Change in Patient Outcomes After Augmenting a Low-level Implementation Strategy in Community Practices That Are Slow to Adopt a Collaborative Chronic Care Model: A Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are essential for promoting the uptake of evidence-based practices and for patients to receive optimal care. Yet strategies differ substantially in their intensity and feasibility. Lower-intensity strategies (eg, training and technical support) are commonly used but may be insufficient for all clinics. Limited research has examined the comparative effectiveness of augmentations to low-level implementation strategies for nonresponding clinics. OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 augmentation strategies for improving uptake of an evidence-based collaborative chronic care model (CCM) on 18-month outcomes for patients with depression at community-based clinics nonresponsive to lower-level implementation support. RESEARCH DESIGN: Providers initially received support using a low-level implementation strategy, Replicating Effective Programs (REP). After 6 months, nonresponsive clinics were randomized to add either external facilitation (REP+EF) or external and internal facilitation (REP+EF/IF). MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient 12-item short form survey (SF-12) mental health score at month 18. Secondary outcomes were patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression score at month 18 and receipt of the CCM during months 6 through 18. RESULTS: Twenty-seven clinics were nonresponsive after 6 months of REP. Thirteen clinics (N=77 patients) were randomized to REP+EF and 14 (N=92) to REP+EF/IF. At 18 months, patients in the REP+EF/IF arm had worse SF-12 [diff, 8.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.59-13.18] and PHQ-9 scores (diff, 1.82; 95% CI, -0.14 to 3.79), and lower odds of CCM receipt (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.49) than REP+EF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at sites receiving the more intensive REP+EF/IF saw less improvement in mood symptoms at 18 months than those receiving REP+EF and were no more likely to receive the CCM. For community-based clinics, EF augmentation may be more feasible than EF/IF for implementing CCMs.

Correlates of Emergency Department Use by Individuals With Bipolar Disorder Enrolled in a Collaborative Care Implementation Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study assessed correlates of emergency department use among participants in a collaborative care program for bipolar disorder. METHODS: Community-based clinics from two states implemented Life Goals-Collaborative Care (LG-CC), an evidence-based model that includes self-management sessions and care management contacts. Logistic regression determined participant factors associated with emergency department use between six and 12 months after LG-CC implementation. RESULTS: Of 219 participants with baseline and 12-month data, 24% reported at least one emergency department visit. Participants with a recent homelessness history (odds ratio [OR]=3.76, p=.01) or five or more care management contacts (OR=2.62, p=.05) had a higher probability of visiting an emergency department, after the analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, including physical health score and hospitalization history. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in a collaborative care program who had a history of homelessness were more likely to use the emergency department, suggesting a greater need for more intensive care coordination.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Implementation Strategies to Promote Collaborative Care Attendance in Community Practices.

This randomized controlled implementation study compared the effectiveness of a standard versus enhanced version of the replicating effective programs (REP) implementation strategy to improve the uptake of the life goals-collaborative care model (LG-CC) for bipolar disorder. Seven community-based practices (384 patient participants) were randomized to standard (manual/training) or enhanced REP (customized manual/training/facilitation) to promote LG-CC implementation. Participants from enhanced REP sites had no significant changes in primary outcomes (improved quality of life, reduced functioning or mood symptoms) by 24 months. Further research is needed to determine whether implementation strategies can lead to sustained, improved participant outcomes in addition to program uptake.

Randomized controlled trial of a health plan-level mood disorders psychosocial intervention for solo or small practices.

BACKGROUND: Mood disorders represent the most expensive mental disorders for employer-based commercial health plans. Collaborative care models are effective in treating chronic physical and mental illnesses at little to no net healthcare cost, but to date have primarily been implemented by larger healthcare organizations in facility-based models. The majority of practices providing commercially insured care are far too small to implement such models. Health plan-level collaborative care treatment can address this unmet need. The goal of this study is to implement at the national commercial health plan level a collaborative care model to improve outcomes for persons with mood disorders. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care model versus usual care will be conducted among beneficiaries of a large national health plan from across the country seen by primary care or behavioral health practices. At discharge 344 patients identified by health plan claims as hospitalized for unipolar depression or bipolar disorder will be randomized to receive collaborative care (patient phone-based self-management support, care management, and guideline dissemination to practices delivered by a plan-level care manager) or usual care from their provider. Primary outcomes are changes in mood symptoms and mental health-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include rehospitalization, receipt of guideline-concordant care, and work productivity. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether a collaborative care model for mood disorders delivered at the national health plan level improves outcomes compared to usual care, and will inform a business case for collaborative care models for these settings that can reach patients wherever they receive treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02041962; registered January 3, 2014.

Protocol: Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): cluster randomized SMART trial comparing a standard versus enhanced implementation strategy to improve outcomes of a mood disorders program.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs), treatment and outcomes for persons with mental disorders remain suboptimal. Replicating Effective Programs (REP), an effective implementation strategy, still resulted in less than half of sites using an EBP. The primary aim of this cluster randomized trial is to determine, among sites not initially responding to REP, the effect of adaptive implementation strategies that begin with an External Facilitator (EF) or with an External Facilitator plus an Internal Facilitator (IF) on improved EBP use and patient outcomes in 12 months. METHODS/DESIGN: This study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to build an adaptive implementation strategy. The EBP to be implemented is life goals (LG) for patients with mood disorders across 80 community-based outpatient clinics (N = 1,600 patients) from different U.S. regions. Sites not initially responding to REP (defined as < 50% patients receiving ≥ 3 EBP sessions) will be randomized to receive additional support from an EF or both EF/IF. Additionally, sites randomized to EF and still not responsive will be randomized to continue with EF alone or to receive EF/IF. The EF provides technical expertise in adapting LG in routine practice, whereas the on-site IF has direct reporting relationships to site leadership to support LG use in routine practice. The primary outcome is mental health-related quality of life; secondary outcomes include receipt of LG sessions, mood symptoms, implementation costs, and organizational change. DISCUSSION: This study design will determine whether an off-site EF alone versus the addition of an on-site IF improves EBP uptake and patient outcomes among sites that do not respond initially to REP. It will also examine the value of delaying the provision of EF/IF for sites that continue to not respond despite EF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02151331.