Assessing Collaborative Care in Mental Health Teams: Qualitative Analysis to Guide Future Implementation.

The Collaborative Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based approach for structuring care for chronic health conditions. Attempts to implement CCM-based care in a given setting depend, however, on the extent to which care in that setting is already aligned with the specific elements of CCM-based care. We therefore interviewed staff from ten outpatient mental health teams in the US Department of Veterans Affairs to determine whether care delivery was consistent or inconsistent with CCM-based care in those settings. We discuss implications of our findings for future attempts to implement CCM-based outpatient mental health care.

HIV patient and provider feedback on a telehealth collaborative care for depression intervention.

In the HIV Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions project, we conducted a randomized controlled effectiveness and implementation trial comparing depression collaborative care with enhanced usual care in Veterans Health Administration HIV clinics in the US. An offsite HIV depression care team including a psychiatrist, a depression care manager (DCM), and a clinical pharmacist provided collaborative care using a stepped-care model of treatment and made recommendations to providers through the electronic health record system. The DCM delivered care management to HIV patients through phone calls, performing routine assessments and providing counseling in self-management and problem-solving. The DCM documented all calls in each patient's electronic medical record. In this paper we present results from interviews conducted with patients and clinical staff in a multi-stage formative evaluation (FE). We conducted semi-structured FE interviews with 26 HIV patients and 30 clinical staff at the three participating sites during and after the trial period to gather their experiences and perspectives concerning the intervention components. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using rapid content analysis techniques. Patients reported high satisfaction with the depression care manager (DCM) phone calls. Both HIV and mental health providers reported that the DCM's chart notes in the electronic health record were very helpful, and most felt that a dedicated DCM for HIV patients is ideal to meet patient needs. Sites encountered barriers to achieving and maintaining universal depression screening, but had greater success when such screening was incorporated into routine intake processes. FE results demonstrated that depression care management via telehealth from an offsite team is acceptable and helpful to both HIV patients and their providers. Given that a centralized offsite depression care team can deliver effective, cost-effective, cost-saving services for multiple HIV clinics in different locations with high patient and provider satisfaction, broad implementation should be considered.

Transitioning an implementation research intervention to a sustained clinical service: Telehealth primary care mental health integration implementation in Veterans Health Administration.

Often in implementation science efforts, an intervention originated by research funding does not continue in clinical practice after funding ends, or if it does, the process by which it was sustained remains known only to the implementation research or clinical teams. From 2018 to 2020, we implemented a complex telehealth interdisciplinary behavioral health program supported by research funding. The intervention was Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) delivered via televideo from a large parent medical facility to rural satellite clinics (tele-PCMHI) within the Veterans Health Administration. Two implementation facilitators worked closely with clinical leaders and staff to plan, launch, and sustain tele-PCMHI across four sites. The intervention is still maintained by the clinical service and has spread to eight sites. Based on ethnographic and qualitative data collected weekly over 2 years, we categorized sustainment strategies across distinct time periods for this complex program, theoretically grounded in the Dynamic Sustainability Framework, emphasizing changes to adapt intervention fit to rapidly changing context. To contextualize, we identified barriers and strengths, such as difficulty training staff to use new equipment, restructuring clinic workflow, and determining suicide risk management remotely. New barriers arose, and, thus, new strategies were needed to continue implementing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Different strategies at different stages of implementation allowed sustainment to be a dynamic and evolving process. Plus, proactive and persistent planning for sustainment early in the effort, along with alignment with performance metrics and national policy, supported continued delivery in real-world organized care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Impact of Implementation Facilitation on the REACH VET Clinical Program for Veterans at Risk for Suicide.

OBJECTIVE: In 2017, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented a national suicide prevention program, called Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET), that uses a predictive algorithm to identify, attempt to reach, assess, and care for patients at the highest risk for suicide. The authors aimed to evaluate whether facilitation enhanced implementation of REACH VET at VHA facilities not meeting target completion rates. METHODS: In this hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 2 program evaluation, a quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to assess changes in implementation outcome measures evaluated 6 months before and 6 months after onset of facilitation of REACH VET implementation at 23 VHA facilities. Measures included percentages of patients with documented coordinator and provider acknowledgment of receipt, care evaluation, and outreach attempt. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare differences in REACH VET outcome measures before and after facilitation. Qualitative interviews were conducted with personnel and were explored via template analysis. RESULTS: Time had a significant effect in all outcomes models (p<0.001). An effect of facilitation was significant only for the outcome of attempted outreach. Patients identified by REACH VET had significantly higher odds of having a documented outreach attempt after facilitation of REACH VET implementation, compared with before facilitation. Site personnel felt supported and reported that the external facilitators were helpful and responsive. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation of REACH VET implementation was associated with an improvement in outreach attempts to veterans identified as being at increased risk for suicide. Outreach is critical for engaging veterans in care.

Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM), developed to help structure care for chronic health conditions, comprises six elements: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. As the CCM is increasingly implemented in real-world settings, there is heightened interest in understanding specific influences upon implementation. Therefore, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we (i) identified innovation-, recipient-, context-, and facilitation-related influences on CCM implementation and (ii) assessed the influences' relationship to each CCM element's implementation. METHODS: Using semi-structured interviews, we examined interdisciplinary behavioral health providers' experiences at nine VA medical centers that implemented the CCM. We used i-PARIHS constructs as a priori codes for directed content analysis, then analyzed the data for cross-coding by CCM element and i-PARIHS construct. RESULTS: Participants (31 providers) perceived the CCM innovation as enabling comprehensive care but challenging to coordinate with existing structures/procedures. As recipients, participants recounted not always having the authority to design CCM-consistent care processes. They perceived local leadership support to be indispensable to implementation success and difficult to garner when CCM implementation distracted from other organizational priorities. They found implementation facilitation helpful for keeping implementation on track. We identified key themes at the intersection of i-PARIHS constructs and core CCM elements, including (i) the CCM being an innovation that offers a formal structure to stepping down care intensity for patients to encourage their self-management, (ii) recipients accessing their multidisciplinary colleagues' expertise for provider decision support, (iii) relationships with external services in the community (e.g., homelessness programs) being a helpful context for providing comprehensive care, and (iv) facilitators helping to redesign specific interdisciplinary team member roles. CONCLUSIONS: Future CCM implementation would benefit from (i) facilitating strategic development of supportive maintenance plans for patients' self-management, (ii) collocating multidisciplinary staff (on-site or virtually) to enhance provider decision support, (iii) keeping information on available community resources up to date, and (iv) making clearer the explicit CCM-consistent care processes that work roles can be designed around. This work can inform concrete tailoring of implementation efforts to focus on the more challenging CCM elements, which is crucial to better account for multiple influences that vary across diverse care settings in which the CCM is being implemented.

Enhancing Implementation of Measurement-Based Mental Health Care in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: The complex practice of measurement-based care (MBC) for mental health conditions has proven challenging to implement. This study aimed to evaluate an intensive strategy to implement MBC in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Primary Care Mental Health Integration clinics. METHODS: Ten paired sites were randomly assigned to receive national MBC resources alone or with an intensive implementation strategy (external facilitation plus quality improvement teams) between May 2018 and June 2020. The intervention occurred over 12-18 months; two site pairs completed participation before the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, the authors conducted qualitative interviews and used administrative data to evaluate the implementation, adoption, reach, and effectiveness of MBC. RESULTS: All sites improved during the study, suggesting the effectiveness of the VA's national MBC initiative. Sites with facilitation improved more than comparison sites in implementation, adoption, and reach of MBC. The effectiveness of MBC (i.e., clinician responsiveness to high patient-reported outcome measure [PROM] scores) was demonstrated at all sites both before and after facilitation. After the COVID-19 pandemic began, facilitation sites maintained or improved on their implementation gains, whereas comparison sites uniformly reported decreased emphasis on MBC. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation facilitation resulted in greater gains in outcomes of interest and helped sites retain focus on MBC implementation. Regardless of study condition, clinicians were responsive to elevated PROM scores, but MBC had a larger impact on care at facilitation sites because of increased uptake. Multiple technological and contextual challenges remain, but MBC holds promise for improving routine mental health care.

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts.

Introduction: Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas. Methods: We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations. Results: Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas. Discussion: Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

Development of a qualitative data analysis codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework.

BACKGROUND: The Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and its predecessor, PARIHS, have been widely utilized in implementation studies. Although i-PARIHS developers have focused on creating tools to guide facilitators in its application in practice, tools are also needed for evaluation and research. Codebooks with clear and meaningful code labels and definitions are an important component of qualitative data analysis and have been developed for other widely used frameworks. There is no such codebook for i-PARIHS. Additionally, sub-constructs for the Innovation, Recipients, and Context constructs lack definitions, and there is no sub-classification of facilitation activities for the Facilitation construct. The lack of a standardized codebook hinders our ability to synthesize research findings across studies, explore and test the range of activities that are utilized in facilitation efforts, and potentially validate and further refine i-PARIHS. This paper describes a rigorous process of developing a detailed qualitative codebook informed by the i-PARIHS framework. METHODS: A workgroup of qualitative researchers conducted a rigorous four-phase process to develop a codebook informed by i-PARIHS. In phase 1, workgroup members reviewed and discussed literature, consulted an organizational scientist, and drafted and refined subcodes and definitions for i-PARIHS constructs. In phase 2, they obtained feedback from an expert panel and further refined subcodes and definitions. In phase 3, they obtained feedback from i-PARIHS developers/experts and incorporated it into the codebook. Finally, two studies piloted the application of the codebook which informed the final version. RESULTS: The resulting i-PARIHS-informed codebook includes definitions for the four main constructs of the framework: Innovation, Recipients, Context, and Facilitation; subcodes and definitions for characteristics of each of these constructs; and instructions for the suggested application of individual codes and use of the codebook generally. CONCLUSIONS: The standardized codes and definitions in the codebook can facilitate data exploration, pattern identification, and insight development informed by the i-PARIHS framework. Qualitative analysts can also use them to explore interactions between i-PARIHS constructs, maximize the potential for comparing findings across studies, and support the refinement of the i-PARIHS framework using empirical findings from multiple studies.

Mental health clinician perspectives regarding factors impacting implementation of evidence-based psychotherapies in Veterans Health Administration community-based outpatient clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Uptake of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies (EBPs) by mental health (MH) clinicians, especially in community settings, remains highly variable. This formative pilot study aimed to understand the attitudes and practices of Veterans Health Administration community-based MH clinicians regarding EBPs and to identify multi-level factors that enable and hinder EBP implementation in this unique context. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with MH clinicians (N = 40) working in community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in metro/urban (n = 20) and non-metro/rural (n = 20) locations. Interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and were analyzed using rapid content analysis. Results were organized by system-, clinician-, patient-, and innovation-levels. RESULTS: EBPs were consistently perceived as important to delivering quality MH care, with most clinicians having received training in at least one VHA EBP. However, limited EBP training and consultation opportunities, inadequate autonomy to schedule EBP sessions, high and complex caseloads, and feelings of isolation at CBOCs decreased EPB use. Social workers perceived disparities in EBP training access relative to psychologists. Some barriers were more salient in non-metro/rural settings (e.g., patient-level privacy concerns). CONCLUSIONS: Increased EBP training opportunities- particularly for social workers-, greater flexibility over schedules and caseloads, and more mechanisms for consultation and professional development may increase EBP uptake in community-based clinics.

Determining feasibility of incorporating consumer engagement into implementation activities: study protocol of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type II pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation researchers could draw from participatory research to engage patients (consumers of healthcare) in implementation processes and possibly reduce healthcare disparities. There is a little consumer involvement in healthcare implementation, partially because no formal guidance exists. We will create and pilot a toolkit of methods to engage consumers from the US' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in selecting and tailoring implementation strategies. This toolkit, Consumer Voice, will provide guidance on what, when, where, how and why an implementer might engage consumers in implementing treatments. We will pilot the toolkit by implementing Safety Planning Intervention for suicide prevention with rural veterans, a population with suicide disparities. Safety Planning Intervention is effective for reducing suicidal behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Aim 1, we will use participatory approaches and user-centred design to develop Consumer Voice and its methods. In Aim 2, we will pilot Consumer Voice by implementing the Safety Planning Intervention in two clinics serving rural VHA patients. One site will receive a current implementation strategy (Implementation Facilitation) only; the second will receive Implementation Facilitation plus Consumer Voice. We will use mixed methods to assess feasibility and acceptability of Consumer Voice. We will compare sites on preliminary implementation (reach, adoption, fidelity) and clinical outcomes (depression severity, suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviour). In Aim 3, we will evaluate Aim 2 outcomes at 20 months to assess sustained impact. We will gather qualitative data on sustainability of the Safety Planning Intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These studies are overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. We plan to use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences, publications). We plan to disseminate findings through meetings with other trainers in implementation practice so they may adopt Consumer Voice. We plan to share results with local community boards.

Time-motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach.

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time-motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time-motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time-motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time-motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4-6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, "a two-week interval") at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data's averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time-motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time-motion data.

Can Automated Alerts in the Electronic Health Record Encourage Referrals for Genetic Counseling and Testing Among Patients at High Risk for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes?

PURPOSE: Up to 10% of cancers may be associated with an inherited mutation that increases cancer risk. National guidelines emphasize referral for genetic counseling and testing for patients whose personal and/or family history increases their risk of having a hereditary cancer syndrome. METHODS: To increase appropriate referrals for cancer genetic counseling and testing, we piloted an automated alert known as a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) in the electronic health record, Epic, to notify oncology providers when a patient had a personal and/or family history that merited referral to cancer genetics. Epic could not gather the complex clinical data needed for the referral decision automatically, necessitating staff completion of a questionnaire. After educating providers, the BPA was implemented with resources to support its use. RESULTS: Initial interaction with the alert was high but rapidly dwindled, resulting in questionnaire completion in 7.2% of more than 32,000 encounters and 14.9% of patients over 9 months. However, cancer genetics referrals increased 95.9% during the pilot (P < .0001), with 18.5% placed through the BPA and the rest from a non-BPA mechanism. Semistructured interviews with key stakeholders revealed not only general acceptance of the BPA concept but also barriers to completion, such as pressure to room patients quickly in the face of competing BPAs and lack of buy-in from some providers. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that provider engagement and BPA fatigue are significant obstacles to acceptance of a new automated alert. Despite interest in a tool for cancer genetics, the demand on clinical time for this complex BPA was poorly tolerated.

Collaborative chronic care model implementation within outpatient behavioral health care teams: qualitative results from a multisite trial using implementation facilitation.

BACKGROUND: This paper reports on a qualitative evaluation of a hybrid type II stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial using implementation facilitation to implement team-based care in the form of the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in interdisciplinary outpatient mental health teams. The objective of this analysis is to compare the alignment of sites' clinical processes with the CCM elements at baseline (time 1) and after 12 months of implementation facilitation (time 2) from the perspective of providers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews to assess the extent to which six CCM elements were in place: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. Interviews were transcribed and a priori CCM elements were coded using a directed content analysis approach at times 1 and 2. We sought consensus on, and compared, the extent to which each CCM element was in place at times 1 and 2. RESULTS: We conducted 27 and 31 telephone interviews at times 1 and 2, respectively, with outpatient mental health providers at nine participating sites. At time 1 and time 2, three CCM elements were most frequently present across the sites: work role redesign, patient self-management support, and provider decision support. The CCM elements with increased implementation from time 1 to time 2 were work role redesign, patient self-management support, and clinical information systems. For two CCM elements, linkages to community resources and organizational/leadership support, some sites had increased implementation at time 2 compared to time 1, while others had reductions. For the provider decision support element, we saw little change in the extent of its implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Sites increased the extent of implementation on several CCM elements. The most progress was made in the CCM elements where sites had CCM-aligned processes in place at time 1. Teams made progress on elements they could more easily control, such as work role redesign. Our results suggest that maximizing the benefits of CCM-based outpatient mental health care may require targeting resources and training toward specific CCM elements-especially in the use of clinical information systems and linking with community resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT02543840 .

Lagniappes: "A Little Something Extra" or Unintended Positive Consequences of Implementation Facilitation.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation facilitation is an effective strategy that increases uptake of behavioral health interventions. Facilitation is grounded in partnerships with leadership and clinical stakeholders. Researchers have documented some negative consequences of facilitation-time, financial, and opportunity costs. Clinical leaders often agree to facilitation with the promise of increased implementation of an intervention. This study examined whether unintended positive consequences of facilitation might offset known costs. METHODS: This study was part of a stepped-wedge, hybrid type 2, pragmatic trial that used implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration (PCMHI) via telehealth technology in six satellite Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics. Two facilitators provided facilitation for at least 6 months. This study included a focused analysis of an emerging phenomenon captured through weekly debriefing interviews with facilitators: unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation, termed "lagniappes" here. A rapid content analysis was conducted to identify and categorize these consequences. RESULTS: The authors documented unintended positive consequences of the facilitation across the six VHA sites and categorized them into three clinically relevant domains: supporting PCMHI outreach at other clinics not in the original catchment area (e.g., providing tools to other sites), strengthening patient access (e.g., resolving unnecessary patient travel), and improving or modifying work processes (e.g., clarifying suicide assessment protocols). The positive consequences benefited sites and strengthened ongoing partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Documenting unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation may increase leadership engagement. Facilitators should consider leveraging unintended positive consequences as advantages for the site that may add efficiency to facility processes and workflows.

Factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based Progressive Tinnitus Management in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

PURPOSE: Progressive Tinnitus Management (PTM) is an evidence-based interdisciplinary stepped-care approach to improving quality of life for patients with tinnitus. PTM was endorsed by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Audiology leadership in 2009. Factors affecting implementation of PTM are unknown. We conducted a study to: 1) estimate levels of PTM program implementation in VA Audiology and Mental Health clinics across the country; and 2) identify barriers and facilitators to PTM implementation based on the experiences of VA audiologists and mental health providers. METHOD: We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey targeting Audiology and Mental Health leaders at 144 major VA facilities. Quantitative analyses summarized respondents' facility characteristics and levels of program implementation (full PTM, partial PTM, or no PTM). Qualitative analyses identified themes in factors influencing the implementation of PTM across VA sites. RESULTS: Surveys from 87 audiologists and 66 mental health clinicians revealed that few facilities offered full PTM; the majority offered partial or no PTM. Inductive analysis of the open-ended survey responses identified seven factors influencing implementation of PTM: 1) available resources, 2) service collaboration, 3) prioritization, 4) Veterans' preferences and needs, 5) clinician training, 6) awareness of (evidence-based) options, and 7) perceptions of scope of practice. CONCLUSION: Results suggest wide variation in services provided, a need for greater engagement of mental health providers in tinnitus care, and an interest among both audiologists and mental health providers in receiving tinnitus-related training. Future research should address barriers to PTM implementation, including methods to: 1) improve understanding among mental health providers of their potential role in tinnitus management; 2) enhance coordination of tinnitus-related care between health care disciplines; and 3) collect empirical data on Veterans' need for and interest in PTM, including delivery by telehealth modalities.

Targeting stigma of mental illness among primary care providers: Findings from a pilot feasibility study.

Stigmatizing attitudes among primary care (PC) providers potentially contribute to poor health outcomes for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). In this pilot study, our primary aim is to test the feasibility, and preliminary implementation of two interventions (contact and education) to help change provider attitudes and behavior. Participants were 39 primary care providers from two Veterans Affairs medical centers with 19 randomized to the contact intervention and 20 to the education intervention. Both interventions were delivered in a group setting face-to-face. Stigmatizing attitudes were measured using Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers, Attribution Questionnaire and Social Distance Scale at baseline, one month and three months. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Most providers were white, female, nurses, and older than age 50. For each of the three measures of stigmatizing attitudes there was no statistically significant treatment-by-time interaction rejecting our hypothesis that contact intervention will result in significantly greater reduction in stigmatizing attitudes. Qualitative analysis suggests that the contact intervention was perceived as much needed. This study informs future research to reduce provider stigma. Our intervention was modeled on interventions designed for the general public; different interventions may be needed for providers.

Comparing variations in implementation processes and influences across multiple sites: What works, for whom, and how?

Traditional analyses and interpretation of controlled trials rely on measures of central tendency (e.g., mean findings for treatment versus control) to detect treatment effects. These trial designs therefore emphasize homogeneity of results, with variations within the experimental or control groups treated as error to be controlled for or ignored. For implementation trials, however, heterogeneity of results is an expected result to be explored rather than an imperfection to be minimized. Thus, many implementation trials seek to understand not only "Does it work?" but also "What works, for whom, and how?" Hence, mixed quantitative-qualitative methods that can capitalize on heterogeneity are needed to (i) comprehensively identify factors that influence the implementation process and (ii) understand their impact on implementation outcomes. This paper outlines the matrixed multiple case study approach, which allows for understanding how these processes and influences similarly or differently interact with outcomes across multiple implementation sites. We provide an example of this approach using data from a multi-site trial that tested the implementation of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model at nine US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.

Using implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration via clinical video telehealth in rural clinics: protocol for a hybrid type 2 cluster randomized stepped-wedge design.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health providers into primary care clinics improves access to and outcomes of mental health care. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) program, mental health providers are co-located in primary care clinics, but the implementation of this model is challenging outside large VA medical centers, especially for rural clinics without full mental health staffing. Long wait times for mental health care, little collaboration between mental health and primary care providers, and sub-optimal outcomes for rural veterans could result. Telehealth could be used to provide PCMHI to rural clinics; however, the clinical effectiveness of the tele-PCMHI model has not been tested. Based on evidence that implementation facilitation is an effective implementation strategy to increase uptake of PCMHI when delivered on-site at larger VA clinics, it is hypothesized that this strategy may also be effective with regard to ensuring adequate uptake of the tele-PCMHI model at rural VA clinics. METHODS: This study is a hybrid type 2 pragmatic effectiveness-implementation trial of tele-PCMHI in six sites over 24 months. Tele-PCMHI, which will be delivered by clinical staff available in routine care settings, will be compared to usual care. Fidelity to the care model will be monitored but not controlled. We will use the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the patient-level clinical effectiveness of tele-PCMHI in rural VA clinics and also to evaluate the fidelity to and outcomes of the implementation strategy, implementation facilitation. The proposed study will employ a stepped-wedge design in which study sites sequentially begin implementation in three steps at 6-month intervals. Each step will include (1) a 6-month period of implementation planning, followed by (2) a 6-month period of active implementation, and (3) a final period of stepped-down implementation facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of PCMHI in a novel setting and via a novel method (clinical video telehealth). We will test the feasibility of using implementation facilitation as an implementation strategy to deploy tele-PCMHI in rural VA clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02713217 . Registered on 18 March 2016.

Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs for prescribing and dispensing decisions: Results from a multi-site qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) track the dispensing of prescription-controlled substances with the goal of mitigating misuse and diversion. Authorized users query the PDMP for controlled substance prescription histories at the point of care. Despite widespread implementation of PDMPs, there is much not known about how PDMPs influence prescribing and dispensing decisions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate how primary care providers (PCPs) and pharmacists utilize PDMPs when making prescribing and dispensing decisions. METHODS: Data from in-depth, qualitative interviews with PCPs (n = 48) and community pharmacists (n = 60) across four states- Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, and Washington were analyzed for themes around PDMP use. RESULTS: Both PCPs and pharmacists reported that PDMPs are key tools for aiding prescribing and dispensing decisions. PCPs reported variable use of PDMPs with most querying the PDMP when there are "red flags" and fewer reporting having clinic policies that direct PDMP use. Primary care providers in Kentucky reported more consistent and routine use of the PDMP as a result of a state law that mandates query prior to the initial prescribing of Schedule II controlled substances. Community pharmacists practicing in chain pharmacies reported formal policies requiring PDMP query prior to dispensing opioids, while utilization of PDMPs by pharmacists practicing in independently-owned pharmacies was more variable. Pharmacists and PCPs reported barriers to PDMP use, such as having to "log in on a separate machine" and perceived that PDMP utility could be improved by integrating it within pharmacy dispensing systems and electronic health records. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists and PCPs reported the importance of PDMP information to aid their prescribing and dispensing decisions. Efforts to enhance state PDMP programs should consider processes that seamlessly integrate all available controlled substance prescription history for a given patient at the point of care so that PDMP utility for prescribing and dispensing decisions is maximized.

Communication between pharmacists and primary care physicians in the midst of a U.S. opioid crisis.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication between prescribers of opioids and community pharmacists can contribute to maximizing appropriate pain management and reducing opioid misuse and diversion. While much of the education and training available on reducing opioid misuse and diversion stresses the importance of interprofessional communication between prescribers and pharmacists, few studies have been explored those communication patterns directly. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this manuscript are to present and explore key emergent themes from a qualitative study around the nature, frequency, and content of communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pharmacists focusing on opioids. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 48 PCPs and 60 community pharmacists across four states in the U.S.: Washington, Idaho, Kentucky and Arkansas. RESULTS: Convergent results from both samples indicated that the content of communication usually centers on questions of dosing, timing of the prescription, and/or evidence of potential misuse/diversion. When communication was focused on relaying information about a patient and/or clarifying questions around the prescription, it appeared positive for both parties. Results also indicated that close physical proximity between PCPs and dispensing pharmacists contributed to more positive and useful communication, especially when the clinics and pharmacies were part of the same healthcare system. Many pharmacists reported hesitancy in "questioning" a physician's judgement, which appeared related to commonly held beliefs of both pharmacists and physicians about the respective roles of each in providing patient care. Pharmacists reported difficulty in reaching PCPs for discussion, while PCPs reported it was easy to reach pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and pharmacist communication around opioids can be mutually beneficial. When prescribers and pharmacists are co-located, higher levels of trust and teamwork are reported, which in turn seems to be related to more open and positive communication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions to increase mutually-valued communication that improves the quality of decision-making around opioids.