Smoking cessation treatment for individuals with comorbid diabetes and serious mental illness in an integrated health care delivery system.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a significant modifiable risk factor for mortality for persons with serious mental illness (SMI), who have a life expectancy 15-20 years shorter than the general population. Individuals with SMI and comorbid diabetes who are smokers face an even higher risk of cardiovascular complications and early death. Yet despite high rates of smoking among people with SMI, tobacco cessation interventions have not been broadly offered to this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records from 2014 in a large integrated care delivery system to examine whether use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among smokers with type 2 diabetes varies by serious mental illness (SMI) diagnosis. We analyzed smoking cessation medication prescription fills among adult smokers with diabetes, comparing those with SMI (N = 634) and without SMI (N = 18,021). Risk ratios were adjusted for age, gender, race, urban area type, and medical facility. RESULTS: Of the SMI group, 19.09% filled at least one smoking cessation prescription compared to 9.73% of the non-SMI group (adjusted risk ratio 1.80 [95% CI 1.52-2.13]; p < .001). For the SMI group, primary care providers wrote 80.24% of prescriptions, while psychiatrists wrote 8.81% of prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings offer an example of a delivery system with higher uptake of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among people with SMI than without SMI, and highlight the opportunity to provide more smoking cessation interventions in mental health care settings.

Comorbid Diabetes and Severe Mental Illness: Outcomes in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes prevalence is twice as high among people with severe mental illness (SMI) when compared to the general population. Despite high prevalence, care outcomes are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare diabetes health outcomes received by people with and without comorbid SMI, and to understand demographic factors associated with poor diabetes control among those with SMI. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: 269,243 adults with diabetes MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included optimal glycemic control (A1c < 7) or poor diabetes control (A1c > 9) in 2014. Secondary outcomes included control of other cardiometabolic risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking) and recommended diabetes monitoring. KEY RESULTS: Among this cohort, people with SMI (N = 4,399), compared to those without SMI (N = 264,844), were more likely to have optimal glycemic control, adjusting for various covariates (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.25, 95% CI 1.21-1.28, p < .001) and less likely to have poor control (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, p = 0.012). Better blood pressure and lipid control was more prevalent among people with SMI when compared to those without SMI (aRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p < .001; aRR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.05, p = 0.044, respectively). No differences were observed in recommended A1c or LDL testing, but people with SMI were more likely to have blood pressure checked (aRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03, p < .001) and less likely to receive retinopathy screening (aRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91, p < .001) than those without SMI. Among people with diabetes and comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more likely to have poor diabetes control. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with diabetes and comorbid SMI had better cardiometabolic control than people with diabetes who did not have SMI, despite lower rates of retinopathy screening. Among those with comorbid SMI, younger adults and Hispanics were more vulnerable to poor A1c control.

Diabetes Screening among Antipsychotic-Treated Adults with Severe Mental Illness in an Integrated Delivery System: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, partly due to adverse metabolic effects of antipsychotic medications. In public health care settings, annual screening rates are 30%. We measured adherence to national diabetes screening guidelines for patients taking antipsychotic medications. OBJECTIVE: To estimate diabetes screening prevalence among patients with SMI within an integrated health care system, and to assess characteristics associated with lack of screening. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Antipsychotic-treated adults with SMI. We excluded participants with known diabetes. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was screening via fasting glucose test or hemoglobin A1c during a 1-year period. KEY RESULTS: In 2014, 16,754 patients with SMI diagnoses were receiving antipsychotics. Seventy-four percent of these patients' providers ordered diabetes screening tests that year, but only 55% (9247/16,754) received screening. When the observation time frame was extended to 2 years, 73% (12,250/16,754) were screened. Adjusting for sex and race/ethnicity, young adults (aged 18-29 years) were less likely to receive screening than older age groups [adjusted RR (aRR) 1.23-1.57, p < 0.0001]. Compared to whites, screening was more common for Asians (aRR 1.141, 95% CI 1.089-1.195, p < 0.0001), less common for blacks (aRR 0.946, 95% CI 0.898-0.997, p < 0.0375), and no different for Hispanics (aRR 1.030, 95% CI 0.988-1.074, p = 0.165). Smokers were less likely to be screened than non-smokers (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.0008). Utilization of either mental health or primary care services increased the likelihood of screening. CONCLUSIONS: While almost three-fourths of adults with SMI taking antipsychotic medications received a lab order for diabetes screening, only 55% received screening within a 12-month period. Young adults and smokers were less likely to be screened, despite their disproportionate metabolic risk. Future studies should assess the barriers and facilitators with regard to diabetes screening in this vulnerable population at the patient, provider, and system levels.

Understanding the Cost of a New Integrated Care Model to Serve CMHC Patients Who Have Serious Mental Illness.

People with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, experience premature mortality, often from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Unfortunately, people with serious mental illness typically are not screened or treated for CVD risk factors despite national guideline recommendations. Access to primary preventive care in community mental health settings has the potential to reduce early mortality rates in this population. The authors review best practices for developing an integrated care model for people with serious mental illness by considering economic feasibility and sustainability from the perspective of a community mental health clinic (CMHC). A process-mapping approach was used to gather information on clinic costs (staff roles, responsibilities, time, and salary) of serving 544 patients at one CMHC. The estimated annual cost of the model was measurable and modest, at $74 per person, suggesting that this model may be financially feasible.

Are the cardiometabolic complications of schizophrenia still neglected? Barriers to care.

Patients with schizophrenia have a wide range of risk factors for cardiometabolic disease, at rates 1.5-5 times greater than the general population. Despite the provision of many sets of guidelines and protocols for screening and monitoring of cardiometabolic risks, morbidity and mortality rates for those with psychotic illnesses remain excessive and premature. Surveys of mental health practitioners reveal a clear acknowledgement of the importance of managing cardiometabolic risks and subsequent comorbidity. However, inadequate screening rates of patients with antipsychotic-treated mental illnesses suggest "knowing is not doing". Surmountable barriers (at service, patient and illness levels) to adequate integrated health care are not being adequately challenged for this population. Recommendations to improve the situation include service reorganisation, communication enhancement, improved training and education, better incentives, accreditation rigour, and government leadership.