Foundational Collective Actions for Achieving Agile High-Quality Primary Care in the United States.

In 2021, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care published its recommendations to expand the provision of high-quality primary care in the USA. These include paying for primary care teams to care for people, ensuring that high-quality primary care is available, training primary care teams where people live and work, and designing information technology that serves the patient, family, and care team. Many of these recommendations echo those of prior calls for action, including the Institute of Medicine's 1996 report. However, the 2021 report recognizes the importance of implementation in its final recommendation of ensuring that high-quality primary care is implemented in the USA. We consider the NASEM recommendations in terms of the complexity of the task of supporting interconnected implementation activities that occur in local contexts. With this vantage point, we identify foundational collective actions, including the creation of an accountable leadership entity, payment reform, and community networks. We then discuss the creation of a monitoring mechanism to assess and support sustained action.

Clinically Feasible Stratification of 3-Year Chronic Disease Risk in Primary Care: The Mental Health Integration Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common illness that imposes a disproportionately large health burden. Depression is generally associated with a higher prevalence of chronic disease risk factors and may contribute to higher chronic disease risk. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to create and validate sex-specific Mental Health Integration Risk Scores (MHIRS) that predict 3-year chronic disease diagnosis. METHODS: MHIRS was created to predict the first diagnosis of any of the 10 chronic diseases in patients completing a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Survey who were free at baseline from those 10 chronic disease diagnoses. MHIRS used sex-specific weightings of Patient Health Questionnaire 9 results, age, and components of the complete metabolic profile and complete blood count in randomly chosen derivation (70%) and validation (30%) groups. RESULTS: Among females (N = 10,162, age: 48 ± 16), c-statistics for the composite chronic disease end point were 0.746 (0.725, 0.767) for the derivation group and 0.717 (0.682, 0.753) for the validation group, whereas males (N = 4615, age: 48 ± 15) had 0.755 (0.727, 0.783) and 0.742 (0.702, 0.782). In the validation group, MHIRS strata of low-, moderate-, and high-risk categories had hazard ratios (HR) for any 3-year chronic disease diagnosis among females of HR = 3.42 for moderate vs low and HR = 9.75 for high vs low, whereas males had HR = 4.80 and HR = 10.68, respectively (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A clinical decision tool comprised by depression severity and common laboratory tests, and MHIRS provides very good stratification of a 3-year chronic disease diagnosis. Designed to be calculated electronically by an electronic health record, MHIRS can be efficiently obtained by clinicians to identify patients at higher chronic disease risk who require further evaluation and more precise clinical management.

The association of antidepressant and statin use with death and incident cardiovascular disease varies by depression severity.

Depression has been reported to be associated with a greater risk of death and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the impact of antidepressants (ADM) on CVD risk remains controversial. Statin use is known to decrease CVD risk. Whether the use of these medications together affects CVD risk has not been studied. Patients (N = 26,828) completing the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), ≥40 years of age, without prior CVD, and no prior ADM use were studied. Depressive severity was categorized as none-mild (PHQ-9 score ≤14, n = 21,517) and moderate-severe (PHQ-9 score ≥15, n = 5311). Cox hazard regression was used to evaluate the association of no ADM/no statin use (n = 23,104 [86.1%]), ADM/no statin use (n = 877 [3.3%]), no ADM/statin use (n = 2627 [9.8%]), and ADM/statin use (n = 220 [.8%]) with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, CAD, stroke). Patients averaged 56 ± 12 years; 61% female. There were 1182 (4.4%) 3 year MACE events. The association of ADM and statin use with MACE varied by depressive symptom severity, with statin therapy associated with a decreased risk in the none-mild group (HR = .78, p = .007) and ADM in the moderate-high group (HR = 0.58, p = 0.02). Concomitant use of ADMs and statins did not appear to provide additive benefit.

Association of Integrated Team-Based Care With Health Care Quality, Utilization, and Cost.

IMPORTANCE: The value of integrated team delivery models is not firmly established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of receiving primary care in integrated team-based care (TBC) practices vs traditional practice management (TPM) practices (usual care) with patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs. DESIGN: A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study to assess the association of integrating physical and mental health over time in TBC practices with patient outcomes and costs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received primary care at 113 unique Intermountain Healthcare Medical Group primary care practices from 2003 through 2005 and had yearly encounters with Intermountain Healthcare through 2013, including some patients who received care in both TBC and TPM practices. EXPOSURES: Receipt of primary care in TBC practices compared with TPM practices for patients treated in internal medicine, family practice, and geriatrics practices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included 7 quality measures, 6 health care utilization measures, payments to the delivery system, and program investment costs. RESULTS: During the study period (January 2010-December 2013), 113,452 unique patients (mean age, 56.1 years; women, 58.9%) accounted for 163,226 person-years of exposure in 27 TBC practices and 171,915 person-years in 75 TPM practices. Patients treated in TBC practices compared with those treated in TPM practices had higher rates of active depression screening (46.1% for TBC vs 24.1% for TPM; odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95% CI, 1.75 to 2.08), adherence to a diabetes care bundle (24.6% for TBC vs 19.5% for TPM; OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.42]), and documentation of self-care plans (48.4% for TBC vs 8.7% for TPM; OR, 5.59 [95% CI, 4.27 to 7.33]), lower proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (<140/90 mm Hg) (85.0% for TBC vs 97.7% for TPM; OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95]), and no significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6% for TBC vs 9.9% for TPM; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.03]). Per 100 person-years, rates of health care utilization were lower for TBC patients compared with TPM patients for emergency department visits (18.1 for TBC vs 23.5 for TPM; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.80]), hospital admissions (9.5 for TBC vs 10.6 for TPM; IRR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.94]), ambulatory care sensitive visits and admissions (3.3 for TBC vs 4.3 for TPM; IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), and primary care physician encounters (232.8 for TBC vs 250.4 for TPM; IRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94]), with no significant difference in visits to urgent care facilities (55.7 for TBC vs 56.2 for TPM; IRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) and visits to specialty care physicians (213.5 for TBC vs 217.9 for TPM; IRR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99], P > .008). Payments to the delivery system were lower in the TBC group vs the TPM group ($3400.62 for TBC vs $3515.71 for TPM; ß, -$115.09 [95% CI, -$199.64 to -$30.54]) and were less than investment costs of the TBC program. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults enrolled in an integrated health care system, receipt of primary care at TBC practices compared with TPM practices was associated with higher rates of some measures of quality of care, lower rates for some measures of acute care utilization, and lower actual payments received by the delivery system.

[Integrated care delivery system for mental illness: A case study of Intermountain Healthcare (USA)]. / Prise en charge intégrée des maladies mentales: l'exemple d'Intermountain Healthcare (USA).

BACKGROUND: Mental health is a public health priority among chronic diseases in France and the United States. Although there is room for progress in France, the experience of Intermountain Healthcare (IH), Utah, in the United States can provide convincing experimental data. AIM: To identify the lessons learned from IH clinical integration of mental health specialists in primary care practices called "Mental Health Integration" (MHI) which might be useful in France. METHODS: This research is based on qualitative analysis of data derived from collaborative work with IH experts, literature searches, and item queries on the 3 objectives of the Triple Aim of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). RESULTS: The MHI programme was developed to achieve IHI T riple AIM: improving user satisfaction; improving access of care and the health of the population; reducing health care costs per capita. By integrating mental health specialists within a multidisciplinary team headed by primary care physicians and working under the same roof with care managers and support staff, the MHI model enhances the process of the Chronic Care Model. Furthermore MHI has become the foundation for team-based care centered on the patient and theirfamily over the continuum of care by offering a global and structured evidenced-based care process. Prevention and integration of specialized care have been developed. Users and their families are co-responsible for their health. Discussion: Evaluation is systematic and based on specific indicators. The efficiency and clinical and organizational effectiveness created generate savings for health insurance as well as improved access to care and health equality.

Cost and quality impact of Intermountain's mental health integration program.

Most patients with mental health (MH) conditions, such as depression, receive care for their conditions from a primary care physician (PCP) in their health/medical home. Providing MH care, however, presents many challenges for the PCP, including (1) the difficulty of getting needed consultation from an MH specialist; (2) the time constraints of a busy PCP practice; (3) the complicated nature of recognizing depression, which may be described with only somatic complaints; (4) the barriers to reimbursement and compensation; and (5) associated medical and social comorbidities. Practice managers, emergency departments, and health plans are stretched to provide care for complex patients with unmet MH needs. At the same time, payment reform linked to accountable care organizations and/or episodic bundle payments, MH parity rules, and increasing MH costs to large employers and payers all highlight the critical need to identify high-quality, efficient, integrated MH care delivery practices. Over the past ten years, Intermountain Healthcare has developed a team-based approach-known as mental health integration (MHI)-for caring for these patients and their families. The team includes the PCPs and their staff, and they, in turn, are integrated with MH professionals, community resources, care management, and the patient and his or her family. The integration model goes far beyond co-location in its team-based approach; it is operationalized at the clinic, thereby improving both physician and staff satisfaction. Patients treated in MHI clinics also show improved satisfaction, lower costs, and better quality outcomes. The MHI program is financially sustainable in routinized clinics without subsidies. MHI is a successful approach to improving care for patients with MH conditions in primary care health homes.

Can mental health integration in a primary care setting improve quality and lower costs? A case study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the successful implementation of an evidence-based, integrated quality improvement mental health program in a primary care setting. SUMMARY: Intermountain Healthcare (IHC) has aligned resources around a conceptual framework that emphasizes clinic and community accountability, family and consumer health focused on recovery rather than disease, and enhanced decision making through partnerships and automation. The mental health integration system includes an integrated team led foremost by the patient and family with vital defined roles for primary care providers, care managers, psychiatrists, advanced practice registered nurses, support staff, and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Pharmacists have assumed training functions on the team and have the potential to play more vital roles. CONCLUSION: The IHC experience demonstrates that mental health services can be effectively integrated into everyday practice in a primary care setting. Clinical and financial burden can be decreased for the health care team, patients, and family.

Mental health integration: rethinking practitioner roles in the treatment of depression: the specialist, primary care physicians, and the practice nurse.

Although primary care provides the majority of mental health care, lack of time and documented economic benefit make it difficult for healthcare delivery systems to proactively implement effective treatment strategies for the growing disability of depression. Current care delivery models are inadequate and inefficient, leading to provider and consumer exhaustion, as well as significant gaps in care and poor outcomes. This publication describes a quality improvement pilot demonstration called "mental health integration" (MHI) that has been successful in realigning resources, enhancing clinical decision making, measuring the impact and building a business case to determine what actually is the value added for quality. Mental health integration (MHI) promotes the rethinking and retraining of traditional solo practitioner roles to new practitioner roles that facilitate partnership and effective communication as a means to help patients and families achieve a state of successful performance. Results describe the improvements in depression detection at a neutral or lower cost to the health plan. Recommendations are identified for building the business case for MHI quality in order to sustain improved outcomes and promote diffusion of the model outside of Intermountain Health Care (IHC) setting.

Rebuilding Family Relationship Competencies as a Primary Health Intervention.

The authors present Relationship Competence Training (RCT), which is an organized conceptual framework developed by them for assessing a family's ability to mobilize their relational support in times of distress. RTC is a process of studying family relationship patterns and how these patterns influence family health. The RTC model is described as a method of promoting mental health as a part of everyday family health, which is suitable for health care providers working in a wide variety of environments who have in common the desire to offer continuity and value in promoting the health of the families under their care. RCT provides an empathic way of dealing with the "compassion fatigue" that health care providers often experience when managing complex family health issues in constantly changing and quality-strained primary health care environments.

Mental health integration: normalizing team care.

This article examines the impact of integrating mental health into primary health care. Mental Health Integration (MHI) within Intermountain Healthcare has changed the culture of primary health care by standardizing a team-based care process that includes mental health as a normal part of the routine medical encounter. Using a quantitative statistical analysis of qualitative reports (mixed methods study), the study reports on health outcomes associated with MHI for patients and staff. Researchers interviewed 59 patients and 50 staff to evaluate the impact of MHI on depression care. Patients receiving MHI reported an improved relationship with caregivers (P < .001) and improved overall functioning in their lives (P < .01). Staff providing care in MHI reported that patients experienced improved access to mental health care, improved overall patient productivity in daily functions (P < .01), and access to team care (P < .001). As MHI became routine, patients discussed complementary team interventions more frequently (P < .0001). Mental health problems rank second in chronic disease today. MHI offers promising results for improving the quality and cost of effective treatment for chronic disease. This research provides guidelines for organizing mental health care, staff productivity, and patient satisfaction, using a team approach to improve outcomes.

Computerization of Mental Health Integration complexity scores at Intermountain Healthcare.

Intermountain Healthcare's Mental Health Integration (MHI) Care Process Model (CPM) contains formal scoring criteria for assessing a patient's mental health complexity as "mild," "medium," or "high" based on patient data. The complexity score attempts to assist Primary Care Physicians in assessing the mental health needs of their patients and what resources will need to be brought to bear. We describe an effort to computerize the scoring. Informatics and MHI personnel collaboratively and iteratively refined the criteria to make them adequately explicit and reflective of MHI objectives. When tested on retrospective data of 540 patients, the clinician agreed with the computer's conclusion in 52.8% of the cases (285/540). We considered the analysis sufficiently successful to begin piloting the computerized score in prospective clinical care. So far in the pilot, clinicians have agreed with the computer in 70.6% of the cases (24/34).

Evaluation of "depression in primary care" innovations.

Key stakeholders and executive decision makers in health care system require clear and convincing data of the value of chronic illness care models for the primary care treatment of depression. Well-conceived and conducted evaluations provide this necessary information. This case study describes the experience of a large, nonprofit health care system's experience with implementing and evaluating a quality improvement program for integrating depression management into primary care. The commentary that follows discusses specific evaluation questions that are relevant to each of the stakeholder groups involved in deciding whether or not to continue supporting such programs.