The impact of preexisting psychiatric disorders and antidepressant use on COVID-19 related outcomes: a multicenter study.

Pre-existing mental disorders are linked to COVID-19-related outcomes. However, the findings are inconsistent and a thorough analysis of a broader spectrum of outcomes such as COVID-19 infection severity, morbidity, and mortality is required. We investigated whether the presence of psychiatric diagnoses and/or the use of antidepressants influenced the severity of the outcome of COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study evaluated electronic health records from the INSIGHT Clinical Research Network in 116,498 individuals who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and February 23, 2021. We examined hospitalization, intubation/mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure, severe sepsis, and death as COVID-19-related outcomes. After using propensity score matching to control for demographics and medical comorbidities, we used contingency tables to assess whether patients with (1) a history of psychiatric disorders were at higher risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes and (2) if use of antidepressants decreased the risk of more severe COVID-19 infection. Pre-existing psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased risk for hospitalization, and subsequent outcomes such as acute kidney failure and severe sepsis, including an increased risk of death in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar disorders. The use of antidepressants was associated with significantly reduced risk of sepsis (p = 0.033), death (p = 0.026). Psychiatric disorder diagnosis prior to a COVID-19-related healthcare encounter increased the risk of more severe COVID-19-related outcomes as well as subsequent health complications. However, there are indications that the use of antidepressants might decrease this risk. This may have significant implications for the treatment and prognosis of patients with COVID-19.

ICD-11: A catalyst for advancing patient safety surveillance globally.

The World Health Organization's (WHO) international classification of disease version 11 (ICD-11) contains several features which enable improved classification of patient safety events. We have identified three suggestions to facilitate adoption of ICD-11 from the patient safety perspective. One, health system leaders at national, regional, and local levels should incorporate ICD-11 into all approaches to monitor patient safety. This will allow them to take advantage of the innovative patient safety classification methods embedded in ICD-11 to overcome several limitations related to existing patient safety surveillance methods. Two, application developers should incorporate ICD-11 into software solutions. This will accelerate adoption and utility of software-enabled clinical and administrative workflows relevant to patient safety management. This is enabled as a result of the ICD-11 application programming interface (or API) developed by the WHO. Third, health system leaders should adopt the ICD-11 using a continuous improvement framework. This will help leaders at national, regional and local levels to take advantage of specific existing initiatives which will be strengthened by ICD-11, including peer review comparisons, clinician engagement, and alignment of front-line safety efforts with post marketing surveillance of medical technologies. While the investment to adopt ICD-11 will be considerable, these will be offset by reducing the ongoing costs related to a lack of accurate routine information.

Coding mechanisms for diagnosis timing in the International Classification of Diseases, Version 11.

BACKGROUND: Diagnoses that arise after admission are of interest because they can represent complications of health care, acute conditions arising de novo, or acute decompensation of a chronic comorbidity occurring during the hospital stay. Three countries in the world have adopted diagnosis timing codes for a number of years. Their experience demonstrates the feasibility and utility of associating an International Classification of Diseases, Version 9 or International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 diagnostic code with information on diagnosis timing, either as part of a diagnostic field or as a separate field. However, diagnosis timing is not an integrated feature of these two classifications as it will be for International Classification of Diseases, Version 11. METHODS: We examine the different types of diagnosis timing that can be used to describe complex patients and present examples of how the new International Classification of Diseases, Version 11 codes may be used. RESULTS: Extension codes are one of the important new features of International Classification of Diseases, Version 11 and allow more specificity in diagnosis timing. CONCLUSION: Imbedded and standardized diagnosis timing information is possible within the International Classification of Diseases, Version 11 classification system.

Implementation of Behavioral Health Integration in Small Primary Care Settings: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

Primary care practices are in great need of practical guidance on the steps they can take to build behavioral health integration (BHI) capacities, particularly for smaller practice settings with fewer resources. 11 small primary care sites (≤ 5 providers) throughout New York State utilized a continuum framework of core components of BHI in combination with technical assistance. Surveys were collected at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted during site visits, and a stakeholder roundtable was facilitated to address broader themes. Data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Practices reported successful engagement with the framework and actively participated in planning and advancing BHI operations. Greater success was observed in practices with existing on-site BHI services, identified champions for BHI, early and sustained training and involvement of providers and administrators, use of collaborative agreements with external behavioral health providers, and capacity to successfully receive reimbursements for BHI services. Advancing health information technologies was a challenge across sites. Financing and policy factors were viewed as critically important to advance integration efforts. The pilot of a continuum framework offers lessons for primary care practices and policymakers to advance integrated BH care.

Bridging the Behavioral Health Gap in Serious Illness Care: Challenges and Strategies for Workforce Development.

Comorbidity with behavioral health conditions is highly prevalent among those experiencing serious medical illnesses and is associated with poor outcomes. Siloed provision of behavioral and physical healthcare has contributed to a workforce ill-equipped to address the often complex needs of these clinical populations. Trained specialist behavioral health providers are scarce and there are gaps in core behavioral health competencies among serious illness care providers. Core competency frameworks to close behavioral health training gaps in primary care exist, but these have not extended to some of the distinct skills and roles required in serious illness care settings. This paper seeks to address this issue by describing a common framework of training competencies across the full spectrum of clinical responsibility and behavioral health expertise for those working at the interface of behavioral health and serious illness care. The authors used a mixed-method approach to develop a model of behavioral health and serious illness care and to delineate seven core skill domains necessary for practitioners working at this interface. Existing opportunities for scaling-up the workforce as well as priority policy recommendation to address barriers to implementation are discussed.

Rates and Impact of Adherence to Recommended Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a major worldwide health problem. Yet few studies have assessed provider adherence to the alcohol-related care recommended in clinical practice guidelines, nor links between adherence to recommended care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe quality of care for unhealthy alcohol use and its impacts on drinking behavior RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of quality of alcohol care for the population of patients screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use in a large Veterans Affairs health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 719 patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at one of 11 primary care practices and who completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews. MAIN MEASURES: Using administrative encounter and medical record data, we assessed three composite and 21 individual process-based measures of care delivered across primary and specialty care settings. We assessed self-reported daily alcohol use using telephone interviews at baseline and 6-month follow-up. KEY RESULTS: The median proportion of patients who received recommended care across measures was 32.8% (range < 1% for initiating pharmacotherapy to 93% for depression screening). There was negligible change in drinking for the study population between baseline and 6 months. In covariate-adjusted analyses, no composites were significantly associated with changes in heavy drinking days or drinks per week, and just one of nine individual measures tested was significantly associated. In a subsample of patients drinking above recommended weekly limits prior to screening, two of nine individual measures were significantly associated. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows wide variability in receipt of recommended care for unhealthy alcohol use. Receipt of recommended interventions for reducing drinking was frequently not associated with decreased drinking. Results suggest deficits in provision of comprehensive alcohol care and in understanding how to improve population-based drinking outcomes.

Collaborative care: enough of the why; what about the how?

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for improving outcomes in people with mental and physical comorbidities is well established. However, translating these models into enduring change in routine care has proved difficult. In this editorial we outline how to shift the conversation on collaborative care from 'what are we supposed to do?' to 'how we can do this'.Declaration of interestP.P.R. has received honoraria from Publicis LifeBrands and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement outside of the submitted work. H.A.P. reports personal fees from the BIND Health Plan outside of the submitted work; and is a Member of the Council on Quality of Care of the American Psychiatric Association.

Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mental and physical disorders commonly co-occur leading to higher morbidity and mortality in people with mental and substance use disorders (collectively called behavioral health disorders). Models to integrate primary and behavioral health care for this population have not yet been implemented widely across health systems, leading to efforts to adapt models for specific subpopulations and mechanisms to facilitate more widespread adoption. RECENT FINDINGS: Using examples from the UK and USA, we describe recent advances to integrate behavioral and primary care for new target populations including people with serious mental illness, people at the extremes of life, and for people with substance use disorders. We summarize mechanisms to incentivize integration efforts and to stimulate new integration between health and social services in primary care. We then present an outline of recent enablers for integration, concentrating on changes to funding mechanisms, developments in quality outcome measurements to promote collaborative working, and pragmatic guidance aimed at primary care providers wishing to enhance provision of behavioral care. Integrating care between primary care and behavioral health services is a complex process. Established models of integrated care are now being tailored to target specific patient populations and policy initiatives developed to encourage adoption in particular settings. Wholly novel approaches to integrate care are significantly less common. Future efforts to integrate care should allow for flexibility and innovation around implementation, payment models that support delivery of high value care, and the development of outcome measures that incentivize collaborative working practices.

Measuring Efficiency at the Interface of Behavioral and Physical Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Measures of efficiency in healthcare delivery, particularly between different parts of the healthcare system could potentially improve health resource utilization. We use a typology adapted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to characterize current measures described in the literature by stakeholder perspective (payer, provider, patient, policy-maker), type of output (reduced utilization or improved outcomes) and input (physical, financial or both). AIMS OF THE STUDY: To systematically describe measures of healthcare efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare and identify gaps in the literature base that could form the basis for further measure development. METHODS: We searched the Medline database for studies published in English in the last ten years with the terms 'efficiency', 'inefficiency', 'productivity', 'cost' or 'QALY' and 'mental' or 'behavioral' in the title or abstract. Studies on healthcare resource utilization, costs of care, or broader healthcare benefits to society, related to the provision of behavioral health care in physical health care settings or to people with physical health conditions or vice versa were included. RESULTS: 85 of 6,454 studies met inclusion criteria. These 85 studies described 126 measures of efficiency. 100 of these measured efficiency according to the perspective of the purchaser or provider, whilst 13 each considered efficiency from the perspective of society or the consumer. Most measures counted physical resources (such as numbers of therapy sessions) rather than the costs of these resources as inputs. Three times as many measures (95) considered service outputs as did quality outcomes (31). DISCUSSION: Measuring efficiency at the interface of behavioral and physical care is particularly difficult due to the number of relevant stakeholders involved, ambiguity over the definition of efficiency and the complexity of providing care for people with multimorbidity. Current measures at this interface concentrate on a limited range of outcomes. LIMITATIONS: We only searched one database and did not review the gray literature, nor solicit a call for relevant but unpublished work. We did not assess the methodological quality of the studies identified. IMPLICATION FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Most measures of healthcare efficiency are currently viewed from the perspective of payers and providers, with very few studies addressing the benefits of healthcare to society or the individual interest of the consumer. One way this imbalance could be addressed is through much stronger involvement of consumers in measurement-development, for example, by an expansion in patient-reported outcome measures in assessing quality of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Integrating behavioral and physical care is a major area of implementation as health systems in high income countries move from volume to value based care delivery. Measuring efficiency at this interface has the potential to incentivize and also evaluate integration efforts. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: There has been only one previous systematic review of efficiency measurement and none at the interface of behavioral and physical care. We identify gaps in the evidence base for efficiency measurement which could inform further research and measurement development.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care Services for People with Serious Mental Illness: A Qualitative Systems Analysis of Integration in New York.

People with co-occurring behavioral and physical conditions receive poorer care through traditional health care services. One solution has been to integrate behavioral and physical care services. This study assesses efforts to integrate behavioral health and primary care services in New York. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 52 professionals in either group or individual settings. We aimed to identify factors which facilitate or hinder integration for people with serious mental illness and how these factors inter-relate. Content analysis identified structural, process, organizational ("internal") and contextual ("external") themes that were relevant to integration of care. Network analysis delineated the interactions between these. We show that effective integration does not advance along a single continuum from minimally to fully integrated care but along several, parallel pathways reliant upon consequential factors that aid or hinder one another.

Trends in MD/PhD Graduates Entering Psychiatry: Assessing the Physician-Scientist Pipeline.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify trends in MD/PhD graduates entering psychiatry, to compare these trends with other specialties, and to review strategies for enhancing the physician-scientist pipeline. METHODS: Data on 226,588 medical students graduating from Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited programs between 1999 and 2012 (6626 MD/PhDs) were used to evaluate the number, percentage, and proportion of MD/PhDs entering psychiatry in comparison with other specialties (neurology, neurosurgery, internal medicine, family medicine, and radiation oncology). Linear regression and multiple linear regression determined whether these values increased over time and varied by sex. RESULTS: Over 14 years, an average of 18 MD/PhDs (range 13-29) enrolled in psychiatry each year. The number of MD/PhDs going into psychiatry significantly increased, although these gains were modest (less than one additional MD/PhD per year). The proportion of students entering psychiatry who were MD/PhDs varied between 2.9 and 5.9 per 100 residents, with no significant change over time. There was also no change in the percentage of MD/PhDs entering psychiatry from among all MD/PhD graduates. The rate of increase in the number of MD/PhDs going into psychiatry did not differ significantly from other specialties except for family medicine, which is decreasing. The rate of MD/PhDs going into psychiatry was higher for women, suggesting closure of the sex gap in 17 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the number of MD/PhDs entering psychiatry, these numbers remain low. Expanding the cohort of physician-scientists dedicated to translational research in psychiatry will require a multipronged approach.

Prioritizing quality measure concepts at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Integrated healthcare models can increase access to care, improve healthcare quality, and reduce cost for individuals with behavioral and general medical healthcare needs, yet there are few instruments for measuring the quality of integrated care. In this study, we identified and prioritized concepts that can represent the quality of integrated behavioral health and general medical care. DESIGN: We conducted a literature review to identify candidate measure concepts. Experts then participated in a modified Delphi process to prioritize the concepts for development into specific quality measures. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Expert behavioral health and general medical clinicians, decision-makers (policy, regulatory and administrative professionals) and patient advocates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Panelists rated measure concepts on importance, validity and feasibility. RESULTS: The literature review identified 734 measures of behavioral or general medical care, which were then distilled into 43 measure concepts. Thirty-three measure concepts (including a segmentation strategy) reached a predetermined consensus threshold of importance, while 11 concepts did not. Two measure concepts were 'ready for further development' ('General medical screening and follow-up in behavioral health settings' and 'Mental health screening at general medical healthcare settings'). Among the 31 additional measure concepts that were rated as important, 7 were rated as valid (but not feasible), while the remaining 24 concepts were rated as neither valid nor feasible. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified quality measure concepts that capture important aspects of integrated care. Researchers can use the prioritization process described in this study to guide healthcare quality measures development work.

Comparative and cost-effectiveness research: Competencies, opportunities, and training for nurse scientists.

BACKGROUND: Comparative and cost-effectiveness research develops knowledge on the everyday effectiveness and value of treatments and care delivery models. PURPOSE: To describe comparative and cost-effectiveness research; identify needed competencies for this research; identify federal funding; and describe current training opportunities. METHODS: Published recommended competencies were reviewed. Current federal funding and training opportunities were identified. A federally funded training program and other training opportunities are described. DISCUSSION: Fourteen core competencies were identified that have both analytic and theoretical foci from nursing and other fields. There are multiple sources of federal funding for research and training. Interdisciplinary training is needed. CONCLUSION: Comparative and cost-effectiveness research has the opportunity to transform health care delivery and improve the outcomes of patients. Nurses, as clinicians and scientists, are in a unique position to contribute to this important research. We encourage nurses to seek the needed interdisciplinary research training to participate in this important endeavor. We also encourage educators to use the competencies and processes identified in current training programs to help shape their doctoral programs.

Quality Measures at the Interface of Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

The development of quality measures has gained increasing attention as health care reimbursements transition from fee-for-service to value-based payment models. As behavioral health care moves towards integration of services with primary care, specific measures and payment incentives will be needed to successfully expand access. This study uses a keyword search to identify 730 quality indicators that are relevant to behavioral health and general medical health. Measures identified have been coded and grouped into domains based on a taxonomy developed by the authors. The analysis reveals that quality measures focusing on general medical conditions exceed those focused on behavioral health diagnoses for evidence-based treatments, patient safety, and outcomes. Furthermore, measures predominantly concentrate on care during or following hospitalizations, which represents a minority of behavioral health care and does not characterize the outpatient settings that are the focus of many models of integrated care. The authors offer recommendations for future steps to identify the quality measures that can best evaluate the evolving behavioral health care system.

User-centered design of multi-gene sequencing panel reports for clinicians.

The objective of this study was to develop a high-fidelity prototype for delivering multi-gene sequencing panel (GS) reports to clinicians that simulates the user experience of a final application. The delivery and use of GS reports can occur within complex and high-paced healthcare environments. We employ a user-centered software design approach in a focus group setting in order to facilitate gathering rich contextual information from a diverse group of stakeholders potentially impacted by the delivery of GS reports relevant to two precision medicine programs at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Responses from focus group sessions were transcribed, coded and analyzed by two team members. Notification mechanisms and information resources preferred by participants from our first phase of focus groups were incorporated into scenarios and the design of a software prototype for delivering GS reports. The goal of our second phase of focus group, to gain input on the prototype software design, was accomplished through conducting task walkthroughs with GS reporting scenarios. Preferences for notification, content and consultation from genetics specialists appeared to depend upon familiarity with scenarios for ordering and delivering GS reports. Despite familiarity with some aspects of the scenarios we proposed, many of our participants agreed that they would likely seek consultation from a genetics specialist after viewing the test reports. In addition, participants offered design and content recommendations. Findings illustrated a need to support customized notification approaches, user-specific information, and access to genetics specialists with GS reports. These design principles can be incorporated into software applications that deliver GS reports. Our user-centered approach to conduct this assessment and the specific input we received from clinicians may also be relevant to others working on similar projects.

Measuring the quality of mental health care: consensus perspectives from selected industrialized countries.

This international initiative sought to develop a consensus framework of mental health quality measures. The 656 quality measures identified via literature review were narrowed to 36 measurement concepts. A modified Delphi process was used to rate these for validity, importance, and feasibility. The highest rated concepts for validity and importance included 7-day follow-up after inpatient discharge, involuntary/compulsory hospitalization, seclusion, death rates, medication adherence, medication errors, and restraint. Importance and validity scores were correlated, with importance scores higher than validity scores. Further work is needed to develop and implement a core set of measures for international comparison of mental health quality.

Providing Behavioral Health Care in PACE - A Review of Federal and State Manual Regulations.

OBJECTIVES: Present analysis of the federal and state regulations that guide The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) operations and core clinical features for direction on behavioral health (BH). DESIGN: Review and synthesize the federal (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS]) and all publicly available state manuals according to the BH-Serious Illness Care (SIC) model domains. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 155 PACE organizations operating in 32 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: A multipronged search was conducted to identify official state and federal manuals guiding the implementation and functions of PACE organizations. The CMS PACE website was used to identify the federal PACE manual. State-level manuals for 32 states with PACE programs were identified through several sources, including official PACE websites, contacts through official websites, the National PACE Association (NPA), and public and academic search engines. The manuals were searched according to the BH-SIC model domains that pertain to integrating BH care with complex care individuals. RESULTS: According to the CMS Manual, the interdisciplinary team is responsible for holistic care of PACE enrollees, but a BH specialist is not a required member. The CMS Manual includes information on BH clinical functions, BH workforce, and structures for outcome measurement, quality, and accountability. Eight of 32 PACE-participating states offer publicly available state PACE manuals; of which 3 offer information on BH clinical functions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Regarding BH, federal and state manual regulations establish limited guidance for comprehensive care service delivery at PACE organizations. The absence of clear directives weakens BH care delivery due to a limiting the ability to develop quality measures and accountability structures. This hinders incentivization and accountability to truly all-inclusive care. Clearer guidelines and regulatory parameters regarding BH care at federal and state levels may enable more PACE organizations to meet rising BH demands of aging communities.

New and emerging treatments for major depressive disorder.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) affects a substantial portion of the population; however, much is still unknown about the pathophysiology of this disorder. Treatment resistance highlights the heterogeneous nature of MDD and the need for treatments to target more than monoamine neurotransmission. This review summarizes research into the new and emerging targets of MDD. These include drugs such as psychedelics, antibiotics, opioid modulators, neuropeptides, and onabotulinumtoxin. Neuromodulatory treatments such as light based therapies and neuromodulation involving either magnetic or electrical stimulation are also discussed. Almost all interventions, pharmacological and neuromodulation, were trialed as adjunctive treatments to an antidepressant. Most research has been conducted on psychedelics, with trials suggesting rapid antidepressant and anti-suicidal effects. Trial findings, tolerability, study design limitations and quality of research have been considered throughout this review. There remains challenges in forming recommendations with the current research at present. With there being considerable interest into the research of new and emerging treatments-in particular, psychedelics-there may be scope in the future to form more robust recommendations.

Psychotropic Medication Use in United States Pediatric Emergency Department Visits.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Little is known about pediatric psychotropic medication use in the emergency department (ED), despite a rise in mental and behavioral health visits. This study describes psychotropic medication use in a nationally representative sample of pediatric mental and behavioral health ED visits over a 14-year period. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of pediatric (6-17 years) mental and behavioral health ED visits using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2006-2019. We describe administration of psychotropic medications by medication type, diagnosis, and over time. Using multivariable survey-weighted logistic regression, we examine associations between medication administration and sociodemographics. RESULTS: A psychotropic medication was administered in 11.4% of the estimated 11,792,860 pediatric mental and behavioral health ED visits in our sample. Benzodiazepines were administered most frequently (4.9% of visits). Visits with anxiety disorders had the highest frequency of psychotropic medication use (26.7%). Visits by Black non-Hispanic patients had a 60% decreased odds of medication administration compared to visits for White non-Hispanic patients. Visits with public compared to private insurance had a 3.5 times increased odds of psychotropic polypharmacy. The proportion of visits in which a psychotropic medication was administered did not change statistically over time. CONCLUSIONS: A psychotropic medication was administered in 1 in 10 pediatric mental and behavioral health ED visits. Use differed by sociodemographics but did not change over time. As more youth seek mental and behavioral health care in the ED, we must better understand appropriate medication use to ensure quality and equitable care.