Designing Clinical Space for the Delivery of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

PURPOSE: This study sought to describe features of the physical space in which practices integrating primary care and behavioral health care work and to identify the arrangements that enable integration of care. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of 19 diverse practices located across the United States. Practice-level data included field notes from 2-4-day site visits, transcripts from semistructured interviews with clinicians and clinical staff, online implementation diary posts, and facility photographs. A multidisciplinary team used a 4-stage, systematic approach to analyze data and identify how physical layout enabled the work of integrated care teams. RESULTS: Two dominant spatial layouts emerged across practices: type-1 layouts were characterized by having primary care clinicians (PCCs) and behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) located in separate work areas, and type-2 layouts had BHCs and PCCs sharing work space. We describe these layouts and the influence they have on situational awareness, interprofessional "bumpability," and opportunities for on-the-fly communication. We observed BHCs and PCCs engaging in more face-to-face methods for coordinating integrated care for patients in type 2 layouts (41.5% of observed encounters vs 11.7%; P < .05). We show that practices needed to strike a balance between professional proximity and private work areas to accomplish job tasks. Private workspace was needed for focused work, to see patients, and for consults between clinicians and clinical staff. We describe the ways practices modified and built new space and provide 2 recommended layouts for practices integrating care based on study findings. CONCLUSION: Physical layout and positioning of professionals' workspace is an important consideration in practices implementing integrated care. Clinicians, researchers, and health-care administrators are encouraged to consider the role of professional proximity and private working space when creating new facilities or redesigning existing space to foster delivery of integrated behavioral health and primary care.

Feasibility and impact of implementing a private care system's diabetes quality improvement intervention in the safety net: a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrated health care delivery systems devote considerable resources to developing quality improvement (QI) interventions. Clinics serving vulnerable populations rarely have the resources for such development but might benefit greatly from implementing approaches shown to be effective in other settings. Little trial-based research has assessed the feasibility and impact of such cross-setting translation and implementation in community health centers (CHCs). We hypothesized that it would be feasible to implement successful QI interventions from integrated care settings in CHCs and would positively impact the CHCs. METHODS: We adapted Kaiser Permanente's successful intervention, which targets guideline-based cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), through an iterative, stakeholder-driven process. We then conducted a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial in 11 CHCs in a staggered process with six "early" CHCs implementing the intervention one year before five "'late" CHCs. We measured monthly rates of patients with DM currently prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors/statins, if clinically indicated. Through segmented regression analysis, we evaluated the intervention's effects in June 2011-May 2013. Participants included ~6500 adult CHC patients with DM who were indicated for statins/ACE-inhibitors per national guidelines. RESULTS: Implementation of the intervention in the CHCs was feasible, with setting-specific adaptations. One year post-implementation, in the early clinics, there were estimated relative increases in guideline-concordant prescribing of 37.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI); 29.0-46.2 %) among patients indicated for both ACE-inhibitors and statins and 38.7 % (95 % CI; 23.2-54.2 %) among patients indicated for statins. No such increases were seen in the late (control) clinics in that period. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this was the first clinical trial testing the translation and implementation of a successful QI initiative from a private, integrated care setting into CHCs. This proved feasible and had significant impact but required considerable adaptation and implementation support. These results suggest the feasibility of adapting diverse strategies developed in integrated care settings for implementation in under-resourced clinics, with important implications for efficiently improving care quality in such settings. CLINICALTRIALS.gov: NCT02299791 .

Chronic disease self-management program for low back pain in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of Stanford's Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) for chronic low back pain (LBP) in older Americans. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community-based program offered at 12 locations. SUBJECTS: Community-dwelling seniors (n = 109) aged 60 and older with chronic LBP of mechanical origin. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to the CDSMP or to a 6-month, wait-list control group. The program included one 2.5-hour session per week for 6 weeks. Outcomes evaluated at 6 months included 100-point modified Von Korff pain and disability scales; days with pain and disability; SF-36 general health, energy-fatigue, and emotional well-being scales; 2 scales from the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, self-care attitudes/behaviors, and health services utilization. RESULTS: For pain at 6 months, the primary outcome, the adjusted mean difference between the program and control, was -1.0 (P = .835). There was a sizable advantage for the program in disability averaged over the course of the entire 6-month study (-9.2, P = .027), but not at the 6-month follow-up (-5.8, P = .278). There was an interaction between intervention and baseline disability days favoring the program for higher baseline values (P = .007). The CDSMP affected emotional well-being (7.6, P = .037) and energy-fatigue (5.1, P = .274). There were no differences for self-efficacy, pain days, and general health. CONCLUSION: There was no advantage for the CDSMP over a wait-list control for improving pain, general health, self-efficacy, and self-care attitudes in older Americans with chronic LBP. A benefit was suggested for emotional well-being, fatigue, functional disability, and days with disability.