Power Dynamics Perpetuate DEI Inaction: A Qualitative Study of Community Health Clinic Teams.

PURPOSE: Despite increased clinician awareness of systemic racism, lack of substantial action toward antiracism exists within health care. Clinical staff perspectives, particularly those of racial-ethnic minorities/persons of color (POC) who disproportionately occupy support staff roles with less power on the team, can yield insights into barriers to progress and can inform future efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, also referred to as EDI) within health care settings. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of staff members on race and role power dynamics within community health clinic teams. METHODS: We conducted semistructured 45-minute interviews with staff members working in community health clinics in a large urban health care system from May to July 2021. We implemented purposeful recruitment to oversample POC and support staff and to achieve equal representation from the 13 community health clinics in the system. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed over 6 months using a critical-ideological paradigm. Themes reflecting experiences related to race and role power dynamics were identified. RESULTS: Our cohort had 60 participants: 42 (70%) were support staff (medical assistants, front desk clerks, care navigators, nurses) and 18 (30%) were clinicians and clinic leaders. The large majority of participants were aged 26 to 40 years (60%), were female (83%), and were POC (68%). Five themes emerged: (1) POC face hidden challenges, (2) racial discrimination persists, (3) power dynamics perpetuate inaction, (4) interpersonal actions foster safety and equity, and (5) system-level change is needed for cultural shift. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the race and role power dynamics within care teams, including experiences of staff members with less power, is critical to advancing DEI in health care.

Mixed method evaluation of Relational Team Development (RELATED) to improve team-based care for complex patients with mental illness in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED). METHODS: RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate. RESULTS: We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching. CONCLUSIONS: RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.

Working toward financial sustainability of integrated behavioral health services in a public health care system.

The need, benefit, and desirability of behavioral health integration in primary care is generally accepted and has acquired widespread positive regard. However, in many health care settings the economics, business aspects, and financial sustainability of practice in integrated care settings remains an unsolved puzzle. Organizational administrators may be reluctant to expand behavioral health services without evidence that such programs offer clear financial benefits and financial sustainability. The tendency among mental health professionals is to consider positive clinical outcomes (e.g., reduced depression) as being globally valued indicators of program success. Although such outcomes may be highly valued by primary care providers and patients, administrative decision makers may require demonstration of more tangible financial outcomes. These differing views require program developers and evaluators to consider multiple outcome domains including clinical/psychological symptom reduction, potential cost benefit, and cost offset. The authors describe a process by which a pilot demonstration project is being implemented to demonstrate programmatic outcomes with a focus on the following: 1) clinician efficiency, 2) improved health outcomes, and 3) direct revenue generation associated with the inclusion of integrated primary care in a public health care system. The authors subsequently offer specific future directions and commentary regarding financial evaluation in each of these domains.