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.

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.

Econometric evaluation of implementing a behavioral health integration intervention in primary care settings.

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 - 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.

This study estimated the cost of implementing a program that helped 8 primary care practices transition from a co-located behavioral health services model to greater integration. Our study was part of a larger study across the United States. The authors found that the per-practice program implementation cost ranged between $12,381 and $60,427 and the median cost was $20,726. Leaders of healthcare organizations that participated in this study thought that these costs represented the work of program implementation and that they were reasonable and acceptable.

Perceptions of Risk, Work, and Lifestyle Changes on Mental Health of Healthcare Workers Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 outbreak is significantly affecting the mental health of healthcare workers worldwide. This study aims to investigate the mental health outcomes of healthcare workers in a health system located in southeastern US during the first peak of the pandemic and examine the association of specific factors on the mental well-being of healthcare workers. A cross-sectional survey of 388 healthcare workers was conducted. Data were collected using a 79-item questionnaire, which included the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) instrument, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) instrument, and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), to assess symptoms of depression, anxiety, and general distress, respectively. Data were analyzed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistics. Accordingly, 30.1%, 28.7%, and 39.4% of respondents reported depression, anxiety, and distress symptoms, respectively. Younger workers and females reported higher mental symptomologies. We identified significant, nontraditional factors associated with depression and anxiety symptoms among healthcare workers: healthcare procedure change, concern of exposing family to COVID-19, number of missed shifts, and access to psychological resources/services. These findings emphasize the importance of providing the proper training to reduce concerns of exposing family members and psychological interventions to promote mental health well-being for healthcare workers during the stressful COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementation of a suicide nomenclature within two VA healthcare settings.

Suicide and suicide attempts are significant issues for military, Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian healthcare systems. The lack of uniform terms related to self-directed violence (SDV) has inhibited epidemiological surveillance efforts, limited the generalizability of empirical studies of suicide and non-lethal forms of SDV, and complicated the implementation of evidence-based assessment and treatment strategies for individuals with suicidal thoughts and/or behaviors. The Department of Veterans Affairs recently adopted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) SDV Classification System (SDVCS). This paper describes an implementation study of the SDVCS in two VA Medical Centers. The Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 19 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) training program for the SDVCS, including the SDVCS Clinical Tool (CT), will be discussed. Although preliminary data suggest that the CT and SDVCS are generally perceived as being acceptable and useful, further work will likely be required to facilitate widespread adoption. Potential next steps in this process are presented.

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.

Predicting suicidal behavior in veterans with traumatic brain injury: the utility of the personality assessment inventory.

In this study, we investigated the Personality Assessment Inventory's (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007) Suicide Potential Index (SPI) and Suicide Ideation scale (SUI) as predictors of suicidal behavior (SB) in military Veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI; N = 154). We analyzed electronic medical records were searched for SB in the 2 years post-PAI administration and data via logistic regressions. We obtained statistical support for the SPI and SUI as predictors of SB. Analyses we performed using receiver operating characteristics suggested an optimal SPI cutoff of > or =15 for this sample. Findings suggest that SPI and SUI scores may assist in assessing suicide risk in those with TBI, particularly when population-based cutoffs are considered.

Traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder.

Given the upsurge of research in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), much of which has focused on military samples who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, the purpose of this article is to review the literature published after September 11th, 2001 that addresses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, evaluation, and treatment of PTSD in the context of TBI.

Surrogate endpoints in suicide research.

Surrogate endpoints frequently substitute for rare outcomes in research. The ability to learn about completed suicides by investigating more readily available and proximate outcomes, such as suicide attempts, has obvious appeal. However, concerns with surrogates from the statistical science perspective exist, and mounting evidence from psychometric, neurochemical, genetic, and neuroimaging studies suggests that surrogates may be particularly problematic in suicide research. The need for greater phenotypic refinement of suicide-related behaviors, development of and adherence to a shared suicide nomenclature, and conservative interpretation of investigational results that are limited to the precise population and suicide-related behavior under examination are discussed.