Testing an Intervention to Improve Health Care Worker Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stress First Aid is an evidence-informed peer-to-peer support intervention to mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of health care workers (HCWs). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored peer-to-peer support intervention compared with usual care to support HCWs' well-being at hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial comprised 3 cohorts of HCWs who were enrolled from March 2021 through July 2022 at 28 hospitals and FQHCs in the US. Participating sites were matched as pairs by type, size, and COVID-19 burden and then randomized to the intervention arm or usual care arm (any programs already in place to support HCW well-being). The HCWs were surveyed before and after peer-to-peer support intervention implementation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to evaluate the intervention's effect on outcomes, including general psychological distress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intervention: The peer-to-peer support intervention was delivered to HCWs by site champions who received training and subsequently trained the HCWs at their site. Recipients of the intervention were taught to respond to their own and their peers' stress reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were general psychological distress and PTSD. General psychological distress was measured with the Kessler 6 instrument, and PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist. Results: A total of 28 hospitals and FQHCs with 2077 HCWs participated. Both preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 2077 HCWs, for an overall response rate of 28% (41% at FQHCs and 26% at hospitals). A total of 862 individuals (696 females [80.7%]) were from sites that were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.86 (5.70) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.11 (16.07). A total of 1215 individuals (947 females [78.2%]) were from sites assigned to the usual care arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.98 (5.62) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.40 (16.43). Adherence to the intervention was 70% for FQHCs and 32% for hospitals. The ITT analyses revealed no overall treatment effect for psychological distress score (0.238 [95% CI, -0.310 to 0.785] points) or PTSD symptom score (0.189 [95% CI, -1.068 to 1.446] points). Post hoc analyses examined the heterogeneity of treatment effect by age group with consistent age effects observed across primary outcomes (psychological distress and PTSD). Among HCWs in FQHCs, there were significant and clinically meaningful treatment effects for HCWs 30 years or younger: a more than 4-point reduction for psychological distress (-4.552 [95% CI, -8.067 to -1.037]) and a nearly 7-point reduction for PTSD symptom scores (-6.771 [95% CI, -13.224 to -0.318]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial found that this peer-to-peer support intervention did not improve well-being outcomes for HCWs overall but had a protective effect against general psychological distress and PTSD in HCWs aged 30 years or younger in FQHCs, which had higher intervention adherence. Incorporating this peer-to-peer support intervention into medical training, with ongoing support over time, may yield beneficial results in both standard care and during public health crises. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04723576.

'You just don't feel like your work goes recognised': healthcare worker experiences of tension related to public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the impact of public discourse and reaction around the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare worker (HCW) experiences and well-being caring for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted 60 min in-depth interviews with 11 physicians and 12 nurses who were providing care to patients with COVID-19 in acute care settings at two health systems in the Western USA. Interviews were conducted in Spring-Summer 2022 using a semi-structured interview protocol that guided respondents through different stages of the pandemic. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the data around providing care in the unique social context of the COVID-19 pandemic including: (1) public polarisation and disagreement with science; (2) feelings of hope and optimism during the pandemic and (3) the compounded strain of providing care within this unique social context of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: To prepare for future pandemics, improved public health communications and social-emotional supports for HCWs are critical to ameliorate the physical and emotional impacts related to the social context of modern US pandemic response.

Impact of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement on Tailoring VA's Patient-Centered Medical Home Model to Women Veterans' Needs.

BACKGROUND: Women Veterans' numerical minority, high rates of military sexual trauma, and gender-specific healthcare needs have complicated implementation of comprehensive primary care (PC) under VA's patient-centered medical home model, Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). OBJECTIVE: We deployed an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to tailor PACT to meet women Veterans' needs and studied its effects on women's health (WH) care readiness, team-based care, and burnout. DESIGN: We evaluated EBQI effectiveness in a cluster randomized trial with unbalanced random allocation of 12 VAMCs (8 EBQI vs. 4 control). Clinicians/staff completed web-based surveys at baseline (2014) and 24 months (2016). We adjusted for individual-level covariates (e.g., years at VA) and weighted for non-response in difference-in-difference analyses for readiness and team-based care overall and by teamlet type (mixed-gender PC-PACTs vs. women-only WH-PACTs), as well as post-only burnout comparisons. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed all clinicians/staff in general PC and WH clinics. INTERVENTION: EBQI involved structured engagement of multilevel, multidisciplinary stakeholders at network, VAMC, and clinic levels toward network-specific QI roadmaps. The research team provided QI training, formative feedback, and external practice facilitation, and support for cross-site collaboration calls to VAMC-level QI teams, which developed roadmap-linked projects adapted to local contexts. MAIN MEASURES: WH care readiness (confidence providing WH care, self-efficacy implementing PACT for women, barriers to providing care for women, gender sensitivity); team-based care (change-readiness, communication, decision-making, PACT-related QI, functioning); burnout. KEY RESULTS: Overall, EBQI had mixed effects which varied substantively by type of PACT. In PC-PACTs, EBQI increased self-efficacy implementing PACT for women and gender sensitivity, even as it lowered confidence. In contrast, in WH-PACTs, EBQI improved change-readiness, team-based communication, and functioning, and was associated with lower burnout. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI effectiveness varied, with WH-PACTs experiencing broader benefits and PC-PACTs improving basic WH care readiness. Lower confidence delivering WH care by PC-PACT members warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data in this paper represent results from a cluster randomized controlled trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02039856).

Design of a hybrid implementation effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial of delivering written exposure therapy for PTSD in underserved primary care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) results in substantial costs to society. Prevalence of PTSD among adults is high, especially among those presenting to primary care settings. Evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for PTSD are available but dissemination and implementation within primary care settings is challenging. Building Experience for Treating Trauma and Enhancing Resilience (BETTER) examines the effectiveness of integrating Written Exposure Therapy (WET) within primary care collaborative care management (CoCM). WET is a brief exposure-based treatment that has the potential to address many challenges of delivering PTSD EBPs within primary care settings. METHODS: The study is a hybrid implementation effectiveness cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 12 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) will be randomized to either CoCM plus WET (CoCM+WET) or CoCM only with 60 patients within each FQHC. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of CoCM+WET to improve PTSD and depression symptom severity. Secondary treatment outcomes are mental and physical health functioning. The second study aim is to examine implementation of WET within FQHCs using FQHC process data and staff interviews pre- and post-intervention. Exploratory aims are to examine potential moderators and mediators of the intervention. Assessments occur at baseline, and 3- and 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The study has the potential to impact practice and improve clinical and public health outcomes. By establishing the effectiveness and feasibility of delivering a brief trauma-focused EBP embedded within CoCM in primary care, the study aims to improve PTSD outcomes for underserved patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT05330442).

Findings from an Organizational Context Survey to Inform the Implementation of a Collaborative Care Study for Co-occurring Disorders.

Primary care is an opportune setting to deliver treatments for co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders; however, treatment delivery can be challenging due multi-level implementation barriers. Documenting organizational context can provide insight into implementation barriers and the adaptation of new processes into usual care workflows. This study surveyed primary care and behavioral health staff from 13 clinics implementing a collaborative care intervention for opioid use disorders co-occurring with PTSD and/or depression as part of a multisite randomized controlled trial. A total of 323 completed an online survey for a 60% response rate. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided this assessment of multi-level factors that influence implementation. Most areas for improvement focused on inner setting (organizational level) constructs whereas individual-level constructs tended to be strengths. This work addresses a research gap regarding how organizational analyses can be used prior to implementation and provides practical implications for researchers and clinic leaders.

Design of CLARO+ (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses, Plus): A randomized trial of collaborative care to decrease overdose and suicide risk among patients with co-occurring disorders.

BACKGROUND: The United States is mired in two intertwined epidemics of death from suicide and overdose. Opioid use disorder (OUD) and mental illness contribute to both, and individuals with co-occurring disorders (CODs) are a complex population at high risk. Although universal prevention makes sense from a public health perspective, medical and behavioral health providers often lack the time to proactively address these issues with all patients. In this study, we build upon a parent study called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO), a model of collaborative care in which care coordinators deliver preventative measures to high-risk patients and coordinate care with the patients' care team, with the goal of increasing MOUD retention and decreasing risk of suicide and overdose. METHODS: CLARO+ adds intervention components on overdose prevention, recognition, and response training; lethal means safety counseling; and an effort to mail compassionate messages called Caring Contacts. Both CLARO and CLARO+ have been implemented at 17 clinics in New Mexico and California, and this study seeks to determine the difference in effectiveness between the two versions of the intervention. This paper describes the design protocol for CLARO+. CONCLUSION: CLARO+ is an innovative approach that aims to supplement existing collaborative care with additional suicide and overdose prevention strategies. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04559893.

US Military Healthcare Professionals' Practice, Knowledge, and Misconceptions About Concussion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the US military healthcare professionals' knowledge and training preferences to improve diagnosis and management of concussion sustained in nondeployed settings. PARTICIPANTS: US military healthcare professionals (physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) completed online surveys to investigate practices, knowledge, and attitudes about concussion diagnosis and treatment, as well as preferences on future training. There were 744 responses from active duty US military healthcare providers, all of whom had cared for at least one patient with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the previous 24 months. RESULTS: The majority of physicians reported they were confident in their ability to evaluate a patient for a new mTBI (82.1%) and order appropriate imaging for mTBI (78.3%). Accuracy of identifying "red flag" symptoms ranged between 28.2% and 92.6%. A Likert scale from 1 ("not at all confident") to 4 ("very confident") was used to assess providers' confidence in their ability to perform services for patients with mTBI. With respect to barriers to optimal patient care, nurse practitioners consistently reported highest levels of barriers (90.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Although US military providers regularly care for patients with concussion, many report experiencing barriers to providing care, low confidence in basic skills, and inadequate training to diagnose and manage these patients. Customized provider education based on branch of service and occupation, and broader dissemination and utilization of decision support tools or practice guidelines, and patient information tool kits could help improve concussion care.

Screening for opioid use disorder and co-occurring depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in primary care in New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients in primary care services with opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders is critical to providing treatment. Objectives of this study were to (1) assess the feasibility of recruiting people to screen in-person for opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders (depression and/or post-traumatic stress disorder) in primary care clinic waiting rooms in preparation for a randomized controlled trial, and (2) compare results of detecting these disorders by universal in-person screening compared to electronic health record (EHR) diagnoses. METHODS: This cross-sectional feasibility and pilot study recruited participants from four primary care clinics, two rural and two urban, from three health care organizations in New Mexico. Inclusion criteria were adults (≥ 18 years), attending one of the four clinics as a patient, and who spoke English or Spanish. Exclusion criteria were people attending the clinic for a non-primary care visit (e.g., dental, prescription pick up, social support). The main outcomes and measures were (1) recruitment feasibility which was assessed by frequencies and proportions of people approached and consented for in-person screening, and (2) relative differences of detecting opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders in waiting rooms relative to aggregate EHR data from each clinic, measured by prevalence and prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Over two-weeks, 1478 potential participants were approached and 1145 were consented and screened (77.5% of patients approached). Probable opioid use disorder and co-occurring mental health disorders were identified in 2.4% of those screened compared to 0.8% in EHR. Similarly, universal screening relative to EHR identified higher proportions of probable opioid use disorder (4.5% vs. 3.4%), depression (17.5% vs. 12.7%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (19.0% vs. 3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for opioid use disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder was feasible, and identified three times as many patients with these co-occurring disorders compared to EHR. Higher proportions of each condition were also identified, especially post-traumatic stress disorder. Results support that there are likely gaps in identification of these disorders in primary care services and demonstrate the need to better address the persistent public health problem of these co-occurring disorders.

Predictors of burnout among US healthcare providers: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: One potential barrier to optimal healthcare may be provider burnout or occupational-related stress in the workplace. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review to identify the predictors of burnout among US. healthcare providers. DESIGN: Systematic review using in-depth critical appraisal to assess risk of bias and present the quality of evidence in synthesised results from the prognostic studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched 11 databases, registries, existing reviews and contacted experts through 4 October 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included all studies evaluating potential predictors and documenting the presence and absence of associations with burnout assessed as a multidimensional construct. We excluded studies that relied solely on a single continuous subscale of burnout. Data were abstracted from eligible studies and checked for accuracy by a content expert and a methodologist. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-text publications using predetermined eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The 141 identified studies evaluated a range of burnout predictors. Findings for demographic characteristics were conflicting or show no association. Workplace factors, such as workload, work/life balance, job autonomy and perceived support from leadership, had stronger associations with risk for burnout. Mental health factors, such as anxiety, and physical health risks may increase the risk, although the direction of these associations is unclear as few prospective studies exist to address this question. Factors such as social support appear to have a protective effect. CONCLUSION: We found the most evidence for workplace, mental health and psychosocial factors in predicting burnout but limited evidence for other potential predictors. However, more prospective studies are needed to improve our understanding about how to prevent provider burnout. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD4202014836.

Protecting the mental and physical well-being of frontline health care workers during COVID-19: Study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers. METHODS: We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a "train the trainer" model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Clinicaltrials.govNCT04723576).

Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO): process of adapting collaborative care for co-occurring opioid use and mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use disorders (OUD), co-occurring with either depression and/or PTSD, are prevalent, burdensome, and often receive little or low-quality care. Collaborative care is a service delivery intervention that uses a team-based model to improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes in primary care patients, but has not been evaluated for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. To address this treatment and quality gap, we adapted collaborative care for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. METHODS: Our adapted model is called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO). We used the five-step Map of Adaptation Process (McKleroy in AIDS Educ Prev 18:59-73, 2006) to develop the model. For each step, our stakeholder team of research and clinical experts, primary care partners, and patients provided input into adaptation processes (e.g., adaptation team meetings, clinic partner feedback, patient interviews and beta-testing). To document each adaptation and our decision-making process, we used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (Wiltsey Stirman in Implement Sci 14:1-10, 2019). RESULTS: We documented 12 planned fidelity-consistent adaptations to collaborative care, including a mix of content, context, and training/evaluation modifications intended to improve fit with the patient population (co-occurring disorders) or the New Mexico setting (low-resource clinics in health professional shortage areas). Examples of documented adaptations include use of community health workers as care coordinators; an expanded consultant team to support task-shifting to community health workers; modified training protocols for Problem-Solving Therapy and Written Exposure Therapy to incorporate examples of treating patients for depression or PTSD with co-occurring OUD; and having care coordinators screen for patients' social needs. CONCLUSIONS: We completed the first three steps of the Map of Adaptation Process, resulting in a variety of adaptations that we believe will make collaborative care more acceptable and feasible in treating co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. Future steps include evaluating the effectiveness of CLARO and documenting reactive and/or planned adaptations to the model that occur during its implementation and delivery. Trial registration NCT04559893, NCT04634279. Registered 08 September 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04559893.

Trauma-informed Collaborative Care for African American Primary Care Patients in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: African Americans have nearly double the rate of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with other racial/ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether trauma-informed collaborative care (TICC) is effective for improving PTSD among African Americans in New Orleans who receive their care in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). DESIGN AND METHOD: In this pilot randomized controlled trial, we assigned patients within a single site to either TICC or to enhanced usual care (EUC). We performed intent to treat analysis by nonparametric exact tests for small sample sizes. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 42 patients from October 12, 2018, through July 2, 2019. Patients were eligible if they considered the clinic their usual source of care, had no obvious physical or cognitive obstacles that would prevent participation, were age 18 or over, self-identified as African American, and had a provisional diagnosis of PTSD. MEASURES: Our primary outcome measures were PTSD measured as both a symptom score and a provisional diagnosis based on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). KEY RESULTS: Nine months following baseline, both PTSD symptom scores and provisional PTSD diagnosis rates decreased substantially more for patients in TICC than in EUC. The decreases were by 26 points in EUC and 36 points in TICC for symptoms (P=0.08) and 33% in EUC and 57% in TICC for diagnosis rates (P=0.27). We found no effects for mediator variables. CONCLUSIONS: TICC shows promise for addressing PTSD in this population. A larger-scale trial is needed to fully assess the effectiveness of this approach in these settings.

Discontinuity of Women Veterans' Care in Patient-Centered Medical Homes: Does Workforce Gender Sensitivity Matter?

BACKGROUND: Prior research has found that 25% of women veterans who are new to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system discontinue services within 3 years of initial use. Although it has been suggested that providing more gender-sensitive care might improve women veterans' health care experiences, no study has yet documented an empirical relationship between clinic and provider factors associated with the provision of gender-sensitive care and women veterans' care discontinuity. METHODS: Surveys of primary care providers (n = 82) and staff members (n = 108) from 12 VA medical centers were linked to administrative data for women veteran patients with at least one primary care visit in 2014 and 2015 (n = 9,958). Patient care discontinuity was operationalized as having no additional primary care visit within 3 years after the patient's baseline visit. Key indicators of gender-sensitive comprehensive primary care included type of medical home (women's health-focused vs. general primary care), workforce gender sensitivity, team functioning, perceived quality of provider/staff communication, leadership support for medical home implementation, and other structural components of care delivery (e.g., chaperone availability). We used logistic regression to assess the association between these indicators and women's care discontinuity, measuring discontinuity for both new and continuing VA users and controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Eleven percent of women patients discontinued primary care within 3 years. Poor workforce gender sensitivity (lowest quartile vs. top three quartiles) was significantly associated with higher odds of discontinuity (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.57); other indicators were not associated with discontinuity. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to document a relationship between workforce gender sensitivity and women veterans' care continuity. This finding underscores the need for additional attention to enhancing workforce gender sensitivity in VA.

Can Using an Intensive Management Program Improve Primary Care Staff Experiences With Caring for High-Risk Patients?

BACKGROUND: Complex, high-risk patients present challenges for primary care staff. Intensive outpatient management teams aim to serve as a resource for usual primary care to improve care for high-risk patients without adding burden to the primary care staff. Whether such assistance can influence the primary care staff experiences is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine improvement in job satisfaction and intent to stay for primary care staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who sought assistance from an intensive management program. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of a staff cohort that completed 2 cross-sectional surveys 18 months apart, controlling for outcomes at time 1. Participants included 144 primary care providers at 5 geographically diverse VA health care systems who completed both surveys. Measured outcomes included job satisfaction and intent to stay within primary care at the VA (measured at time 2). Predictors included likelihood of using intensive management teams (measured at time 1). Covariates included outcomes and professional/practice characteristics (measured at time 1). RESULTS: The response rate for primary care staff that completed both surveys was 21%. Staff who indicated at time 1 that they were more likely to use intensive management teams for high-risk patients reported significantly higher satisfaction and intention to stay at VA primary care at time 2 (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A VA primary care workforce might benefit from assistance from intensive management teams for high-risk patients. Additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which primary care staff benefit and how to optimize them.

Design of CLARO (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from other Stresses): A randomized trial of collaborative care for opioid use disorder and co-occurring depression and/or posttraumatic stress disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid use disorder (OUD) co-occurring with depression and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common and, if untreated, may lead to devastating consequences. Despite the availability of evidence-based treatments for these disorders, receipt of treatment is low. Even when treatment is provided, quality is variable. Primary care is an important and underutilized setting for treating co-occurring disorders (COD) because OUD, depression and PTSD are frequently co-morbid with medical conditions and most people visit a primary care provider at least once a year. With rising rates of OUD and opioid-related fatalities, this is a critical treatment and quality gap in a vulnerable and stigmatized population. METHODS: CLARO (Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses) is a multi-site, randomized pragmatic trial of collaborative care (CC) for co-occurring disorders in 13 rural and urban primary care clinics in New Mexico to improve care for patients with OUD and co-occurring depression and/or PTSD. CC, a service delivery approach that uses multi-faceted interventions, has not been tested with COD. We will enroll and randomize 900 patients to either CC adapted for COD (CC-COD) or enhanced usual care (EUC) and will collect patient data at baseline, 3-, and 6-month follow-up. Our primary outcomes are medications for OUD (MOUD) access, MOUD continuity of care, depression symptoms, and PTSD symptoms. DISCUSSION: Although CC is effective for improving outcomes in primary care among patients with mental health conditions, it has not been tested for COD. This article describes the CLARO CC-COD intervention and clinical trial.

Association Between Difficulty with VA Patient-Centered Medical Home Model Components and Provider Emotional Exhaustion and Intent to Remain in Practice.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is intended to improve primary care, but evidence of its effects on provider well-being is mixed. Investigating the relationships between specific PCMH components and provider burnout and potential attrition may help improve the efficacy of the care model. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed provider attitudes toward specific components of PCMH in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and their relation to emotional exhaustion (EE)-a central component of burnout-and intent to remain in VA primary care. DESIGN: Logistic regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: 116 providers (physicians; nurse practitioners; physician assistants) in 21 practices between September 2015 and January 2016 in one VA region. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes: burnout as measured with the emotional exhaustion (EE) subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and intent to remain in VA primary care for the next 2 years; predictors: difficulties with components of PCMH, demographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Forty percent of providers reported high EE (≥ 27 points) and 63% reported an intent to remain in VA primary care for the next 2 years. Providers reporting high difficultly with PCMH elements were more likely to report high EE, for example, coordinating with specialists (odds ratio [OR] 8.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.58-19.33), responding to EHR alerts (OR 6.88; 95% CI 1.93-24.43), and managing unscheduled visits (OR 7.53, 95% CI 2.01-28.23). Providers who reported high EE were also 87% less likely to intend to remain in VA primary care. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce EE and turnover in PCMH, primary care providers may need additional support and training to address challenges with specific aspects of the model.

Understanding Gender Sensitivity of the Health Care Workforce at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Gender sensitivity of providers and staff has assumed increasing importance in closing historical gender disparities in health care quality and outcomes. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented several initiatives intended to improve gender sensitivity of its health care workforce. The current study examines practice- and individual-level characteristics associated with gender sensitivity of primary care providers (PCPs) and staff. METHODS: We surveyed PCPs and staff (nurses, medical assistants, and clerks) at 12 VA medical centers (VAMCs) (n = 256 of 649; response rate, 39%). Gender sensitivity was measured using a 10-item scale adapted from the Gender Awareness Inventory-VA. We used weighted multivariate regression with maximum likelihood estimation to identify individual- and practice-level characteristics associated with gender sensitivity of PCPs and staff. RESULTS: PCPs and staff had similar gender sensitivity but differed in most characteristics associated with that gender sensitivity. Among PCPs, women's health training and positive communication with others in the clinic were associated with greater gender sensitivity. For staff, prior work experience caring for women, working in Women's Health Patient-Aligned Care Teams, and rural location were associated with greater gender sensitivity, whereas more years of VA service was associated with lower gender sensitivity. Working at VA medical centers with a higher volume of women veteran patients was associated with greater gender sensitivity for both PCPs and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Women's health training and experience in working with other women's health professionals are strongly correlated with greater gender sensitivity in the clinical workforce.

Understanding Which Teenagers Benefit Most From a Brief Primary Care Substance Use Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The primary care (PC) setting provides an opportunity to address adolescent alcohol and marijuana use. We examined moderators of effectiveness for a PC brief motivational intervention on adolescents' alcohol and marijuana use and consequences 1 year later. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 4 PC clinics from April 2013 to November 2015 and followed adolescents using Web-based surveys. We examined whether demographic factors and severity of use moderated 12-month outcomes. Adolescents aged 12 through 18 were screened by using the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Screening Guide. Those identified as at risk were randomly assigned to the intervention (CHAT) or to usual care (UC). RESULTS: The sample (n = 294) was 58% female, 66% Hispanic, 17% African American, 12% white, and 5% multiethnic or of other race with an average age of 16 years. After controlling for baseline values of outcomes, teens in CHAT who reported more negative consequences from drinking or had an alcohol use disorder at baseline reported less alcohol use, heavy drinking, and consequences 1 year later compared with teens in UC. Similarly, teens in CHAT with more negative consequences from marijuana use at baseline reported less marijuana use 1 year later compared with teens in UC; however, teens in CHAT who reported fewer marijuana consequences at baseline reported greater marijuana use 1 year later compared with teens in UC. CONCLUSIONS: A brief intervention can be efficacious over the long-term for adolescents who report problems from alcohol and marijuana use. Findings emphasize the importance of both screening and intervention in at-risk adolescents in PC.

Adolescents with better mental health have less problem alcohol use six months later.

PURPOSE: Adolescents who report having mental health problems, including depression and anxiety, are at greater risk of alcohol use. We examined the longitudinal association between mental health and alcohol use six months later in a diverse adolescent sample attending a primary care appointment. The primary care setting provides a unique opportunity to reach this younger age group and address risk factors, including mental health problems and substance use. METHODS: Adolescents aged 12-18 (n = 668) recruited from waiting rooms at four primary care clinics in Los Angeles, California and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania completed a baseline web-based survey (April 2013 to November 2015) and another survey six months later. Bivariate analysis and multi-variable regression assessed associations between baseline mental health and 6-month alcohol use outcomes (any use, heavy use, and maximum quantity). RESULTS: Adolescents were stratified by mental health scores using the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) cut off at baseline. In unadjusted analyses of alcohol outcomes at six months, adolescents with more mental health problems reported higher alcohol use across all three measures (p < .01 for heavy use; p < .05 for any use and maximum quantity used). Adolescents' reports of better mental health at baseline were associated with fewer heavy drinking episodes (p < .05) and lower maximum number of drinks (p < .05) at six months, after adjusting for baseline alcohol use, intervention group, site, and demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing mental health in primary care may be important for decreasing alcohol problems in adolescents. Strategies for facilitating screening and intervention with adolescents at-risk of alcohol use are warranted.

Is the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Screening Guide Useful for Identifying Adolescents at Risk for Later Cigarette Smoking? A Prospective Study in Primary Care Clinics.

OBJECTIVES: This paper evaluated whether a 2-item assessment of alcohol use risk, developed by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA SG), prospectively predicted smoking status among a sample of adolescents visiting their primary care physician. METHODS: We analyzed a sample of 651 adolescents (57.80% female; 56.53% Hispanic, 22.73% African American, 14.44% White, 6.30% other) who completed the NIAAA SG at a baseline appointment and were assessed for future smoking risk. We obtained prospective data on smoking status using data from the 6-month post-baseline follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses revealed that adolescents who were identified as at risk by the NIAAA SG were more likely to report smoking within 6 months. However, the association between the NIAAA SG and future smoking status became non-significant after controlling for future smoking risk measured at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Questions that ask about past smoking and future smoking intentions are best used to screen adolescents in primary care for smoking risk.