Sustaining the collaborative chronic care model in outpatient mental health: a matrixed multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends. RESULTS: CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

A Cost Comparison Between Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Conventional Excision for the Treatment of Head and Neck Melanomas In Situ and Thin Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Variation in operative setting and surgical technique exists when treating specialty site melanomas. There are limited data comparing costs among surgical modalities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs of head and neck melanoma surgery performed with Mohs micrographic surgery or conventional excision in the operating room or office-based settings. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients aged 18 years and older with surgically treated head and neck melanoma in 2 cohorts, an institutional cohort and an insurance claims cohort, for the years 2008-2019. The primary outcome was total cost of care for a surgical encounter, provided in the form of insurance reimbursement data. A generalized linear model was used to adjust for covariates affecting differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: In the institutional and insurance claims cohorts, average adjusted treatment cost was highest in the conventional excision-operating room treatment group, followed by the Mohs surgery and conventional excision-office setting ( p < .001). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the important economic role the office-based setting has for head and neck melanoma surgery. This study allows cutaneous oncologic surgeons to better understand the costs of care involved in head and neck melanoma treatment. Cost awareness is important for shared decision-making discussions with patients.

Developing Relational Coordination: A Qualitative Study of Outpatient Mental Health Teams.

Previous studies have shown Relational Coordination improves team functioning in healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to examine the relational factors needed to support team functioning in outpatient mental health care teams with low staffing ratios. We interviewed interdisciplinary mental health teams that had achieved high team functioning despite low staffing ratios in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. We conducted qualitative interviews with 21 interdisciplinary team members across three teams within two medical centers. We used directed content analysis to code the transcripts with a priori codes based on the Relational Coordination dimensions, while also being attentive to emergent themes. We found that all seven dimensions of Relational Coordination were relevant to improved team functioning: frequent communication, timely communication, accurate communication, problem-solving communication, shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect. Participants also described these dimensions as reciprocal processes that influenced each other. In conclusion, relational Coordination dimensions can play pivotal roles in improving team functioning both individually and in combination. Communication dimensions were a catalyst for developing relationship dimensions; once relationships were developed, there was a mutually reinforcing cycle between communication and relationship dimensions. Our results suggest that establishing high-functioning mental health care teams, even in low-staffed settings, requires encouraging frequent communication within teams. Moreover, attention should be given to ensuring appropriate representation of disciplines among leadership and defining roles of team members when teams are formed.

Interorganizational Care Coordination of Rural Veterans by Veterans Affairs and Community Care Programs: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In the unique context of rural Veterans' health care needs, expansion of US Department of Veterans Affairs and Community Care programs under the MISSION Act, and the uncertainties of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is critical to understand what may support effective interorganizational care coordination for increased access to high-quality care. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review to examine the interorganizational care coordination initiatives that Veterans Affairs (VA) and community partners have pursued in caring for rural Veterans, including challenges and opportunities, organizational domains shaping care coordination, and among these, initiatives that improve or impede health care outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2009 and May 2020. Building on prior research, we conducted a systematic review. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met our criteria. Each captured a unique health care focus while examining common challenges. Four organizational domains emerged: policy and administration, culture, mechanisms, and relational practices. Exemplars highlight how initiatives improve or impede rural health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review, to our knowledge, examining interorganizational care coordination of rural Veterans by VA and Community Care programs. Results provide exemplars of interorganizational care coordination domains and program effectiveness. It suggests that partners' efforts to align their coordination domains can improve health care, with rurality serving as a critical contextual factor. Findings are important for policies, practices, and research of VA and Community Care partners committed to improving access and health care for rural Veterans.

Provider Perceptions of Virtual Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Multispecialty Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual care (VC) across outpatient specialties, but little is known regarding provider acceptance of VC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess provider perceptions of the quality, efficiency, and challenges of VC versus in-person care with masks. DESIGN: This was a voluntary survey. PARTICIPANTS: Mental health (MH), primary care, medical specialty, and surgical specialty providers across the 8 VA New England Healthcare System medical centers. MEASURES: Provider ratings of: (1) quality and efficiency of VC (phone and video telehealth) compared with in-person care with masks; (2) challenges of VC; and (3) percentage of patients that providers are comfortable seeing via VC in the future. RESULTS: The sample included 998 respondents (49.8% MH, 20.6% primary care, 20.4% medical specialty, 9.1% surgical specialty; 61% response rate). Most providers rated VC as equivalent to or higher in quality and efficiency compared with in-person care with masks. Quality ratings were significantly higher for video versus phone (χ2=61.4, P<0.0001), but efficiency ratings did not differ significantly. Ratings varied across specialties (highest in MH, lowest in SS; all χ2s>24.1, Ps<0.001). Inability to conduct a physical examination and patient technical difficulties were significant challenges. MH providers were comfortable seeing a larger proportion of patients virtually compared with the other specialties (all χ2s>12.2, Ps<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Broad provider support for VC was stratified across specialties, with the highest ratings in MH and lowest ratings in SS. Findings will inform the improvement of VC processes and the planning of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The rule of 10s versus the rule of 2s: High complication rates after conventional excision with postoperative margin assessment of specialty site versus trunk and proximal extremity melanomas.

Specialty site melanomas on the head and neck, hands and feet, genitalia, and pretibial leg have higher rates of surgical complications after conventional excision with postoperative margin assessment (CE-POMA) compared with trunk and proximal extremity melanomas. The rule of 10s describes complication rates after CE-POMA of specialty site melanomas: ∼10% risk for upstaging, ∼10% risk for positive excision margins, ∼10% risk for local recurrence, and ∼10-fold increased likelihood of reconstruction with a flap or graft. Trunk and proximal extremity melanomas encounter these complications at a lower rate, according to the rule of 2s. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with frozen section melanocytic immunostains (MMS-I) and slow Mohs with paraffin sections decrease complications of surgery of specialty site melanomas by detecting upstaging and confirming complete tumor removal with comprehensive microscopic margin assessment before reconstruction. This article reviews information important for counseling melanoma patients about surgical treatment options and for developing consensus guidelines with clear indications for MMS-I or slow Mohs.

The Natural Evolution of Facial Surgical Scars: A Retrospective Study of Physician-Assessed Scars Using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale Over Two Time Points.

Background: The natural evolution of facial scars has not been well described. Identifying factors that correlate with optimal scar healing may help patients and physicians during the perioperative period. Methods: A retrospective study of 108 facial skin cancer patient scars was performed. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used to grade scars at two time points (1 week and 3 months postoperatively). Paired two-tailed t-tests identified differences in scar ratings between the time points. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) explored whether POSAS scores differed by anatomic site or reconstruction type. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to identify if 1-week scar appearance correlated with scar appearance at 3 months. Results: Between 1 week and 3 months the total POSAS score improved by 36.3% and overall opinion of the scar improved by 38.6% (p < 0.001). Facial cosmetic units differed in their 1-week and 3-month scores and all anatomic sites demonstrated significant improvement between time points. Differential scoring occurred among reconstruction types. Scar appearance at 1 week was able to predict overall scar appearance at the 3-month visit (area under the curve = 0.7732). Conclusions: Early scar appearance predicts later scar appearance, and scars will improve by nearly 40% 3 months after surgery. These data can be used to assist with perioperative counseling and expectation management.

An Economic Analysis of the Implementation of Team-based Collaborative Care in Outpatient General Mental Health Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative Chronic Care Models represent an evidence-based way to structure care for chronic conditions, including mental health conditions. Few studies, however, have examined the cost implications of collaborative care for mental health. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct an economic analysis of implementing collaborative care in 9 outpatient general mental health clinics. RESEARCH DESIGN: Analyses were derived from a stepped wedge hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. We conducted cost-minimization analyses from the health system perspective, incorporating implementation costs, outpatient costs, and inpatient costs for the year before collaborative care implementation and the implementation year. We used a difference-in-differences approach and conducted 1-way sensitivity analyses to determine the robustness of results to variations ±15% in model parameters, along with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. SUBJECTS: Our treatment group included 5507 patients who were initially engaged in care within 9 outpatient general mental health teams that underwent collaborative care implementation. We compared costs for this group to 45,981 control patients who received mental health treatment as usual at the same medical centers. RESULTS: Collaborative care implementation cost about $40 per patient and was associated with a significant decrease in inpatient costs and a nonsignificant increase in outpatient mental health costs. This implementation was associated with $78 in cost savings per patient. Monte Carlo simulation suggested that implementation was cost saving in 78% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care implementation for mental health teams was associated with significant reductions in mental health hospitalizations, leading to substantial cost savings of about $1.70 for every dollar spent for implementation.

Iterative Decision-making for Evaluation of Adaptations (IDEA): A decision tree for balancing adaptation, fidelity, and intervention impact.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are frequently adapted to maximize outcomes while maintaining fidelity to core EBP elements. Many step-by-step frameworks for adapting EBPs have been developed, but these models may not account for common complexities in the adaptation process. In this paper, we introduce the Iterative Decision-making for Evaluation of Adaptations (IDEA), a tool to guide adaptations that addresses these issues. FRAMEWORK DESIGN AND USE: Adapting EBPs requires attending to key contingencies incorporated into the IDEA, including: the need for adaptations; fidelity to core EBP elements; the timeframe in which to make adaptations; the potential to collect pilot data; key clinical and implementation outcomes; and stakeholder viewpoints. We use two examples to illustrate application of the IDEA. CONCLUSIONS: The IDEA is a practical tool to guide EBP adaptation that incorporates important decision points and the dynamism of ongoing adaptation. Its use may help implementation scientists, clinicians, and administrators maximize EBP impact.

Patient interest in mental health mobile app interventions: Demographic and symptom-level differences.

BACKGROUND: Mobile app interventions for mental health conditions (MH apps) are an accessible and effective but underutilized treatment option. Learning which patients are most interested in MH apps is important for informing stakeholders where to position these treatments within the healthcare landscape. This study examined the relationship between patient characteristics and interest in MH apps. METHODS: A demographically-balanced sample of 400 patients diagnosed with depression, anxiety and/or post-traumatic stress disorder were identified from VA corporate data warehouse records. These individuals were mailed an information packet explaining the study and the study survey for those who opted to participate. The survey contained questions on demographics, symptom severity and interest in MH apps. 149 participants returned completed surveys. RESULTS: Level of interest in MH apps was consistent across race, sex and education level. Patients reporting no interest in MH apps had less severe symptoms and were older than patients reporting some or high interest. LIMITATIONS: Participants were Veterans in one geographic region; our sample size was not large enough to evaluate more fine-grained demographic differences; replication would be required to better understand generalizability of findings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest interest in MH apps may be more similar across demographic groups than previously thought. This stands in juxtaposition to interest in clinic-based services, for which men and minorities have traditionally reported less interest and show lower utilization. Findings also counter prevailing notions that MH apps will be best received by less symptomatic patients. Implications for integrating MH apps into care are discussed.

Effectiveness of Implementing a Collaborative Chronic Care Model for Clinician Teams on Patient Outcomes and Health Status in Mental Health: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) have extensive randomized clinical trial evidence for effectiveness in serious mental illnesses, but little evidence exists regarding their feasibility or effect in typical practice conditions. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of implementation facilitation in establishing the CCM in mental health teams and the impact on health outcomes of team-treated individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quasi-experimental, randomized stepped-wedge implementation trial was conducted from February 2016 through February 2018, in partnership with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Nine facilities were enrolled from all VA facilities in the United States to receive CCM implementation support. All veterans (n = 5596) treated by designated outpatient general mental health teams were included for hospitalization analyses, and a randomly selected sample (n = 1050) was identified for health status interviews. Individuals with dementia were excluded. Clinicians (n = 62) at the facilities were surveyed, and site process summaries were rated for concordance with the CCM process. The CCM implementation start time was randomly assigned across 3 waves. Data analysis of this evaluable population was performed from June to September 2018. Interventions: Internal-external facilitation, combining a study-funded external facilitator and a facility-funded internal facilitator working with a designated team for 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Facilitation was hypothesized to be associated with improvements in both implementation and intervention outcomes (hybrid type II trial). Implementation outcomes included the clinician Team Development Measure (TDM) and proportion of CCM-concordant team care processes. The study was powered for the primary health outcome, mental component score (MCS). Hospitalization rate was derived from administrative data. Results: The veteran population (n = 5596) included 881 women (15.7%), and the mean (SD) age was 52.2 (14.5) years. The interviewed sample (n = 1050) was similar but was oversampled for women (n = 210 [20.0%]). Facilitation was associated with improvements in TDM subscales for role clarity (53.4%-68.6%; δ = 15.3; 95% CI, 4.4-26.2; P = .01) and team primacy (50.0%-68.6%; δ = 18.6; 95% CI, 8.3-28.9; P = .001). The percentage of CCM-concordant processes achieved varied, ranging from 44% to 89%. No improvement was seen in veteran self-ratings, including the primary outcome. In post hoc analyses, MCS improved in veterans with 3 or more treated mental health diagnoses compared with others (ß = 5.03; 95% CI, 2.24-7.82; P < .001). Mental health hospitalizations demonstrated a robust decrease during facilitation (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.07; P < .001); this finding withstood 4 internal validity tests. Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation facilitation that engages clinicians under typical practice conditions can enhance evidence-based team processes; its effect on self-reported overall population health status was negligible, although health status improved for individuals with complex conditions and hospitalization rate declined. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02543840.

Systematic Review of Symptom Assessment Measures for Use in Measurement-Based Care of Bipolar Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Utilization of measurement-based care (MBC) for bipolar disorders is limited, in part because of uncertainty regarding the utility of available measures. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature on patient-reported and clinician-observed measures of symptoms of bipolar disorder and the potential use of these measures in MBC. METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and other gray literature) was conducted in June 2017 to identify validated measures. Data on the psychometric properties of each measure were extracted and used to assess the measure's clinical utility on the basis of established guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-eight unique measures were identified in 39 studies, including four patient-reported and six clinician-observed measures assessing manic symptoms, three patient-reported and five clinician-observed measures of depressive symptoms, and six patient-reported and four clinician-observed measures of both symptom types. Patient-reported measures with the highest clinical utility included the Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale for assessment of manic symptoms, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR) (depressive symptoms), and the Internal State Scale (both types). Highly rated clinician (C)-observed scales were the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (mania), the QIDS-C (depressive symptoms), and the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (both types). CONCLUSIONS: Suitable choices are available for MBC of bipolar disorders. The choice of a measure could be informed by clinical utility score and may also depend on how clinicians or practices weigh each category of the clinical utility scale and on the clinical setting and presenting problem.

Development of a Perceived Access Inventory for Community Care Mental Healthcare Services for Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Access to high-quality healthcare, including mental healthcare, is a high priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Meaningful monitoring of progress will require patient-centered measures of access. To that end, we developed the Perceived Access Inventory focused on access to VA mental health services (PAI-VA). However, VA is purchasing increasing amounts of mental health services from community mental health providers. In this paper, we describe the development of a PAI for users of VA-funded community mental healthcare that incorporates access barriers unique to community care service use and compares the barriers most frequently reported by veterans using community mental health services to those most frequently reported by veterans using VA mental health services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted mixed qualitative and quantitative interviews with 25 veterans who had experience using community mental health services through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). We used opt-out invitation letters to recruit veterans from three geographic regions. Data were collected on sociodemographics, rurality, symptom severity, and service satisfaction. Participants also completed two measures of perceived barriers to mental healthcare: the PAI-VA adapted to focus on access to mental healthcare in the community and Hoge's 13-item measure. This study was reviewed and approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Analysis of qualitative interview data identified four topics that were not addressed in the PAI-VA: veterans being billed directly by a VCP mental health provider, lack of care coordination and communication between VCP and VA mental health providers, veterans needing to travel to a VA facility to have VCP provider prescriptions filled, and delays in VCP re-authorization. To develop a PAI for community-care users, we created items corresponding to each of the four community-care-specific topics and added them to the 43-item PAI-VA. When we compared the 10 most frequently endorsed barriers to mental healthcare in this study sample to the ten most frequently endorsed by a separate sample of current VA mental healthcare users, six items were common to both groups. The four items unique to community-care were: long waits for the first mental health appointment, lack of awareness of available mental health services, short appointments, and providers' lack of knowledge of military culture. CONCLUSIONS: Four new barriers specific to veteran access to community mental healthcare were identified. These barriers, which were largely administrative rather than arising from the clinical encounter itself, were included in the PAI for community care. Study strengths include capturing access barriers from the veteran experience across three geographic regions. Weaknesses include the relatively small number of participants and data collection from an early stage of Veteran Choice Program implementation. As VA expands its coverage of community-based mental healthcare, being able to assess the success of the initiative from the perspective of program users becomes increasingly important. The 47-item PAI for community care offers a useful tool to identify barriers experienced by veterans in accessing mental healthcare in the community, overall and in specific settings, as well as to track the impact of interventions to improve access to mental healthcare.

Veteran-centered barriers to VA mental healthcare services use.

BACKGROUND: Some veterans face multiple barriers to VA mental healthcare service use. However, there is limited understanding of how veterans' experiences and meaning systems shape their perceptions of barriers to VA mental health service use. In 2015, a participatory, mixed-methods project was initiated to elicit veteran-centered barriers to using mental healthcare services among a diverse sample of US rural and urban veterans. We sought to identify veteran-centric barriers to mental healthcare to increase initial engagement and continuation with VA mental healthcare services. METHODS: Cultural Domain Analysis, incorporated in a mixed methods approach, generated a cognitive map of veterans' barriers to care. The method involved: 1) free lists of barriers categorized through participant pile sorting; 2) multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis for item clusters in spatial dimensions; and 3) participant review, explanation, and interpretation for dimensions of the cultural domain. Item relations were synthesized within and across domain dimensions to contextualize mental health help-seeking behavior. RESULTS: Participants determined five dimensions of barriers to VA mental healthcare services: concern about what others think; financial, personal, and physical obstacles; confidence in the VA healthcare system; navigating VA benefits and healthcare services; and privacy, security, and abuse of services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the value of participatory methods in eliciting meaningful cultural insight into barriers of mental health utilization informed by military veteran culture. They also reinforce the importance of collaborations between the VA and Department of Defense to address the role of military institutional norms and stigmatizing attitudes in veterans' mental health-seeking behaviors.

Patients prioritize local recurrence risk over other attributes for surgical treatment of facial melanomas-Results of a stated preference survey and choice-based conjoint analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment options for facial melanomas include conventional excision with postoperative margin assessment, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with immunostains (MMS-I), and slow MMS. Patient preferences for these surgical options have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient preferences for surgical treatment of facial melanoma and to determine how patients value the relative importance of different surgical attributes. METHODS: Participants completed a 2-part study consisting of a stated preference survey and a choice-based conjoint analysis experiment. RESULTS: Patients overwhelmingly (94.3%) rated local recurrence risk as very important and ranked it as the most important attribute of surgical treatment for facial melanoma. Via choice-based conjoint analysis, patients ranked the following surgical attributes from highest to lowest in importance: local recurrence rate, out-of-pocket cost, chance of second surgical visit, timing of reconstruction, travel time, and time in office for the procedure. Consistent with their prioritization of low local recurrence rates, more than 73% of respondents selected MMS-I or slow MMS as their preferred treatment option for a facial melanoma. LIMITATIONS: Data were obtained from a single health system. CONCLUSION: Patients prefer surgical treatment options that minimize risk for local recurrence. Logistics for travel and treatment have less influence on patient preferences. Most survey participants chose MMS-I to maximize local cure and convenience of care.

Patient quality of life fluctuates before and after Mohs micrographic surgery: A longitudinal assessment of the patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Changes in patient perceptions of quality of life (QOL) after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may benefit from different counseling or treatment. OBJECTIVE: To measure QOL before and after MMS and to identify risk factors associated with impaired QOL. METHODS: Prospective observational study of 727 patients with skin cancer who self-reported QOL via the Skin Cancer Index immediately before and at 1 to 2 weeks and 3 months after MMS. RESULTS: QOL fluctuated after MMS. At 1 to 2 weeks after surgery, overall QOL remained unchanged compared with before MMS. Patients reported reduced anxiety about skin cancer but had increased distress about social interactions and physical appearance. At 3 months after surgery, patients reported an overall improvement in QOL compared with before MMS (P = .0007). Age younger than 65 years (P = .0001), female sex (P = .0001), and tobacco use (P = .03) were associated with lower QOL scores at all assessment points. LIMITATIONS: Single-site observational study. Significant loss to follow-up at both time points after MMS. CONCLUSION: Patients with skin cancer had persistent concerns about social interactions and physical appearance 1 to 2 weeks after MMS, but all aspects of their QOL improved by 3 months after surgery. Patients who underwent MMS that were younger than 65 years, were female, or smoked were at increased risk for longitudinally impaired QOL.

Patient and Physician Assessment of Surgical Scars: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Surgical scarring affects patients by distracting the gaze of onlookers, disrupting social interactions, and impairing psychosocial health. Patient and physician agreement regarding ideal scar characteristics is important in developing congruent expectations after surgery. OBJECTIVE: To summarize published studies assessing patient and physician ratings of surgical scars, rates of patient and physician agreement in scar assessment, and elements of cutaneous scar assessment that differ between patients and physicians. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A literature search of Ovid/Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE was conducted from January 1, 1972, to August 1, 2015. Prospective studies comparing scars from different surgical techniques using at least 1 physician-reported and patient-reported scar measure were included. Strength of studies was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. FINDINGS: The review identified 29 studies comprising 4485 patients. Of the 29 included studies, 20 (69%) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 5 (17%) were prospective, nonrandomized studies, and 4 (14%) were descriptive studies. Disagreement between patients and physician evaluation of scars occurred in 28% (8 of 29) studies, with only patients rating scar difference in 75% (6 of 8) of these cases. Patients were more likely to value scar depth while physicians were more likely to value scar pigmentation and relief. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Methodologically rigorous studies that include clinician- and patient-reported scar outcomes are uncommon. Studies that incorporate subjective and objective scar grading reveal disagreement between patients and clinicians. Of the incision and wound closure techniques assessed, few affected patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, but the evidence remains weak and future studies are recommended.

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.

A population-based study of the comparative effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics vs older antimanic agents in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous antimanic treatments have been introduced over the past two decades, particularly second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). However, it is not clear whether such newer agents provide any advantage over older treatments. METHODS: A historical cohort design investigated the nationwide population of outpatients with bipolar disorder treated in the Department of Veterans Affairs who were newly initiated on an antimanic agent between 2003 and 2010 (N=27 727). The primary outcome was likelihood of all-cause hospitalization during the year after initiation, controlling for numerous demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. Potential correlates of effect were explored by investigating time to initiation of a second antimanic agent or antidepressant. RESULTS: After control for covariates, those initiated on lithium or valproate monotherapy, compared to those beginning SGA monotherapy, were significantly less likely to be hospitalized, had a longer time to hospitalization, and had fewer hospitalizations in the subsequent year. Those on combination treatment had a significantly higher likelihood of hospitalization, although they also had a longer time to addition of an additional antimanic agent or antidepressant. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis of a large and unselected nationwide population provides important complementary data to that from controlled trials. Although various mechanisms may be responsible for the results, the data support the utilization of lithium or valproate, rather than SGAs, as the initial antimanic treatment in bipolar disorder. A large-scale, prospective, randomized, pragmatic clinical trial comparing the initiation of SGA monotherapy to that of lithium or valproate monotherapy is a logical next step.