A Qualitative Study on the Barriers to Learning in a Primary Care-Behavioral Health Integration Program in an Academic Hospital: the Family Medicine Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Integrating behavioral health services into the primary care setting is a recognized approach to improving timely access and building capacity for primary care providers. The aim of this study was to examine barriers to family medicine resident learning in a co-located primary care-behavioral health integration program with psychiatrists in an academic hospital. METHODS: The authors used a descriptive qualitative study design to collect data on participants' learning experiences from focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 5 family medicine residents, 3 psychiatry residents, 5 family physicians, 3 psychiatrists, 2 office coordinators, and 2 educational coordinators. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed. RESULTS: Three themes were identified with respect to barriers to learning in the program from the family medicine perspective. Organizational barriers encompassed lack of clear vision, goals, roles, and responsibilities. Administrative barriers involved complex appointment bookings and scheduling. Communication and engagement barriers included insufficient communication between team members and lack of patient engagement in the program. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings highlight the importance of several factors for the successful implementation of a co-located academic primary care-behavioral health integrated model. This includes the formalization of program structure that encompasses shared vision, goals, roles, and responsibilities; coordinated processes for appointment bookings; team communication and patient engagement; and diverse educational and longitudinal care opportunities. With the growing number of integrated care programs, these results provide guidance for health care leaders involved in the design and management of primary care-behavioral health integration programs.

Developing a mentorship program for psychiatry residents.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to evaluate a formal mentorship program for second-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto after the program's first year of implementation. METHODS: Ten mentees and ten faculty mentors were interviewed by fellow second-year residents and an independent researcher, respectively, about their experiences in the program. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. First, participants emphasized the importance of a natural, flexible, and engaging matching process for mentors and mentees. Many experienced the random assignment approach to matching and the mandatory nature of the program as barriers to developing a meaningful relationship with their mentors. Second, participants expressed a preference for geographic proximity between mentor and mentee workplaces and for meetings to take place in informal settings in order to improve the quality and quantity of their interactions. Lastly, participants felt that clear directions and expectations about the program's goals should be communicated, and that a forum for information sharing among mentors was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of participants believed that the program facilitated growth and development and provided positive opportunities for both mentors and mentees. While challenges were present in the program, participants provided tangible recommendations to improve the process.