A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Outcomes of Delay of Care After the Onset of COVID-19 for Patients Managing Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Many patients delayed health care during COVID-19. We assessed the extent to which patients managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC) delayed care in the first months of the pandemic, reasons for delay, and impact of delay on patient-reported physical and behavioral health (BH) outcomes. METHODS: As part of a large clinical trial conducted April 2016-June, 2021, primary care patients managing MCC were surveyed about physical and behavioral symptoms and functioning. Surveys administered between September 3, 2020, and March 16, 2021, included questions about the extent of and reasons for any delayed medical and BH care since COVID-19. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess health outcomes as a function of delay of care status. RESULTS: Among patients who delayed medical care, 58% delayed more than once. Among those who delayed behavioral health care, 63% delayed more than once. Participants who delayed multiple times tended to be younger, female, unmarried, and reported food, financial, and housing insecurities and worse health. The primary reasons for delaying care were lack of availability of in-person visits and perceived lack of urgency. Participants who delayed care multiple times had significantly worse outcomes on nearly every measure of physical and mental health, compared with participants who delayed care once or did not delay. CONCLUSIONS: Delay of care was substantial. Patients who delayed care multiple times were in poorer health and thus in need of more care. Effective strategies for reengaging patients in deferred care should be identified and implemented on multiple levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983. Registered on August 16, 2016.

Co-creating the Patient Partner Guide by a Multiple Chronic Conditions Team of Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers: Observational Report.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG). OBJECTIVE: Describe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships. DESIGN: Observational report of study intervention component. PARTICIPANTS: Diverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics. INTERVENTION: The PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators. MAIN MEASURES: Observations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team. KEY RESULTS: Of 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983.

Development and validation of the patient centeredness index for primary care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of the Patient Centeredness Index (PCI), evaluate its psychometric characteristics and evaluate the relationships between scores on the PCI and an established measure of empathy. BACKGROUND: Patient centeredness helps patients manage multiple chronic conditions with their providers, nurses and other team members. However, no instrument exists for evaluating patient centeredness within primary care practices treating this population. DESIGN: Multi-site instrument development and validation. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. METHODS: To identify themes, we consulted literature on patient centeredness and engaged stakeholders who had or were caring for people with multiple chronic conditions (n = 7). We composed and refined items to represent those themes with input from clinicians and researchers. To evaluate reliability and convergent validity, we administered surveys to participants (n = 3622) with chronic conditions recruited from 44 primary care practices for a large-scale cluster randomised clinical trial of the effects of a practice-level intervention on patient and practice-level outcomes. Participants chose to complete the 16-item survey online, on paper or by phone. Surveys assessed demographics, number of chronic conditions and ratings of provider empathy. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to model the interrelationships among items. RESULTS: A single factor explained 93% of total variance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.55-0.85, and item-test correlations were ≥.67. Cronbach's alpha was .93. A moderate, linear correlation with ratings of provider's empathy (r = .65) supports convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The PCI is a new tool for obtaining patient perceptions of the patient centeredness of their primary care practice. The PCI shows acceptable reliability and evidence of convergent validity among patients managing chronic conditions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The PCI rapidly identifies patients' perspectives on patient centeredness of their practice, making it ideal for administration in busy primary care settings that aim to efficiently address patient-identified needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org Protocol ID: WLPS-1409-24372. TITLE: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioural and Medical Problems (IBHPC).

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.