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.

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.

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.

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).

Further Experience with the Practice Integration Profile: A Measure of Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration.

Valid measures of behavioral health integration have the potential to enable comparisons of various models of integration, contribute to the overall development of high-quality care, and evaluate outcomes that are strategically aligned with standard improvement efforts. The Practice Integration Profile has proven to discriminate among clinic types and integration efforts. We continued the validation of the measure's internal consistency, intra-rater consistency, and inter-rater consistency with a separate and larger sample from a broader array of practices. We found that the Practice Integration Profile demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, suggesting empirically sound measurement of independent attributes of integration, and high reliability over time. The Practice Integration Profile provides internally consistent and interpretable results and can serve as both a quality improvement and health services research tool.

Effects of intervention stage completion in an integrated behavioral health and primary care randomized pragmatic intervention trial.

Purpose: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive practice-level, multi-staged practice transformation intervention aimed to increase behavioral health integration in primary care practices and improve patient outcomes. We examined association between the completion of intervention stages and patient outcomes across a heterogenous national sample of primary care practices. Methods: Forty-two primary care practices across the U.S. with co-located behavioral health and 2,426 patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions completed surveys at baseline, midpoint and two year follow-up. Effects of the intervention on patient health and primary care integration outcomes were examined using multilevel mixed-effects models, while controlling for baseline outcome measurements. Results: No differences were found associated with the number of intervention stages completed in patient health outcomes were found for depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain, pain interference, social function, patient satisfaction with care or medication adherence. The completion of each intervention stage was associated with increases in Practice Integration Profile (PIP) domain scores and were confirmed with modeling using multiple imputation for: Workflow 3.5 (95% CI: 0.9-6.1), Integration Methods 4.6 (95% CI: 1.5-7.6), Patient Identification 2.9 (95% CI: 0.9-5.0), and Total Integration 2.7 (95% CI: 0.7-4.7). Conclusion: A practice-centric flexible practice transformation intervention improved integration of behavioral health in primary care across heterogenous primary care practices treating patients with multiple chronic conditions. Interventions that allow practices to flexibly improve care have potential to help complex patient populations. Future research is needed to determine how to best target patient health outcomes at a population level.

Practice integration profile revised: Improving item readability and completion.

INTRODUCTION: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. METHOD: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. RESULTS: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. DISCUSSION: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Patient screening for integrated behavioral health in adult primary care: A rapid review of effective procedures.

PURPOSE: Although many primary care clinics screen for behavioral health (BH) conditions using validated tools, it is not clear whether adult BH screening leads to better patient outcomes. Our objective was to determine the evidence base by reviewing effectiveness research for multiple strategies of BH screening in adult primary care identified in the Practice Integration Profile. METHOD: We conducted five rapid reviews of effectiveness research supporting BH screening strategies cited in the Practice Integration Profile. Each rapid review was conducted using an adapted REAL (Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature) methodology and a standardized search tailored for each screening strategy to identify evidence related to BH screening in primary care. RESULTS: The database search yielded 931 references. Following eligibility review and extraction, we evaluated data from 20 references examining five screening strategies. Results demonstrated limited support for all five strategies and high risk of bias within most studies. Outcomes associated with various BH screening strategies were rarely the focus of study. CONCLUSIONS: There is an absence of robust, well-structured evidence supporting many of the BH screening strategies advocated for in primary care. Stakeholders may wish to understand how to ensure value when developing a robust screening program that will improve patient health outcomes. Future research should advance the science of BH screen selection, timing, and implementation by answering new questions about screening strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Partnering With Patients in a Quality Improvement Curriculum for Internal Medicine Residents.

Patient experience is a core component of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Triple Aim for health care improvement. Although resident physicians must meet quality improvement (QI) competencies prior to graduation, QI training during residency may not adequately prepare residents to improve patient and family experience. We describe an active learning QI curriculum engaging 3 Patient and Family Advisors as partners alongside 15 resident physicians. This partnership proved to be a meaningful experience for both groups, with the development of mutual respect and insight into the contributions that patients and families bring to solving problems in health care quality.

Differences in Occupational Burnout Among Primary Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Occupational burnout is a major concern for personal well-being and patient care. We examined burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), medical residents, behavioral health providers (BHPs), nurses, and other clinical and nonclinical primary care team members. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, nested within a larger randomized trial. Participants completed a validated 9-item burnout measure with 3 domains: depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and personal accomplishment. Multivariable multilevel linear regression with a random intercept for each practice was used to determine mean differences in burnout across professional roles. RESULTS: Overall burnout rates varied by professional role: PCPs 70%, medical residents 89%, BHPs 59%, nurses 66%, other clinicians 68%, and nonclinical professionals 70%. Compared with nonclinical professionals, residents experienced more burnout in more domains, followed by PCPs. PCPs, residents, and nurses reported significantly worse depersonalization and exhaustion scores. Nonclinical professionals had worse accomplishment scores than all clinical professionals except for residents. This study revealed moderate-to-high levels of burnout among primary care professionals. DISCUSSION: Clinicians may be experiencing aspects of burnout more intensely than their nonclinical colleagues, and this may be most true for residents and PCPs. Based on these variations, interventions to mitigate burnout may need to be tailored by professional role.

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.

A New Quality Improvement Toolkit to Improve Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: The role of opioids in managing chronic pain has evolved in light of the opioid misuse epidemic and new evidence regarding risks and benefits of long-term opioid therapy. With mounting national guidelines and local regulations, providers need interventions to standardize and improve safe, responsible prescribing. This article summarizes the evolution of an opioid management toolkit using a quality improvement (QI) approach to improve prescribing. METHODS: The authors developed a list of opioid-prescribing best practices and offered in-office, team-based QI projects to ambulatory clinics, updated and tested over 3 trials in the form of a toolkit. Outcome measures included pre- and postproject surveys on provider and staff satisfaction, toolkit completion, and process measures. The toolkit supports workflow planning, redesign, and implementation. RESULTS: Ten clinics participated in trial 1, completing the QI project on average in 3 months, with a mean of 9.1 hours of team time. Provider satisfaction with prescribing increased from 42% to 96% and staff satisfaction from 54% to 81%. The most common strategies in trials 1 and 2 focused on regulatory compliance (35% to 36%), whereas in Trial 3 there was a strong move toward peer support (81%). DISCUSSION: Clinics responded to implementation of opioid-related best practices using QI with improved provider and staff satisfaction. Once the goals of regulatory compliance and workflow improvements were met, clinics focused on strategies supporting providers in the lead role of managing chronic pain, building on strategies that provide peer support. Using QI methods, primary care clinics can improve opioid-prescribing best practices for patients.

"I Think I Was Losing the Forest for the Trees": Evaluation of an Internal Medicine Residency Quality Improvement Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) training during residency may not be adequately preparing physicians for achieving Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education goals and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Triple Aim. The purpose of this evaluation was to identify residents' perceptions and impact of their QI curriculum. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of an active-learning QI curriculum for internal medicine residents at one academic medical center. Data from 2017 to 2018 included a focus group, pre-post survey, project data, and curricular materials. Results were categorized using Kirkpatrick's model of evaluation. RESULTS: All second-year internal medicine residents completed the curriculum (N = 14). Residents were satisfied with the structure and perceived accomplishment with the curriculum, however were dissatisfied by the impact of inconsistent attendance due to clinical conflicts. Their confidence in QI increased; however, they reported difficulty retaining knowledge and skills. Survey scores related to usefulness and anticipated application of QI were unchanged from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This applied QI curriculum appeared to improve short-term learning. However, the curriculum did not promote long-term understanding of QI. Finding ways to promote skills and retention beyond the curriculum requires further study.

Defining and measuring core processes and structures in integrated behavioral health in primary care: a cross-model framework.

A movement towards integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care continues to grow, among an accumulating evidence base for its effectiveness for improving care. However, healthcare organizations struggle to navigate where to target their limited resources for improving integration. We evaluated a cross-model framework of IBH core processes and structures. We used a mixed-methods approach for evaluation of the framework, which included (a) an evaluation survey of national experts and stakeholders, (b) crosswalks with common IBH measures, and (c) a real-world usability test. Five core IBH principles, mapping to 25 processes, and nine clinic structures were defined. Survey responses from 29 IBH domain and policy experts and stakeholders resulted in uniformly high ratings of importance and variable levels of feasibility for measurement, particularly with respect to electronic health record (EHR) systems. A real-world usability test resulted in good uptake and use of the framework across a state-wide effort. An IBH Cross-Model Framework of core principles, processes, and structures generated good acceptability and showed good real-world utility in a state-wide effort to improve IBH across disparate levels of integration in diverse primary care settings. Findings identify feasible areas of measurement, particularly with EHR systems. Next steps include testing the relationship between the individual framework components and patient outcomes to help guide clinics towards prioritizing efforts focused on improving integration.

Order From Chaos: An Initiative to Improve Opioid Prescribing in Rheumatology Using Lean A3.

OBJECTIVE: Use an established quality improvement method, Lean A3, to improve the process of opioid prescribing in an academic rheumatology ambulatory clinic. METHODS: This retrospective pre-postintervention analysis of rheumatology records included patients prescribed opioids at least once during the study period. Lean A3 was used to develop a Controlled Substance Visit Protocol to standardize eight recommended elements of the opioid prescribing workflow. Analyses included changes in the recommended workflow elements and changes in opioid prescribing volume. RESULTS: Improvements were observed in seven of the eight recommended elements. Patient education, including treatment agreements and consent forms (39% completion for both preimplementation) increased to 78% and 80%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Risk assessment, as measured by the Current Opioid Misuse Measure, increased from 0.5% to 76% (P < 0.001). Best practices in prescribing, including prescribing in multiples of seven to avoid weekend refill requests, increased from 1% to 79% (P < 0.001). Monitoring parameters, including standardized functional assessment (0% vs. 86%), prescription drug monitoring program queries (49% vs. 84%), and urine testing (1% vs. 32%) all increased (P < 0.001). Visits scheduled at least quarterly for patients on chronic opioids did not change (P = 0.18). Overall, the number of patients prescribed opioids (185 vs. 160; P < 0.001) and annual prescription opioid morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) (1 933 585 MME vs. 1 386 368 MME; P < 0.001) decreased. CONCLUSION: The Lean A3 method is a successful quality improvement tool for improving and sustaining opioid prescribing within a single academic rheumatology clinic. This method has potential applicability to similar clinics interested in improving opioid prescribing.

Measuring the integration of primary care and behavioral health services.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a factor analysis of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a 30-item practice-level measure of primary care and behavioral health integration derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. DATA SOURCES: The PIP was completed by 735 individuals, representing 357 practices across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The study design was a cross-sectional survey. An exploratory factor analysis and assessment of internal consistency reliability via Cronbach's alpha were performed. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Participant responses were collected using REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture tool. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five of the PIP's six domains had factor loadings for most items related to each factor representing the PIP of 0.50 or greater. However, one factor had items from two PIP domains that had loadings >0.50. A five-factor model with redistributed items resulted in improved factor loadings for all domains along with greater internal consistency reliability (>0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Five of the PIP's six domains demonstrated excellent internal consistency for measures of health care resources. Although minor improvements to strengthen the PIP are possible, it is a valid and reliable measure of the integration of primary care and behavioral health.

Chronic care coordination by integrating care through a team-based, population-driven approach: a case study.

Patients with chronic conditions frequently experience behavioral comorbidities to which primary care cannot easily respond. This study observed a Vermont family medicine practice with integrated medical and behavioral health services that use a structured approach to implement a chronic care management system with Lean. The practice chose to pilot a population-based approach to improve outcomes for patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes using a stepped-care model with an interprofessional team including a community health nurse. This case study observed the team's use of Lean, with which it designed and piloted a clinical algorithm composed of patient self-assessment, endorsement of behavioral goals, shared documentation of goals and plans, and follow-up. The team redesigned workflows and measured reach (patients who engaged to the end of the pilot), outcomes (HbA1c results), and process (days between HbA1c tests). The researchers evaluated practice member self-reports about the use of Lean and facilitators and barriers to move from pilot to larger scale applications. Of 20 eligible patients recruited over 3 months, 10 agreed to participate and 9 engaged fully (45%); 106 patients were controls. Relative to controls, outcomes and process measures improved but lacked significance. Practice members identified barriers that prevented implementation of all changes needed but were in agreement that the pilot produced useful outcomes. A systematized, population-based, chronic care management service is feasible in a busy primary care practice. To test at scale, practice leadership will need to allocate staffing, invest in shared documentation, and standardize workflows to streamline office practice responsibilities.

Integrating Behavioral Health in Primary Care Using Lean Workflow Analysis: A Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care offices are integrating behavioral health (BH) clinicians into their practices. Implementing such a change is complex, difficult, and time consuming. Lean workflow analysis may be an efficient, effective, and acceptable method for use during integration. The objectives of this study were to observe BH integration into primary care and to measure its impact. METHODS: This was a prospective, mixed-methods case study in a primary care practice that served 8,426 patients over a 17-month period, with 652 patients referred to BH services. Secondary measures included primary care visits resulting in BH referrals, referrals resulting in scheduled appointments, time from referral to the scheduled appointment, and time from the referral to the first visit. Providers and staff were surveyed on the Lean method. RESULTS: Referrals increased from 23 to 37 per 1000 visits (P < .001). Referrals resulted in more scheduled (60% to 74%; P < .001) and arrived visits (44% to 53%; P = .025). Time from referral to the first scheduled visit decreased (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-1.88) as did time to first arrived visit (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.62). Survey responses and comments were positive. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot integration of BH showed significant improvements in treatment initiation and other measures. Strengths of Lean analysis included workflow improvement, system perspective, and project success. Further evaluation is indicated.

The Practice Integration Profile: Rationale, development, method, and research.

Insufficient knowledge exists regarding how to measure the presence and degree of integrated care. Prior estimates of integration levels are neither grounded in theory nor psychometrically validated. They provide scant guidance to inform improvement activities, compare integration efforts, discriminate among practices by degree of integration, measure the effect of integration on quadruple aim outcomes, or address the needs of clinicians, regulators, and policymakers seeking new models of health care delivery and funding. We describe the development of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a novel instrument designed to measure levels of integrated behavioral health care within a primary care clinic. The PIP draws upon the Agency for Health care Research & Quality's (AHRQ) Lexicon of Collaborative Care which provides theoretic justification for a paradigm case of collaborative care. We used the key clauses of the Lexicon to derive domains of integration and generate measures corresponding to those key clauses. After reviewing currently used methods for identifying collaborative care, or integration, and identifying the need to improve on them, we describe a national collaboration to describe and evaluate the PIP. We also describe its potential use in practice improvement, research, responsiveness to multiple stakeholder needs, and other future directions. (PsycINFO Database Record