Comparison of Patient Experience Between Primary Care Settings Tailored for Homeless Clientele and Mainstream Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: More than 1 million Americans receive primary care from federal homeless health care programs yearly. Vulnerabilities that can make care challenging include pain, addiction, psychological distress, and a lack of shelter. Research on the effectiveness of tailoring services for this population is limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine whether homeless-tailored primary care programs offer a superior patient experience compared with nontailored ("mainstream") programs overall, and for highly vulnerable patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: National patient survey comparing 26 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers' homeless-tailored primary care ("H-PACT"s) to mainstream primary care ("mainstream PACT"s) at the same locations. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5766 homeless-experienced veterans. MEASURES: Primary care experience on 4 scales: Patient-Clinician Relationship, Cooperation, Accessibility/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs. Mean scores (range: 1-4) were calculated and dichotomized as unfavorable versus not. We counted key vulnerabilities (chronic pain, unsheltered homelessness, severe psychological distress, and history of overdose, 0-4), and categorized homeless-experienced veterans as having fewer (≤1) and more (≥2) vulnerabilities. RESULTS: H-PACTs outscored mainstream PACTs on all scales (all P<0.001). Unfavorable care experiences were more common in mainstream PACTs compared with H-PACTs, with adjusted risk differences of 11.9% (95% CI=6.3-17.4), 12.6% (6.2-19.1), 11.7% (6.0-17.3), and 12.6% (6.2-19.1) for Relationship, Cooperation, Access/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs, respectively. For the Relationship and Cooperation scales, H-PACTs were associated with a greater reduction in unfavorable experience for patients with ≥2 vulnerabilities versus ≤1 (interaction P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that offer primary care for persons experiencing homelessness can improve the primary care experience by tailoring the design and delivery of services.

Staff perceptions implementing interprofessional team-based behavioural healthcare.

The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in 2013 mandated a nationwide implementation of interprofessional team-based care in the general mental health setting and officially endorsed the collaborative care model in 2015 to guide the coordinated and anticipatory care to be delivered by these teams. Front-line clinic staff are major stakeholders whose practices are most directly affected by this implementation and may or may not view teams as useful or feasible for their practice. Our objective was to examine their perspectives on delivering team-to-patient care in order to understand what system-level efforts can best support the transition to such care from the more conventional provider-to-patient care. We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with staff from general mental health clinics across three different VHA medical facilities. The interview questions focused on asking how care is organised and delivered at their clinic, their experiences in collaborating with other staff, and how the clinic handles changes. Four recurrent themes were identified: navigating workplace supervision, organisation, and role structures; continuing professional growth and relationships; delivering patient-focused care through education and connection to resources; and utilising information technology for communication and panel-based management. Quality improvement efforts were rarely discussed during the interviews. Our results indicate that staff's endorsement of the implementation of interprofessional care teams in general mental health settings may be strengthened through associated efforts targeted at enhancing their experiences aligned to these emergent themes.