivity loss at 3 months (66%) compared to baseline (76%; P = 0.002). Productivity losses decreased from INR 30.3 per person per day at baseline to 17.7 at 3 months. Reductions were similar in the two treatment conditions. CONCLUSION: Medical intervention may foster reduced productivity losses among patients with CMD and CVD. Collaborative care did not translate into higher reductions in productivity losses than enhanced standard care.

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face high burden of common mental disorders (CMDs). Most of the evidence for the Collaborative Care (CC) model effectiveness comes from high-income countries (HICs) and may not generalise to LMICs. A systematic review was conducted to assess effectiveness of CC for CMDs in LMICs. We searched eight-databases, two trial registries (2011-November 2023). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults (≥18 years) with depression/anxiety diagnosis, reporting remission/change in symptom severity were eligible. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for: short-(0–6 months), medium-(7–12 months), long-(13–24 months), and very long-term (≥25 months) follow-up. Quality was assessed with Cochrane RoB2 tool. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022380407. Searches identified 7494 studies, 12 trials involving 13,531 participants were included; nine had low-risk of bias. CC was more effective than usual care for depression: dichotomous outcomes (short-term, 7 studies, relative risk (RR) 1.39, 95%CI 1.31, 1.48; medium-term, 6 studies, RR 1.35, 95%CI 1.28, 1.43); and continuous outcomes (short-term, 8 studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.51, 95%CI −0.80, −0.23; medium-term, 8 studies, SMD −0.59, 95%CI −1.00, −0.17). CC was found to be effective at long-term (one study), but not at very long-term. Improvement in anxiety outcomes with CC (2 studies, 340 participants) reported up to 12-months; improvements in quality-of-life were not statistically significant (3 studies, 796 participants, SMD 0.62, 95%CI −0.10, 1.34). Pooled estimates showed high heterogeneity. In LMICs, CC was more effective than usual care for improving depression outcomes at short and medium-term follow-up. A similar improvement was found for anxiety outcomes, but evidence is limited. • Collaborative Care shows effectiveness for treatment of common mental disorders. • Effectiveness established even in the presence of physical comorbidity. • Delivery through task shifting by trained non-mental health workers is effective. • Future research to focus on implementation in low- and middle-income countries [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The COTAT (Collaborative Opioid Taper After Trauma) Study was a randomized trial of an opioid taper support program using a physician assistant (PA) to provide pain and opioid treatment guidance to primary care providers assuming care for adult patients with moderate to severe trauma discharged from a Level I trauma center on opioid therapy. Patients were recruited, assessed, and randomized individually by a surgery research recruitment team one to two days prior to discharge to home. Participants randomized to the opioid taper support program were contacted by phone within a few days of discharge by the PA interventionist to confirm enrollment and their primary care provider (PCP). The intervention consisted of PA support as needed to the PCP concerning pain and opioid care at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 after discharge or until the PCP office indicated they no longer needed support or the patient had tapered off opioids. The PA was supervised by a pain physician-psychiatrist, a family physician, and a trauma surgeon. Patients randomized to usual care received standard hospital discharge instructions and written information on managing opioid medications after discharge. Trial results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis. 37 participants were randomized to the intervention and 36 were randomized to usual care. The primary outcomes of the trial were pain, enjoyment, general activity (PEG score) and mean daily opioid dose at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. Treatment was unblinded but assessment was blinded. No significant differences in PEG or opioid outcomes were noted at either time point. Physical function at 3 and 6 months and pain interference at 6 months were significantly better in the usual care group. No significant harms of the intervention were noted. COVID-19 (corona virus 2019) limited recruitment of high-risk opioid tolerant subjects, and limited contact between the PA interventionist and the participants and the PCPs. Our opioid taper support program failed to improve opioid and pain outcomes, since both control and intervention groups tapered opioids and improved PEG scores after discharge. Future trials of post-trauma opioid taper support with populations at higher risk of persistent opioid use are needed. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT04275258 19/02/2020. This trial was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Washington Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (R49 CE003087, PI: Monica S. Vavilala, MD). The funder had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data.

Abstract Background Interprofessional collaborative care such as a split-shared care model involving family physicians and community pharmacists can reduce the economic burden of diabetes management. This study aimed to evaluate the economic outcome of a split-shared care model between family physicians and community pharmacists within a pharmacy chain in managing people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and polypharmacy. Method This was a multi-center, parallel arm, open label, randomized controlled trial comparing the direct and indirect economic outcomes of people who received collaborative care involving community pharmacists (intervention) versus those who received usual care without community pharmacist involvement (control). People with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, defined as HbA1c > 7.0% and taking ≥ 5 chronic medications were included while people with missing baseline economic data (such as consultation costs, medication costs) were excluded. Direct medical costs were extracted from the institution’s financial database while indirect costs were calculated from self-reported gross income and productivity loss, using Work Productivity Activity Impairment Global Health questionnaire. Separate generalized linear models with log link function and gamma distribution were used to analyze changes in direct and indirect medical costs. Results A total of 175 patients (intervention = 70, control = 105) completed the trial and were included for analysis. The mean age of the participants was 66.9 (9.2) years, with majority being male and Chinese. The direct medical costs were significantly lower in the intervention than the control group over 6 months (intervention: -US$70.51, control: -US$47.66, p

Abstract Background The caretaking process for older adults with depression and physical multimorbidity is complex. Older patients with both psychiatric and physical illnesses require an integrated and comprehensive approach to effectively manage their care. This approach should address common risk factors, acknowledge the bidirectional relationship between somatic and mental health conditions, and integrate treatment strategies for both aspects. Furthermore, active engagement of healthcare providers in shaping new care processes is imperative for achieving sustainable change. Objective To explore and understand the needs and expectations of healthcare providers (HCPs) concerning the care for older patients with depression and physical multimorbidity. Methods Seventeen HCPs who work with the target group in primary and residential care participated in three focus group interviews. A constructivist Grounded Theory approach was applied. The results were analyzed using the QUAGOL guide. Results Participants highlighted the importance of patient-centeredness, interprofessional collaboration, and shared decision-making in current healthcare practices. There is also a need to further emphasize the advantages and risks of technology in delivering care. Additionally, HCPs working with this target population should possess expertise in both psychiatric and somatic care to provide comprehensive care. Care should be organized proactively, anticipating needs rather than reacting to them. Healthcare providers, including a dedicated care manager, might consider collaborating, integrating their expertise instead of operating in isolation. Lastly, effective communication among HCPs, patients, and their families is crucial to ensure high-quality care delivery. Conclusion The findings stress the importance of a comprehensive approach to caring for older adults dealing with depression and physical comorbidity. These insights will fuel the development of an integrated care model that caters to the needs of this population.

Context and Aims: In the United States, access to evidence-based behavioral health treatment remains limited, contributing to inadequate treatment for individuals with depression and anxiety disorders. The Collaborative care model (CoCM), the integration of behavioral healthcare into primary care, has been shown to be effective in addressing this issue, particularly when delivered virtually through telehealth platforms. While collaborative care has been shown to be effective, little has been studied to understand the impact of patient treatment factors on patient improvement. This study aims to analyze factors associated with patient improvement, measured by PHQ-9 and GAD-7 score changes, in patients with depression and anxiety disorders from Concert Health, a national behavioral medical group offering collaborative care across 18 states. Methods and Material: Stepwise logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors influencing patient improvement in standardized symptom screener scores (PHQ-9 and GAD-7). Relevant patient-level data, including demographics, clinical engagement, insurance type, clinical touchpoints, and other variables, were analyzed. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs). Results and Conclusions: We find that increased clinical touchpoints were associated with improved outcomes in both depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) populations. Commercial insurance was linked to a greater likelihood of improvement relative to Medicaid, and the use of C-SSRS suicide screeners had varied effects on patient outcomes depending on the diagnosis. The duration of time spent in appointments showed a nuanced impact, suggesting an optimal length for touchpoints. Psychiatric consults also impact patient outcomes in both populations. This study sheds light on factors influencing patient outcomes in virtual collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders, which may be used to inform and motivate further research and allow providers to better optimize and understand the impacts of treatment choices in collaborative care settings.

The incidence of spontaneous or primary spondylodiscitis has been increasing over the years, affecting the aging population with multiple comorbidities. Several conditions influencing treatment outcomes stand out, such as diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, cardiovascular and respiratory dysfunction, and malnutrition. Due to these, the question arises regarding properly managing their current conditions and pre-existing disease states. Treatment plans must consider all concomitant comorbidities rather than just the infectious process. This can be done with the help of multidisciplinary teams to provide comprehensive care for patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis. To date, there is no article regarding comprehensive medicine for spontaneous pyogenic spondylodiscitis; hence, this paper reviews the evidence available in current literature, recognizes knowledge gaps, and suggests comprehensive care for treating patients with spinal infections. Pre-requisites for implementing multidisciplinary teams include leadership, administrative support, and team dynamics. This group comprises an appointed leader, coordinator, and different subspecialists, such as orthopedic surgeons, infectious disease specialists, internists, rehabilitation doctors, psychiatrists, microbiologists, radiologists, nutritionists, pharmacologists, nurses, and orthotists working together with mutual trust and respect. Employing collaborative teams allows faster time for diagnosis and improves clinical outcomes, better quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Forefront communication is clear and open between all team members to provide holistic patient care. With these in mind, the need for employing multidisciplinary teams and the feasibility of its implementation emerges, showing a promising and logical path toward providing comprehensive care in managing multimorbid patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis.

Abstract Background Since 2015, the New York State Office of Mental Health has provided state primary care clinics with outreach, free training and technical assistance, and the opportunity to bill Medicaid for the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) as part of its Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. This study aims to describe the characteristics of New York State primary care clinics at each step of CoCM implementation, and the barriers and facilitators to CoCM implementation for the New York State Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. Methods In this mixed-methods study, clinics were categorized into RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) steps. Clinics were sent a survey, which included questions related to payer mix, funding sources, billing codes used, and patient population demographics. Qualitative interviews were conducted with clinic representatives, focusing on barriers or facilitators clinics experienced affecting their progression to the next RE-AIM step. Results One thousand ninety-nine surveys were sent to primary care clinics across New York State, with 107 (9.7%) completing a survey. Significant differences were observed among the different RE-AIM steps for multiple demographic variables including primary payer, percentage of patients with a diagnose of depression or anxiety, and percent of behavioral health services that are reimbursed, in addition to others. Three main themes regarding barriers and facilitators to implementing CoCM for New York State Medicaid billing emerged from 31 qualitative interviews: (1) Billing requirements, (2) Reimbursement rates, and (3) Buy-in to CoCM. Conclusions Survey data align with what we would expect to see demographically in NYS primary care clinics. Qualitative data indicated that CoCM billing requirements/structure and reimbursement rates were perceived as barriers to providing CoCM, particularly with New York State Medicaid, and that buy-in, which included active involvement from organizational leaders and providers that understand the Collaborative Care model were facilitators. Having dedicated staff to manage billing and data reporting is one way clinics minimize barriers, however, there appeared to be a disconnect between what clinics can bill for and the reimbursed amount several clinics are receiving, illustrating the need for stronger billing workflows and continued refinement of billing options across different payers.

Abstract Background Integrated care, in particular the ‘Blended Collaborative Care (BCC)’ strategy, may have the potential to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in multimorbid patients with heart failure (HF) and psychosocial burden at no or low additional cost. The ESCAPE trial is a randomised controlled trial for the evaluation of a BCC approach in five European countries. For the economic evaluation of alongside this trial, the four main objectives were: (i) to document the costs of delivering the intervention, (ii) to assess the running costs across study sites, (iii) to evaluate short-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility compared to providers’ usual care, and (iv) to examine the budgetary implications. Methods The trial-based economic analyses will include cross-country cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessments from a payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis will calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L and national value sets. Cost-effectiveness will include the cost per hospital admission avoided and the cost per depression-free days (DFD). Resource use will be measured from different sources, including electronic medical health records, standardised questionnaires, patient receipts and a care manager survey. Uncertainty will be addressed using bootstrapping. Discussion The various methods and approaches used for data acquisition should provide insights into the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of a BCC intervention. Providing the economic evaluation of ESCAPE will contribute to a country-based structural and organisational planning of BCC (e.g., the number of patients that may benefit, how many care managers are needed). Improved care is expected to enhance health-related quality of life at little or no extra cost. Trial registration The study follows CHEERS2022 and is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025120).

The COTAT (Collaborative Opioid Taper After Trauma) Study was a randomized trial of an opioid taper support program using a physician assistant (PA) to provide pain and opioid treatment guidance to primary care providers assuming care for adult patients with moderate to severe trauma discharged from a Level I trauma center on opioid therapy. Patients were recruited, assessed, and randomized individually by a surgery research recruitment team one to two days prior to discharge to home. Participants randomized to the opioid taper support program were contacted by phone within a few days of discharge by the PA interventionist to confirm enrollment and their primary care provider (PCP). The intervention consisted of PA support as needed to the PCP concerning pain and opioid care at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 after discharge or until the PCP office indicated they no longer needed support or the patient had tapered off opioids. The PA was supervised by a pain physician-psychiatrist, a family physician, and a trauma surgeon. Patients randomized to usual care received standard hospital discharge instructions and written information on managing opioid medications after discharge. Trial results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis. 37 participants were randomized to the intervention and 36 were randomized to usual care. The primary outcomes of the trial were pain, enjoyment, general activity (PEG score) and mean daily opioid dose at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. Treatment was unblinded but assessment was blinded. No significant differences in PEG or opioid outcomes were noted at either time point. Physical function at 3 and 6 months and pain interference at 6 months were significantly better in the usual care group. No significant harms of the intervention were noted. COVID-19 (corona virus 2019) limited recruitment of high-risk opioid tolerant subjects, and limited contact between the PA interventionist and the participants and the PCPs. Our opioid taper support program failed to improve opioid and pain outcomes, since both control and intervention groups tapered opioids and improved PEG scores after discharge. Future trials of post-trauma opioid taper support with populations at higher risk of persistent opioid use are needed. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT04275258 19/02/2020. This trial was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Washington Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (R49 CE003087, PI: Monica S. Vavilala, MD). The funder had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interprofessional collaborative care such as a split-shared care model involving family physicians and community pharmacists can reduce the economic burden of diabetes management. This study aimed to evaluate the economic outcome of a split-shared care model between family physicians and community pharmacists within a pharmacy chain in managing people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and polypharmacy. Method: This was a multi-center, parallel arm, open label, randomized controlled trial comparing the direct and indirect economic outcomes of people who received collaborative care involving community pharmacists (intervention) versus those who received usual care without community pharmacist involvement (control). People with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, defined as HbA1c > 7.0% and taking ≥ 5 chronic medications were included while people with missing baseline economic data (such as consultation costs, medication costs) were excluded. Direct medical costs were extracted from the institution's financial database while indirect costs were calculated from self-reported gross income and productivity loss, using Work Productivity Activity Impairment Global Health questionnaire. Separate generalized linear models with log link function and gamma distribution were used to analyze changes in direct and indirect medical costs. Results: A total of 175 patients (intervention = 70, control = 105) completed the trial and were included for analysis. The mean age of the participants was 66.9 (9.2) years, with majority being male and Chinese. The direct medical costs were significantly lower in the intervention than the control group over 6 months (intervention: -US$70.51, control: -US$47.66, p < 0.001). Medication cost was the main driver in both groups. There were no significant changes in productivity loss and indirect costs in both groups. Conclusion: Implementation of split-shared visits with frontline community partners may reduce economic burden for patient with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and polypharmacy. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Reference Number: NCT03531944 (Date of registration: June 6, 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The caretaking process for older adults with depression and physical multimorbidity is complex. Older patients with both psychiatric and physical illnesses require an integrated and comprehensive approach to effectively manage their care. This approach should address common risk factors, acknowledge the bidirectional relationship between somatic and mental health conditions, and integrate treatment strategies for both aspects. Furthermore, active engagement of healthcare providers in shaping new care processes is imperative for achieving sustainable change. Objective: To explore and understand the needs and expectations of healthcare providers (HCPs) concerning the care for older patients with depression and physical multimorbidity. Methods: Seventeen HCPs who work with the target group in primary and residential care participated in three focus group interviews. A constructivist Grounded Theory approach was applied. The results were analyzed using the QUAGOL guide. Results: Participants highlighted the importance of patient-centeredness, interprofessional collaboration, and shared decision-making in current healthcare practices. There is also a need to further emphasize the advantages and risks of technology in delivering care. Additionally, HCPs working with this target population should possess expertise in both psychiatric and somatic care to provide comprehensive care. Care should be organized proactively, anticipating needs rather than reacting to them. Healthcare providers, including a dedicated care manager, might consider collaborating, integrating their expertise instead of operating in isolation. Lastly, effective communication among HCPs, patients, and their families is crucial to ensure high-quality care delivery. Conclusion: The findings stress the importance of a comprehensive approach to caring for older adults dealing with depression and physical comorbidity. These insights will fuel the development of an integrated care model that caters to the needs of this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Access to supportive services in community-based oncology is challenging but essential, particularly for underserved populations. Methods: We developed the Supportive Oncology Collaborative (SOC), built upon the tenets of Collaborative Care, an existing model used to increase access to behavioral health in community settings. Using a population-health-based approach with screening, a registry, and shared care, we added palliative care specialists to a team of social workers and a consulting psychiatrist. We provided integrated psychosocial and palliative care at community-based sites of a large comprehensive cancer center. Results: We implemented the model in 2020 at a community site with a racially and ethnically diverse patient population. Encounters grew from 527 in our first year to 2,130 in 2022. Using screening tools, we identify the highest-risk patients for discussion in team meetings. Discussion: We are expanding the SOC across the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute regional campuses and believe it can increase access to integrated psychosocial and palliative care in cancer centers across the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to high-quality, preventive oral health care is fundamental for an individual to achieve positive health outcomes. Recognizing that health is influenced by where a person lives, it is important to consider how systems of care must adapt to meet the changing needs of a community over time. Medical-dental integration is a critical component designed to enhance and broaden the oral health care delivery model. MORE Care® is a framework for communities to leverage their resources and relationships by providing tools and resources to integrate preventive oral health services into primary care settings. This report will show how local stakeholders advocated for an innovative approach to improve oral health gaps for children in Ohio. The MORE Care Ohio pilot is expanding access to preventive oral health services by featuring medical-dental integration to close patient care gaps and build an integrated oral health network. Providing a framework for medical and dental teams to collaborate, seven clinical practices (three medical and four dental) agreed to participate in a 9-month learning collaborative and 16-months of performance monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The INtegrating DEPrEssioN and Diabetes treatmENT (INDEPENDENT) trial tested a collaborative care model including electronic clinical decision support (CDS) for treating diabetes and depression in India. We aimed to assess which features of this clinically and cost-effective intervention were associated with improvements in diabetes and depression measures. Post-hoc analysis of the INDEPENDENT trial data (189 intervention participants) was conducted to determine each intervention feature's effect: 1. Collaborative case reviews between expert psychiatrists and the care team; 2. Patient care-coordinator contacts; and 3. Clinicians' CDS prompt modifications. Primary outcome was baseline-to-12-months improvements in diabetes control, blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression. Implementer interviews revealed barriers and facilitators of intervention success. Joint displays integrated mixed methods' results. High baseline HbA1c≥ 74.9 mmol/mol (9%) was associated with 5.72 fewer care-coordinator contacts than those with better baseline HbA1c (76.8 mmol/mol, 9.18%, p < 0.001). Prompt modification proportions varied from 38.3% (diabetes) to 1.3% (LDL). Interviews found that providers' and participants' visit frequencies were preference dependent. Qualitative data elucidated patient-level factors that influenced number of clinical contacts and prompt modifications explaining their lack of association with clinical outcomes. Our mixed methods approach underlines the importance of the complementarity of different intervention features. Qualitative findings further illuminate reasons for variations in fidelity from the core model. • Parent trial showed effectiveness in improving cardiometabolic and mental health. • Variability in the number of care-coordinator contacts was not associated with outcomes. • Variability in the adherence to CDS was not associated with health outcomes. • Unexplained variability was elucidated by qualitative data on contextual factors. • Studying implementation outcomes provides value for future scale-up and scale-out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an interplay between oncology and mental health, resulting in a high prevalence of mental disorders among cancer patients. Out of the several interventions developed to target cancer specifics, collaborative care is indicated due to its efficacy. The perspective delves into the efficacy of collaborative care models, spotlighting a culturally informed strategy designed to harmonize mental and physical health interventions to bolster the overall wellbeing and resilience of individuals battling cancer. Central to our discussion is a compelling case vignette of Raliat, a patient diagnosed with ovarian cancer whose narrative exemplifies the multifaceted challenges cancer patients face, including stigma, psychological distress, and social isolation. Raliat's story illuminates the profound impact of cultural beliefs on patient experiences and the critical importance of a sensitive, holistic approach to care that respects cultural contexts. Through this lens, our analysis reveals that addressing emotional and situational stressors through collaborative care can significantly reduce oxidative stress, potentially decelerating the progression of both cancer and accompanying mental health disorders. We advocate for integrating mental health services into oncological care, drawing on the case vignette to argue for policies that facilitate such merger by employing validated collaborative care models. We conclude with a call for public education to diminish cancer stigma and improve social outcomes, emphasizing the use of a culture-informed PACER (physical, affective, cognitive, environmental, and relationship) strategy in providing comprehensive care for cancer patients and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obstructive sleep apnea is a common type of sleep-disordered breathing associated with multiple comorbidities. Nearly a billion people are estimated to have obstructive sleep apnea, which carries a substantial economic burden, but under-diagnosis is still a problem. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line treatment for OSAS. Telemedicine-based interventions (TM) have been evaluated to improve access to diagnosis, increase CPAP adherence, and contribute to easing the follow-up process, allowing healthcare facilities to provide patient-centered care. This narrative review summarizes the evidence available regarding the potential future of telemedicine in the management pathway of OSA. The potential of home sleep studies to improve OSA diagnosis and the importance of remote monitoring for tracking treatment adherence and failure and to contribute to developing patient engagement tools will be presented. Further studies are needed to explore the impact of shifting from teleconsultations to collaborative care models where patients are placed at the center of their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context and Aims: In the United States, access to evidence‑based behavioral health treatment remains limited, contributing to inadequate treatment for individuals with depression and anxiety disorders. The Collaborative care model (CoCM), the integration of behavioral healthcare into primary care, has been shown to be effective in addressing this issue, particularly when delivered virtually through telehealth platforms. While collaborative care has been shown to be effective, little has been studied to understand the impact of patient treatment factors on patient improvement. This study aims to analyze factors associated with patient improvement, measured by PHQ‑9 and GAD‑7 score changes, in patients with depression and anxiety disorders from Concert Health, a national behavioral medical group offering collaborative care across 18 states. Methods and Material: Stepwise logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors influencing patient improvement in standardized symptom screener scores (PHQ‑9 and GAD‑7). Relevant patient‑level data, including demographics, clinical engagement, insurance type, clinical touchpoints, and other variables, were analyzed. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs). Results and Conclusions: We find that increased clinical touchpoints were associated with improved outcomes in both depression (PHQ‑9) and anxiety (GAD‑7) populations. Commercial insurance was linked to a greater likelihood of improvement relative to Medicaid, and the use of C‑SSRS suicide screeners had varied effects on patient outcomes depending on the diagnosis. The duration of time spent in appointments showed a nuanced impact, suggesting an optimal length for touchpoints. Psychiatric consults also impact patient outcomes in both populations. This study sheds light on factors influencing patient outcomes in virtual collaborative care for depression and anxiety disorders, which may be used to inform and motivate further research and allow providers to better optimize and understand the impacts of treatment choices in collaborative care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Post-operative delirium (POD) is a common complication in older patients, with an incidence of 14–56%. To implement preventative procedures, it is necessary to identify patients at risk for POD. In the present study, we aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) model for POD prediction in older patients, in close cooperation with the PAWEL (patient safety, cost-effectiveness and quality of life in elective surgery) project. Methods The model was trained on the PAWEL study's dataset of 878 patients (no intervention, age ≥ 70, 209 with POD). Presence of POD was determined by the Confusion Assessment Method and a chart review. We selected 15 features based on domain knowledge, ethical considerations and a recursive feature elimination. A logistic regression and a linear support vector machine (SVM) were trained, and evaluated using receiver operator characteristics (ROC). Results The selected features were American Society of Anesthesiologists score, multimorbidity, cut-to-suture time, estimated glomerular filtration rate, polypharmacy, use of cardio-pulmonary bypass, the Montreal cognitive assessment subscores 'memory', 'orientation' and 'verbal fluency', pre-existing dementia, clinical frailty scale, age, recent falls, post-operative isolation and pre-operative benzodiazepines. The linear SVM performed best, with an ROC area under the curve of 0.82 [95% CI 0.78–0.85] in the training set, 0.81 [95% CI 0.71–0.88] in the test set and 0.76 [95% CI 0.71–0.79] in a cross-centre validation. Conclusion We present a clinically useful and explainable ML model for POD prediction. The model will be deployed in the Supporting SURgery with GEriatric Co-Management and AI project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Co-management encompasses the dyadic process between two healthcare providers. The Provider Co-Management Index (PCMI) was initially developed as a 20-item instrument across three theory-informed subscales. Objective: This study aimed to establish construct validity of the PCMI with a sample of primary care providers through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants randomly selected from the IQVIA database across New York State. Mail surveys were used to acquire a minimum of 300 responses for split sample factor analyses. The first subsample (derivation sample) was used to explore factorial structure by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A second (validation) sample was used to confirm the emerged factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis. We performed iterative analysis and calculated good fit indices to determine the best-fit model. Results: There were 333 responses included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was high for a three-item per dimension scale within a one-factor model. The instrument was named PCMI-9 to indicate the shorter version length. Discussion: This study established the construct validity of an instrument that scales the co-management of patients by two providers. The final instrument includes nine items on a single factor using a 4-point, Likert-type scale. Additional research is needed to establish discriminant validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary healthcare models recognise person-centred care (PCC) as a fundamental principle of quality, safe care. While substantial literature exists on PCC in healthcare generally, there is less evidence on how this relates to medical imaging and radiation therapy. Embedding patient-lived experiences of healthcare into healthcare education has promise in enhancing students' confidence in delivering PCC. Digital storytelling (DST) of patient-lived experiences can help improve reflection, understanding, critical thinking and empathy. Authentic patient-lived experiences were extracted from students' clinical workbooks, transformed into first person vignettes and integrated into the curriculum. Students were invited to attend focus groups to explore the impact the activity had on the student. Thematic analysis identified three themes. (1) Enhancing PCC; (2) Mode of Delivery (Scaffolded Learning); and (3) Collaborative Learning. PCC was the strongest theme with students stating this is the first time they engaged in an activity focused on the psychosocial aspect of patient care. The majority of students indicated the mode of delivery was engaging and unique, whereby the vignettes were presented incrementally. Collaborative learning was identified by over half of the students where learning took place in a safe and supportive environment. This project explored students' perspectives of integrating patient-lived experiences into the curriculum via DST. Students who engaged with the activities felt better prepared to deliver quality safe PCC. Providing healthcare students with opportunities to develop skills to deliver PCC before they enter the workforce can enhance their confidence in delivering effective PCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• What is the primary question addressed by this study? Are partnerships with community-based organizations (CBO) to augment standard collaborative care a feasible and effective approach to improve depressive symptoms in older adults? • What is the main finding of this study? Building partnerships with community-based organizations is a feasible and effective way for primary care clinics to improve care for depressed older adults. • What is the meaning of the finding? Primary care clinics and CBOs can partner successfully to improve the lives of older adults with depression. Collaborative care (CC) has demonstrated effectiveness for improving late-life depression in primary care, but clinics offering this service can find it challenging to address unmet social needs that may be contributing to their patients' depression. Clinics may benefit from better coordination and communication with community-based organizations (CBO) to strengthen depression treatment and to address unmet social needs. We evaluated the feasibility of adding a CBO to enhance standard collaborative care and the impact of such partnered care on older adults. Multisite, prepost evaluation. Eight (n = 8) partnerships between primary care clinics and community-based organizations in California. A total of 707 depressed older adults (60 years or older) as evidenced by having a score of 10 or more on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) received care under the Care Partners project. A CBO partner was added to augment CC for late-life depression in primary care. The PHQ-9 was used to identify depressed older adults and to monitor depression symptom severity during a course of care. At baseline, the average PHQ-9 depression score across the partnerships was 15, indicating moderate depression severity. Participating patients saw an average 7-point reduction in their PHQ-9 score, baseline to last score assessed, with nearly half of all participants (48.4%) experiencing a 50% or greater improvement from their baseline score. Our findings suggest that partnering with a community-based organization is a feasible and effective way for primary care clinics to address late-life depression in their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospitalization presents an opportunity to begin people with opioid use disorder (OUD) on medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and link them to care after discharge; regrettably, people admitted to the hospital with an underlying OUD typically do not receive MOUD and are not connected with subsequent treatment for their condition. To address this gap, we launched a multi-site randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a hospital-based addiction consultation team (the Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Team (START)) consisting of an addiction medicine specialist and care manager team that provide collaborative care and a specified intervention to people with OUD during the inpatient stay. Successful implementation of new practices can be impacted by organizational context, though no previous studies have examined context prior to implementation of addiction consultation services (ACS). This study assessed pre-implementation context for implementing a specialized ACS and tailoring it accordingly. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital administrators, physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers at the three study sites between April and August 2021 before the launch of the pragmatic trial. Using an analytical framework based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we completed a thematic analysis of interview data to understand potential barriers or enablers and perceptions about acceptability and feasibility. Results: We interviewed 28 participants across three sites. The following themes emerged across sites: (1) START is an urgently needed model for people with OUD; (2) Intervention adaptations are recommended to meet local and cultural needs; (3) Linking people with OUD to community clinicians is a highly needed component of START; (4) It is important to engage stakeholders across departments and roles throughout implementation. Across sites, participants generally saw a need for change from usual care to support people with OUD, and thought the START was acceptable and feasible to implement. Differences among sites included tailoring the START to support the needs of varying patient populations and different perceptions of the prevalence of OUD. Conclusions: Hospitals planning to implement an ACS in the inpatient setting may wish to engage in a systematic pre-implementation contextual assessment using a similar framework to understand and address potential barriers and contextual factors that may impact implementation. Pre-implementation work can help ensure the ACS and other new practices fit within each unique hospital context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrated care, in particular the 'Blended Collaborative Care (BCC)' strategy, may have the potential to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in multimorbid patients with heart failure (HF) and psychosocial burden at no or low additional cost. The ESCAPE trial is a randomised controlled trial for the evaluation of a BCC approach in five European countries. For the economic evaluation of alongside this trial, the four main objectives were: (i) to document the costs of delivering the intervention, (ii) to assess the running costs across study sites, (iii) to evaluate short-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility compared to providers' usual care, and (iv) to examine the budgetary implications. Methods: The trial-based economic analyses will include cross-country cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessments from a payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis will calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L and national value sets. Cost-effectiveness will include the cost per hospital admission avoided and the cost per depression-free days (DFD). Resource use will be measured from different sources, including electronic medical health records, standardised questionnaires, patient receipts and a care manager survey. Uncertainty will be addressed using bootstrapping. Discussion: The various methods and approaches used for data acquisition should provide insights into the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of a BCC intervention. Providing the economic evaluation of ESCAPE will contribute to a country-based structural and organisational planning of BCC (e.g., the number of patients that may benefit, how many care managers are needed). Improved care is expected to enhance health-related quality of life at little or no extra cost. Trial registration: The study follows CHEERS2022 and is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025120). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study explored collaboration models between primary care physicians (PCPs) and care managers (CMs) and assessed each model's potential in meeting the support needs of individuals with early-stage dementia. Methods: In 2022, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among the PCPs in Tokyo. The data regarding the participant and clinic characteristics and daily practices for individuals with early-stage dementia were collected. The clinical collaborative practice was classified using a latent class analysis; comparisons were made between the identified classes based on 14 items in seven domains of support. Results: Two collaborative and one stand-alone models were identified. The former varied in the professionals' roles, with one led by PCPs and the other by CMs. We named them PCP-led, CM-led, and stand-alone models, accounting for 46.4%, 32.8%, and 20.6% of the clinics, respectively. The PCP-led clinics were significantly more likely to provide support than the stand-alone ones across five domains: cognitive function, care planning, carers' support, information, and social health. The CM-led model clinics generally fell between those of the other two models. Conclusion: Different leadership styles exist in the PCP-CM collaborations in care delivery for people with early-stage dementia. This collaboration offers distinct advantages for clinics in addressing their needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of reviewPatients, providers, and trainees should understand the current types of asynchronous technologies that can be used to enhance the delivery and accessibility of mental health care. Asynchronous telepsychiatry (ATP) removes the need for real time communication between the clinician and patient, which improves efficiency and enables quality specialty care. ATP can be applied as distinct consultative and supervisory models in clinician-to-clinician, clinician-to-patient, and patient-to-mobile health settings.Recent findingsThis review is based on research literature and the authors' clinical and medical training, using experiences with asynchronous telepsychiatry from before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our studies demonstrate that ATP provides positive outcomes in the clinician-to-patient model with demonstrated feasibility, outcomes and patient satisfaction. One author's medical education experience in the Philippines during COVID-19 highlights the potential to utilize asynchronous technology in areas with limitations to online learning. We emphasize the need to teach media skills literacy around mental health to students, coaches, therapists, and clinicians when advocating for mental well-being. Several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating asynchronous e-tools such as self-guided multimedia and artificial intelligence for data collection at the clinician-to-clinician and patient-to-mobile health level. In addition, we offer fresh perspectives on recent trends in asynchronous telehealth in wellness, applying concepts such as "tele-exercise" and "tele-yoga."SummaryAsynchronous technologies continue to be integrated into mental health care services and research. Future research must ensure that the design and the usability of this technology puts the patient and provider first.

IntroductionChronic pain is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI), frequently limits daily activities, and is associated with negative outcomes such as decreased community participation. Despite the negative impact of chronic pain, few people with TBI receive effective treatment. This paper describes a collaborative care (CC) intervention, TBI Care, adapted specifically to treat chronic pain in people living with TBI, emphasizing expert clinician input, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques, and other non-pharmacological approaches for decreasing pain interference.Methods79 participants engaged in the CC intervention from two academic medical rehabilitation clinics with weekly assessments of pain intensity, interference, and medication use. Participant feedback on the intervention was gathered by interview with the care manager (CM) at the last treatment session and/or booster session. Provider feedback was gathered by a confidential survey post intervention.ResultsNinety percent of participants received at least 11 of the target 12 sessions with a care manager (CM), the majority occurring over the phone. Participants endorsed an average of 7 pain locations. All participants received pain education, skills in self-monitoring, goal setting/behavioral activation and relaxation training. Pain interference scores (impact on activity and enjoyment), tracked weekly by the CM, significantly decreased across sessions. 89% of participants received recommendations for CBT skills, 65% received referrals for additional treatments targeting pain interference, and 43% received care coordination. 75% of participants reported 6 or more medications/supplements at both the first and last session, with changes recommended primarily for headache treatment. Feedback from participants and providers was positive.DiscussionTBI Care, a novel patient-centered CC approach, was flexibly delivered, tailored to the needs of those living with TBI and chronic pain, with a high level of participant engagement, and satisfaction among participants and providers. This approach, prioritizing pain self-management strategies and other non-pharmacological approaches, along with optimizing pharmacological treatment, led to significant reductions in self-reported pain interference and intensity during the intervention. Using a CC model in TBI is feasible and successfully improved access to evidence-based treatments for chronic pain as well as outcomes for pain interference and intensity.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03523923.

Background and aims Individuals living with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia and bipolar can have significant emotional, cognitive, physical and social challenges. Most people with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom do not receive specialist mental health care. Collaborative care is a system of support that combines clinical and organisational components to provide integrated and person-centred care. It has not been tested for severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. We aimed to develop and evaluate a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) designed to improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses when compared with usual care. Methods Phase 1 included studies to (1) understand context: an observational retrospective study of primary and secondary care medical records and an update of the Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’; (2) develop and formatively evaluate the PARTNERS intervention: a review of literature on collaborative care and recovery, interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and recovery, focus groups with service users and a formative evaluation of a prototype intervention model; and (3) develop trial science work in this area: a core outcome set for bipolar and recruitment methods. In phase 2 we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial measuring quality of life using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life and secondary outcomes including time use, recovery and mental well-being; a cost-effectiveness study; and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Public involvement underpinned all of the workstream activity through the study Lived Experience Advisory Panel and the employment of service user researchers in the project team. Results phase 1 The study of records showed that care for individuals under secondary care is variable and substantial and that people are seen every 2 weeks on average. The updated Cochrane review showed that collaborative care interventions were highly variable, and no reliable conclusions can be drawn about effectiveness. The PARTNERS model incorporated change at organisational, practitioner and individual levels. Coaching was selected as the main form of support for individuals’ personal goals. In the formative evaluation, we showed that more intensive supervision and ‘top-up’ training were needed to achieve the desired shifts in practice. A core outcome set was developed for bipolar, and measures were selected for the trial. We developed a stepped approach to recruitment including initial approach and appointment. Results phase 2 The trial was conducted in four areas. In total, 198 participants were recruited from 39 practices randomised. Participants received either the PARTNERS intervention or usual care. The follow-up rate was 86% at 9–12 months. The mean change in overall Manchester Short Assessment Quality of Life score did not differ between the groups [0.25 (standard deviation 0.73) for intervention vs. 0.21 (standard deviation 0.86) for control]. We also found no difference for any secondary measures. Safety outcomes (e.g. crises) did not differ between those receiving and those not receiving the intervention. Although the costs of intervention and usual care were similar, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the overall cost-effectiveness of PARTNERS. The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated that a significant proportion of individuals did not receive the full intervention. This was partly due to care partner absence and participant choice. The in-depth realist informed case studies showed that participants generally appreciated the support, with some describing having a ‘professional friend’ as very important. For some people there was evidence that delivery of the intervention had led to specific personal changes. Strengths and limitations The phase 1 records study provided insights into usual care that had not been previously documented. The realist informed complex intervention development was both theoretical and pragmatic. The trial continued through the COVID-19 pandemic with high levels of follow-up. The process evaluation had the depth to explore individual changes in participants’ response to the intervention. Weaknesses in the trial methodology included suboptimal implementation, outcome measures that may not have been sensitive to changes patients most appreciated and difficulties collecting some outcomes. Conclusions While PARTNERS was not shown to be superior to usual care, the change to PARTNERS care was not shown to be unsafe. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected in studies of care that include those with psychosis. Some individuals responded well to the intervention when psychological support in the form of individualised goal setting was flexibly deployed, with evidence that having access to a ‘professional friend’ was experienced as particularly helpful for some individuals. Future work Key components of the PARTNERS model could be developed further and tested, along with improved supervision in the context of ongoing community mental health care change. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN95702682. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR200625) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Over 7 years, the PARTNERS2 research programme co-developed and evaluated a new way of working to support people with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in order to fill the gap in provision between primary care and secondary mental health services. The intervention involved a ‘care partner’ and followed a collaborative care approach. We completed several studies, including a full randomised controlled trial, in four sites: Birmingham, Cornwall, Plymouth and Somerset. We found the following: Analysis of secondary care records showed that many individuals received a lot of specialist care contacts that are not visible in primary care records. Our outcomes work for bipolar identified several themes, including personal recovery, connectedness, clinical recovery and mental health/well-being. These helped us choose quality of life as the primary outcome for the PARTNERS2 trial. Our preliminary work developing the ‘care partner’ collaborative care coaching approach was well received but showed problems with delivery, including supervision. The full trial was completed despite the COVID-19 pandemic but with fewer participants (a total of 198) than intended. No differences were found between those receiving and those not receiving PARTNERS care. Some participants received little or no intervention, partly due to care partner absences. The care partner approach was appreciated by some service users whom we interviewed for feedback. They described positive benefits of working with a ‘professional friend’ but only more limited examples of longer-term impact. Care partners sometimes appeared to take time to learn to put joined-up individualised care into practice. Although the PARTNERS2 trial produced a neutral result – meaning that people were no worse or no better as a result of receiving primary-care-based collaborative care – there are both practical and theoretical reasons that are likely to explain this. As the PARTNERS approach aligns well with current mental health policy, we are continuing to test the approach in practice. Scientific summary Background People with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses have a significantly reduced life expectancy; two-thirds of this mortality gap can be explained by physical health disparities. For many people with severe mental illness, about 1% of the population, their primary and secondary mental health care is delivered by separate teams, causing a negative impact on continuity of care. The PARTNERS1 study found that nearly one-third of people with severe mental illness in the UK were seen only in primary care, and other studies show that more than a half of individuals receive no specialist input. A significant policy shift in the UK prioritises the better integration of place-based mental health systems involving primary and secondary care, the voluntary sector and local authorities. Collaborative care is a system of care that includes clinicians from primary and secondary care working together, proactive review and psychological support. Previous studies have mostly included populations with depression and anxiety, who have different challenges from individuals with serious mental illness. Most of the work on collaborative care for serious mental illness has been in the USA, where the nature of service user populations and of service use differ from the way we fund, structure and use the NHS. Research into effectiveness is, so far, equivocal. Aims, objectives and summary of approach The aim of the PARTNERS2 research programme was to co-develop and evaluate a model of collaborative care for people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar and other forms of psychosis in addition to usual care, in comparison with usual care alone. The programme was carried out between 2014 and 2021, adapting according to circumstances, and included: Phase 1: development work (2014–7) – describing the context of current care delivery by assessment of support provided to people with SMI in three areas of England, including investigation of collaborative care evidence (workstream 1) developing a theoretical model of the intervention (workstream 3) developing trial methodology (workstreams 2, 4 and 5). Phase 2: full trial and process evaluation (2017–21) (workstream 6) – a randomised controlled trial a health economics analysis a parallel process evaluation to examine fidelity, evaluate process of delivery and further develop the programme theory for implementation. The programme was co-produced with our patient and public involvement team, including the Lived Experience Advisory Panel. The originally planned external pilot trial was replaced with an internal pilot trial feeding into a fully powered randomised controlled trial. Phase 1 Understanding context Method An observational retrospective cohort study of primary and secondary care medical notes (2012–4). A total of 297 participants with serious mental illness under a specialist were selected from three participating mental health services (West Midlands, Lancashire and Devon). An update of our original Cochrane review ‘Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness’. Results From the notes review activity, we found that for individuals with serious mental illness who are in contact with secondary mental health services, these services are centrally involved in their care. On average, three-quarters of all direct contacts were from secondary care, and individuals were seen on average every 2 weeks. These individuals were also seen on average every 6 weeks in primary care. However, a significant minority (12%) did not receive any specialist care. The Cochrane update comprised 8 randomised controlled trials, with a total of 1165 participants for review. The trials provided data for comparison between collaborative care and standard care. Collaborative care interventions varied a lot. There was no evidence that they are more effective than standard care; however, confidence in these findings is limited. Development of the intervention Method A realist informed approach was taken to identify underlying mechanisms and to integrate findings as an initial model from: a review of the literature on collaborative care for mental health (from workstream 1) and personal recovery literature interviews with key leaders in collaborative care and personal recovery to explore their perceptions about best practice (n = 11) focus groups with service users about their experiences of care (n = 33). The intervention was delivered by care partners at the three sites to those recruited for pilot work. A formative evaluation of this initial model used semistructured interviews with practitioners, service users, carers, general practitioners and secondary care practitioners along with recordings of interactions to adapt the intervention. Results Researchers extracted ‘explanatory statements’ representing candidate mechanisms that could make collaborative care effective. These were consolidated to 106 statements and used to develop the programme theory for the initial model. This was represented graphically and in a manual for practitioners and in guides for service users and carers. The PARTNERS intervention involves change at three levels: institutional level (secondary care trusts/Community Mental Health Teams and primary care), practitioner level (care partners, supervisors, other primary and secondary care staff, third-sector and community organisational staff) and service user level (service users and friends and family, where there was consent). The manual details how practitioners should work flexibly to provide person-centred care through a coaching approach. The formative evaluation found that some aspects of implementation were not always delivered as expected, particularly interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching and the supervision of practitioners. The model was further refined based on these results, with added training and support for the care partners in the main trial. Development of trial methodology Method A core outcome set was developed for bipolar using three stages and with Lived Experience Advisory Panel input: A long list of outcomes was derived from focus groups with people with a bipolar diagnosis and their carers, interviews with healthcare professionals and a rapid review of outcomes used in trials. An expert panel with personal and/or professional experience of bipolar participated in a two-stage online Delphi survey, with 50 participants in round 1 and 33 in round 2. A consensus meeting was held to finalise the core outcome set. Outcomes and associated measures for the randomised controlled trial were selected using a further consensus meeting, which took into account the wider population and nature of intervention. The feasibility of trial processes was tested in the formative evaluation study. Different methods of approaching potentially suitable individuals using primary and secondary care databases, and involving practitioners, were tested. These took into account legal and research governance requirements while prioritising an ambition to include those individuals considered most likely to benefit from support. Results The Delphi survey included 66 outcomes, and participants were invited to add others. A consensus meeting generated the final core outcome set consisting of 11 outcome domains: personal recovery; connectedness; clinical recovery of bipolar symptoms; mental health; well-being; physical health; self-monitoring and management; medication effects; quality of life (QoL), service outcomes; service user experience of care; and use of coercion. Quality of life was selected as the most important outcome domain for the proposed PARTNERS2 trial. The Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA) was selected because it was clinically relevant to the target population and potentially amenable to change by the intervention. To test approach procedures, we recruited 37 participants across three sites. Those eligible from secondary care were approached by a clinician known to them. Those seen in primary care received an invitation letter with an expression of interest from the general practitioner practice. Two strategies were tested to improve recruitment among those who did not respond to initial contacts: a telephone call from a clinician or the research team to discuss the study an ‘appointment letter’ inviting them to a short meeting at the practice to discuss the study. Both approaches were acceptable to participants and added to recruitment. Phase 2 Internal pilot and randomised controlled trial Method The cluster randomised trial recruited in four areas (Birmingham and Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth and Somerset), involving 39 general practices. In total 198 participants were recruited, and practices were randomised (1 : 1 allocation) so that individuals received either the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or usual care only (19 practices, 82 participants). The PARTNERS intervention involved a trained secondary mental healthcare worker in primary care (a ‘care partner’) working collaboratively with the participant, primary care, secondary care and other organisations, aiming to improve the participant’s QoL, mental health and physical health care. Participants received the intervention for up to 12 months, including a 2-month transition period back to usual care only. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intervention was moved online (using telephone calls and video conferencing). All participants allocated to the control arm of the trial continued to receive usual care, either within primary care only or also with secondary care. At baseline, the following data were collected: QoL (MANSA), Time Use Survey (ONS TUS), general health status (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level, Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), capability measure (ICEpop CAPability) and experience of care (Brief-INSPIRE). All assessments were completed again at the follow-up visit (10 months from the point of unmasking), as was an extra questionnaire on the impact of COVID-19 for participants recruited during the pandemic. Results Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups [0.25 (standard deviation 0.73) for intervention vs. 0.21 (standard deviation 0.86) for control]; the estimated fully adjusted between-group difference was 0.03 (95% confidence interval −0.25 to 0.31; p = 0.819). None of the secondary outcomes differed significantly between the groups. Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises among those who received the intervention and four among those who did not. Cost effectiveness analysis Methods The economic evaluation aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PARTNERS2 compared with usual care. Quality-adjusted life-years measured health benefit. Patient-level service use data were costed using national unit costs for 2019–20. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which combines service use costs and health benefit. Participant-reported service use at follow-up was collected for a 3-month recall period. The planned audit of primary and secondary care notes was not feasible given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regression analysis estimated the net costs and quality-adjusted life-years of PARTNERS2, adjusting for key covariates. Results Using the multiple imputed data, the average quality-adjusted life-years (usual care: mean 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.61; PARTNERS2: mean 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.57) and costs (usual care: mean £2689, 95% confidence interval £999 to £4378; PARTNERS2: mean £1743, 95% confidence interval £1149 to £2338) were similar for the two groups. Overall, the 95% confidence intervals are wide and overlap, indicating a high level of variance and uncertainty. The net, bootstrapped quality-adjusted life-years (−0.007, 95% confidence interval −0.086 to 0.071) and costs (−£213, 95% confidence interval −£1030 to £603) were similarly inconclusive, with wide 95% confidence interval that overlapped zero. At the prespecified willingness-to-pay threshold of £15,000 to gain one additional quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that the PARTNERS2 intervention is cost-effective is

This article explores the integration of mental health services into pediatric primary care, addressing the high prevalence of mental health disorders among children and adolescents. It emphasizes the effectiveness of pediatric models of integrated care in treating mental health conditions and reducing disparities in access to care. The article calls for further research to understand successful implementation and sustainability in pediatric integrated care. It also highlights the importance of considering developmental outcomes and caregiver engagement in pediatric primary care. The text acknowledges the importance of involving service users in the development of mental health programming and discusses the challenges of program utilization and billing expectations. It also emphasizes the need for highly integrated care models that provide same-day access to services, particularly for minoritized youth. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of ongoing research to support adaptable and sustainable models that meet the diverse needs of patients and families. [Extracted from the article]

INTRODUCTION: Children and adolescents often do not receive mental healthcare when they need it. By 2021, the complex impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, inequality in access to healthcare, and a growing shortage of mental health providers led to a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health in the United States. The need for effective, accessible treatment is more pressing than ever. Interdisciplinary, team-based pediatric integrated mental healthcare has been shown to be efficacious, accessible, and cost-effective. METHODS: In response to the youth mental health crisis, Rady Childrens Hospital-San Diegos Transforming Mental Health Initiative aimed to increase early identification of mental illness and improve access to effective treatment for children and adolescents. A stakeholder engagement process was established with affiliated pediatric clinics, community mental health organizations, and existing pediatric integrated care programs, leading to the development of the Primary Care Mental Health Integration program and drawing from established models of integrated care: Primary Care Behavioral Health and Collaborative Care. RESULTS: As of 2023, the Primary Care Mental Health Integration program established integrated care teams in 10 primary care clinics across San Diego and Riverside counties in California. Measurement-based care has been implemented and preliminary results indicate that patient response to therapy has resulted in a 44% reduction in anxiety symptoms and a 62% decrease in depression symptoms. The program works toward fiscal sustainability via fee-for-service reimbursement and more comprehensive payor contracts. The impact on patients, primary care provider satisfaction, measurement-based care, funding strategies, as well as challenges faced and changes made will be discussed using the lens of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. DISCUSSION: Preliminary results suggest that the Primary Care Mental Health Integration is a highly collaborative integrated care model that identifies the needs of children and adolescents and delivers brief, evidence informed treatment. The successful integration of this model into 10 primary care clinics over 3 years has laid the groundwork for future program expansion. This model of care can play a role addressing youth mental health and increasing access to care. Challenges, successes, and lessons learned will be reviewed.

Abstract Background In the state of Victoria, Australia, the 111-day lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the population’s prevailing state of poor mental health. Of the 87% of Australians who visit their GP annually, 71% of health problems they discussed related to psychological issues. This review had two objectives: (1) To describe models of mental health integrated care within primary care settings that demonstrated improved mental health outcomes that were transferable to Australian settings, and (2) To outline the factors that contributed to the effective implementation of these models into routine practice. Methods A scoping review was undertaken to synthesise the evidence in order to inform practice, policymaking, and research. Data were obtained from PubMed, CINAHL and APA PsycINFO. Results Key elements of effective mental health integrated care models in primary care are: Co-location of mental health and substance abuse services in the primary care setting, presence of licensed mental health clinicians, a case management approach to patient care, ongoing depression monitoring for up to 24 months and other miscellaneous elements. Key factors that contributed to the effective implementation of mental health integrated care in routine practice are the willingness to accept and promote system change, integrated physical and mental clinical records, the presence of a care manager, adequate staff training, a healthy organisational culture, regular supervision and support, a standardised workflow plan and care pathways that included clear role boundaries and the use of outcome measures. The need to develop sustainable funding mechanisms has also been emphasized. Conclusion Integrated mental health care models typically have a co-located mental health clinician who works closely with the GP and the rest of the primary care team. Implementing mental health integrated care models in Australia requires a ‘whole of system’ change. Lessons learned from the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program could form the foundation on which this model is implemented in Australia.

Abstract Background Care for persistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders (PSS/FD) is often fragmented. Collaborative care networks (CCNs) may improve care quality for PSS/FD. Effectiveness likely depends on their functioning, but we lack a straightforward quality evaluation system. We therefore aimed to develop quality indicators to evaluate CCNs for PSS/FD. Method Using an online three-round modified Delphi process, an expert panel provided, selected and ranked quality indicators for CCNs in PSS/FD. Recruited experts were diverse healthcare professionals with relevant experience in PSS/FD care in the Netherlands. Results The expert panel consisted of 86 professionals representing 15 disciplines, most commonly physiotherapists, psychologists and medical specialists. 58% had more than 10 years experience in PSS/FD care. Round one resulted in 994 quotations, which resulted in 46 unique quality indicators. These were prioritised in round two and ranked in round three by the panel, resulting in a final top ten. The top three indicators were: “shared vision of care for PSS/FD”, “pathways tailored to the individual patient”, and “sufficiently-experienced caregivers for PSS/FD”. Conclusions The identified quality indicators to evaluate CCNs in the field of PSS/FD can be implemented in clinical practice and may be useful in improving services and when assessing effectiveness.

Abstract Background Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3–4 years after implementation support had concluded. Methods We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends. Results CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): “Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients],” “Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients],” and “Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]” during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) “Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]” was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) “Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation],” “Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients],” and “Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]” were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability. Conclusions MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Abstract Background With the aging of heart failure (HF) patients, collaboration between medical and nursing care facilities is essential for HF care. The aims of this study were: (1) to identify the factors that affect willingness of nursing care staffs to cooperate with HF care; (2) to test whether the internet video education is useful in improving their willingness to collaborate. Methods A web‐based questionnaire was e‐mailed to 417 registered medical corporations that operated nursing care facilities in the prefecture where the authors work. Medical and care staff working at each facility were asked their willingness to cooperate with HF care and their problems about collaboration. Machine learning analysis was used to assess the factors associated with unwillingness to cooperate. After watching a 6‐min YouTube video explaining HF and community collaboration, we reaffirmed their willingness to cooperate. Results We received responses from 76 medical and care staff members. Before watching the video, 32.9% of participants stated that they were unwilling to cooperate with HF care. Machine learning analysis showed that job types, perceived problems of collaboration, and low opportunities to learn about HF were associated with unwillingness to cooperation. After watching the video, we observed an increase from 67.1% to 80.3% (p