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 behavioural health and primary care: qualitative findings on contextual factors that influence integration.

BACKGROUND: Integrating behavioural health care into primary care practices may increase patients' access to behavioural health services and improve health outcomes. However, few studies have explored factors that influence integration processes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to better understand contextual factors that support or impede behavioural health integration in primary care practices. METHODS: We conducted 71 semi-structured interviews with providers, staff, and leaders from eight primary care practices in the United States with integrated behavioural health services, which were participating in a randomized control, pragmatic trial: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care. Practices were selected for diversity on geographic location, size, ownership, and experience with integration. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data derived from the interviews. RESULTS: We identified four categories of contextual factors influencing behavioural health integration: leadership commitment to integration, financial considerations, workflow and communication systems, and providers' perspectives on integration and team-based healthcare. Supportive factors included leaders' commitment to integration, adequate staffing, customized communication and workflow systems, collaborative practice culture, and healthy working relationships amongst providers. Impediments included staffing issues and payment models that do not reimburse for activities required to support integrated care. CONCLUSION: Interviewees described various benefits of integration, including providers feeling better equipped to address patients' needs due to collaboration between medical and behavioural providers and resulting interdisciplinary learning. Given concerns about provider burnout, this finding warrants further study.

This study examines the integration of behavioural health services, such as mental health counselling, into primary care practices. We conducted interviews with representatives from eight primary care practices with integrated behavioural health services. The participating practices are located in diverse geographic locations across the United States, and all were engaged in a large, national project entitled Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care. A total of 71 healthcare providers, staff, and practice leaders were interviewed and asked to discuss the factors that influenced efforts to integrate behavioural healthcare in their primary care practice. We analysed the interview transcripts and identified factors that supported or impeded behavioural health integration. Supportive factors included practice leaders' commitment to integration, adequate staffing, customized communication and workflow systems within the practice, a collaborative practice culture, and healthy working relationships amongst the medical and behavioural health providers. Impediments included staffing issues and a lack of reimbursement from insurance companies and government payers for the time and effort that practice staff needs to devote in order to provide integrated care. Interviewees described various benefits of behavioural health integration, including providers feeling better equipped to address patients' needs due to collaboration between medical and behavioural providers.

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.

"I don't think that a medication is going to help someone long-term stay off opioids": Treatment and recovery beliefs of rural Vermont family members of people with opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Few studies have addressed beliefs about treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) among family members of people with OUD, particularly in rural communities. This study examined the beliefs of rural family members of people with OUD regarding treatment, including medication for OUD (MOUD), and recovery. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with rural Vermont family members of people with OUD. Twenty family members completed interviews, and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four primary themes related to beliefs about OUD treatment emerged: (1) MOUD is another form of addiction or dependency and should be used short-term; (2) essential OUD treatment components include residential and mental health services and a strong support network involving family; (3) readiness as a precursor to OUD treatment initiation; and (4) stigma as an impediment to OUD treatment and other health care services. CONCLUSIONS: Rural family members valued mental health services and residential OUD treatment programs while raising concerns about MOUD and stigma in health care and the community. Several themes (e.g., MOUD as another form of addiction, residential treatment, and treatment readiness) were consistent with prior research. The belief that MOUD use should be short-term was inconsistent with the belief that OUD is a disease. Findings suggest a need for improved education on the effectiveness of MOUD for family members and on stigma for health care providers and community members.

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.