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.

Payment strategies for behavioral health integration in hospital-affiliated and non-hospital-affiliated primary care practices.

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies-fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

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.

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.

Behavioral and mental health risk factor profiles among diverse primary care patients.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

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.

Health IT-Enabled Care Coordination: A National Survey of Patient-Centered Medical Home Clinicians.

PURPOSE: Health information technology (IT) offers promising tools for improving care coordination. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of 6 proposed care coordination objectives for stage 3 of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services electronic health record incentive program (Meaningful Use) related to referrals, notification of care from other facilities, patient clinical summaries, and patient dashboards. METHODS: We surveyed physician-owned and hospital/health system-affiliated primary care practices that achieved patient-centered medical home recognition and participated in the Meaningful Use program, and community health clinics with patient-centered medical home recognition (most with certified electronic health record systems). The response rate was 35.1%. We ascertained whether practices had implemented proposed objectives and perceptions of their importance. We analyzed the association of organizational and contextual factors with self-reported use of health IT to support care coordination activities. RESULTS: Although 78% of the 350 respondents viewed timely notification of hospital discharges as very important, only 48.7% used health IT systems to accomplish this task. The activity most frequently supported by health IT was providing clinical summaries to patients, in 76.6% of practices; however, merely 47.7% considered this activity very important. Greater use of health IT to support care coordination activities was positively associated with the presence of a nonclinician responsible for care coordination and the practice's capacity for systematic change. CONCLUSIONS: Even among practices having a strong commitment to the medical home model, the use of health IT to support care coordination objectives is not consistent. Health IT capabilities are not currently aligned with clinicians' priorities. Many practices will need financial and technical assistance for health IT to enhance care coordination.

The 5 R's: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world.

Research often fails to find its way into practice or policy in a timely way, if at all. Given the current pressure and pace of health care change, many authors have recommended different approaches to make health care research more relevant and rapid. An emerging standard for research, the "5 R's" is a synthesis of recommendations for care delivery research that (1) is relevant to stakeholders; (2) is rapid and recursive in application; (3) redefines rigor; (4) reports on resources required; and (5) is replicable. Relevance flows from substantive ongoing participation by stakeholders. Rapidity and recursiveness occur through accelerated design and peer reviews followed by short learning/implementation cycles through which questions and answers evolve over time. Rigor is the disciplined conduct of shared learning within the specific changing situations in diverse settings. Resource reporting includes costs of interventions. Replicability involves designing for the factors that may affect subsequent implementation of an intervention or program in different contexts. These R's of the research process are mutually reinforcing and can be supported by training that fosters collaborative and reciprocal relationships among researchers, implementers, and other stakeholders. In sum, a standard is emerging for research that is both rigorous and relevant. Consistent and bold application will increase the value, timeliness, and applicability of the research enterprise.

Conducting rapid, relevant research: lessons learned from the My Own Health Report project.

The lengthy and uncertain translation of research into clinical practice is well documented. Much of the current "gold standard" clinical research is slow, expensive, and lacks perceived relevance for practitioners and decision makers. In contrast, we summarize experiences conducting the My Own Health Report (MOHR) project to collect and address patient reported measures using principles of rapid, relevant pragmatic research. The methods used for rapid design and fielding of the MOHR project to improve attention to health behaviors and mental health are detailed. Within the multisite, pragmatic, implementation-focused MOHR study, we describe the four phases of the research and the key decisions made and actions taken within each. We provide concrete examples of how relevant research can be conducted transparently to rapidly provide information to practitioners. Data were collected and analyzed in 2013. The multisite (seven research centers partnered with 18 clinics) cluster randomized pragmatic delayed intervention trial was conducted in less than 18 months from receipt of funding applications to completion of data collection. Phases that were especially accelerated included funding and review, and recruitment and implementation. Conducting complex studies rapidly and efficiently is a realistic goal. Key lessons learned for prevention research include use of existing research networks; use of web-based assessment/feedback tools that are tailored to fit local needs; engaging relevant stakeholders early on and throughout the process to minimize need for redesign; and making pragmatic decisions that balance internal and external validity concerns rather than waiting for perfect solutions.

Real-world implementation and outcomes of health behavior and mental health assessment.

BACKGROUND: Assessing patient-reported health behaviors is a critical first step in prioritizing prevention in primary care. We assessed the feasibility of point-of-care behavioral health assessment in 9 diverse primary care practices, including 4 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), 4 practice-based research network practices, and a Department of Veterans Affairs practice. METHODS: In this prospective mixed-methods study, practices were asked to integrate a standardized paper-based health behavior and mental health assessment into their workflow for ≥50 patients. We used 3 data sources to examine the implementation process: (1) patient responses to the health assessment, (2) patient feedback surveys about how assessments were used during encounters, and (3) postimplementation interviews. RESULTS: Most nonurgent patients (71%) visiting the participating practices during the implementation period completed the health assessment, but reach varied by practice (range, 59% to 88%). Unhealthy diet, sedentary lifestyle, and stress were the most common patient problems, with similar frequencies observed across practices. The median number of "positive screens" per patient was similar among FQHCs (3.7 positives; standard deviation [SD], 1.8), practice-based research network practices (3.8 positives; SD, 1.9), and the Veterans Affairs clinic (4.1 positives; SD, 2.0). Primary care clinicians discussed assessment results with patients about half of the time (54%), with considerable variation between practices (range, 13% to 66%; lowest use among FQHC clinicians). Although clinicians were interested in routinely implementing assessments, many reported not feeling confident of having resources or support to address all patients' behavioral health needs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices will need to revamp their patient-reported data collection processes to integrate routine health behavior assessments. Implementation support will be required if health assessments are to be actively used as part of routine primary care.

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. METHODS: This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment--addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues--and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. DISCUSSION: The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746.

What does it mean to "employ" the RE-AIM model?

Many grant proposals identify the use of a given evaluation model or framework but offer little about how such models are implemented. The authors discuss what it means to employ a specific model, RE-AIM, and key dimensions from this model for program planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting. The authors report both conceptual and content specifications for the use of the RE-AIM model and a content review of 42 recent dissemination and implementation grant applications to National Institutes of Health that proposed the use of this model. Outcomes include the extent to which proposals addressed the overall RE-AIM model and specific items within the five dimensions in their methods or evaluation plans. The majority of grants used only some elements of the model (less than 10% contained thorough measures across all RE-AIM dimensions). Few met criteria for "fully developed use" of RE-AIM and the percentage of key issues addressed varied from, on average, 45% to 78% across the RE-AIM dimensions. The results and discussion of key criteria should help investigators in their use of RE-AIM and illuminate the broader issue of comprehensive use of evaluation models.

Mental health care treatment initiation when mental health services are incorporated into primary care practice.

PURPOSE: Most primary care patients with mental health issues are identified or treated in primary care rather than the specialty mental health system. Primary care physicians report that their patients do not have access to needed mental health care. When referrals are made to the specialty behavioral or mental health care system, rates of patients who initiate treatment are low. Collaborative care models, with mental health clinicians as part of the primary care medical staff, have been suggested as an alternative. The aim of this study is to examine rates of treatment startup in 2 collaborative care settings: a rural family medicine office and a suburban internal medicine office. In both practices referrals for mental health services are made within the practice. METHODS: Referral data were drawn from 2 convenience samples of patients referred by primary care physicians for collaborative mental health treatment at Fletcher Allen Health Care in Vermont. The first sample consisted of 93 consecutively scheduled referrals in a family medicine office (sample A) between January 2006 and December 2007. The second sample consisted of 215 consecutive scheduled referrals at an internal medicine office (sample B) between January 2009 and December 2009. Referral data identified age, sex, and presenting mental health/medical problem. RESULTS: In sample A, 95.5% of those patients scheduling appointments began behavioral health treatment; in sample B this percentage was 82%. In sample B, 69% of all patients initially referred for mental health care both scheduled and initiated treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When referred to a mental health clinician who provides on-site access as part of a primary care mental health collaborative care model, a high percentage of patients referred scheduled care. Furthermore, of those who scheduled care, a high percentage of patients attend the scheduled appointment. Findings persist despite differences in practice type, populations, locations, and time frames of data collection. That the findings persist across the different offices suggests that this model of care may contain elements that improve the longstanding problem of poor treatment initiation rates when primary care physicians refer patients for outpatient behavioral health services.

The problem of integrating behavioral health in the medical home and the questions it leads to.

Psychology and other behavioral health professions have amassed a broad empirical and clinical literature suggesting many medical presentations are best responded to with the addition of evidence based behavioral interventions. Despite this, psychology has not achieved a regular presence as part of medical practice. We suggest specific reasons for the current state of affairs including clinical, operational, societal labels, financial and training dimensions. Medical, psychological, administrative, and financial perspectives are reviewed. If the goals of health care system reform are to be reached then we must identify and challenge the current limitations of health care. This paper will identify the elements that need to be changed in order for psychology to be integrated into medicine rather than excluded from its policy, planning and operations.

The difficulty of making psychology research and clinical practice relevant to medicine: experiences and observations.

Psychology and medicine research and practice have demonstrated substantial and unique bodies of knowledge designed to both improve patient care and respond to contemporary health care needs for use of evidence and cost consciousness. At their full potential they represent a significant paradigm shift in healthcare. Despite impressive successes, it is clear that we are just on the cusp of such a change. These findings have had limited impact and penetration into medical practice, particularly outside of academic medicine and large, organized systems of health care, and there are multiple examples of such limitations in various arenas of health care. There also appear to be common themes to such examples which provide us opportunities to consider how psychologists might move things ahead. They also suggest how our unique position in academic medicine can both limit our impact and provide ways of creating continued shifts in the healthcare paradigm.

Conversational assessment of hypnotic ability to promote hypnotic responsiveness.

In this article, hypnotic responsiveness is conceptualized as the byproduct of hypnotic ability, which is largely unalterable, plus hypnotic participation, which is highly subject to manipulation in the therapeutic context. This framework constitutes the basis of a model for the conversational assessment of hypnotic ability and hypnotic participation, as well as the subsequent tailoring of therapeutic interventions based on that assessment. Specific clinical steps for implementing activities implied by the model are explained and then demonstrated by way of a case example.