Integrating case management for patients with complex needs in the ground practice: the importance of context in evaluative designs.

Responding to complex needs calls for integrating care across providers, settings and sectors. Among models to improve integrated care, case management demonstrates a good evidence base of facilitating the appropriate delivery of healthcare services. Since case management is a complex, multi component intervention, with its component parts interacting in a non-linear manner, effectiveness is largely influenced by the context in which the intervention is implemented. This paper discusses how to respond to implementation challenges to evaluating complex interventions for patients with complex needs. Building on the example of case management, we suggest that documenting innovation effectiveness remains important, but that evaluation needs to include theory-based and systems perspectives. We also suggest that implementation science needs to be part of intervention design while engaging stakeholders to define the most relevant research questions and implementation effectiveness, to optimize successful implementation and sustainability.

Chronic care coordination by integrating care through a team-based, population-driven approach: a case study.

Patients with chronic conditions frequently experience behavioral comorbidities to which primary care cannot easily respond. This study observed a Vermont family medicine practice with integrated medical and behavioral health services that use a structured approach to implement a chronic care management system with Lean. The practice chose to pilot a population-based approach to improve outcomes for patients with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes using a stepped-care model with an interprofessional team including a community health nurse. This case study observed the team's use of Lean, with which it designed and piloted a clinical algorithm composed of patient self-assessment, endorsement of behavioral goals, shared documentation of goals and plans, and follow-up. The team redesigned workflows and measured reach (patients who engaged to the end of the pilot), outcomes (HbA1c results), and process (days between HbA1c tests). The researchers evaluated practice member self-reports about the use of Lean and facilitators and barriers to move from pilot to larger scale applications. Of 20 eligible patients recruited over 3 months, 10 agreed to participate and 9 engaged fully (45%); 106 patients were controls. Relative to controls, outcomes and process measures improved but lacked significance. Practice members identified barriers that prevented implementation of all changes needed but were in agreement that the pilot produced useful outcomes. A systematized, population-based, chronic care management service is feasible in a busy primary care practice. To test at scale, practice leadership will need to allocate staffing, invest in shared documentation, and standardize workflows to streamline office practice responsibilities.

Residents' Confidence Providing Primary Care With Behavioral Health Integration.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Behavioral health integration (BHI) entails integrated behavioral health clinicians (IBHCs) providing care-generally for mental health and substance abuse disorders and behavioral comorbidity- within the operational functioning of primary care. Because limited data exist regarding BHI in residency, we studied its impact on resident education by examining whether increased behavioral health (BH) co-management improved residents' perceived ability to treat BH conditions. METHODS: We included residents from internal and family medicine training programs using BHI in residents' continuity clinics and assessed the level of co-management between primary care and IBHCs and the following domains: (1) confidence in managing BH conditions, (2) barriers to BH provision, (3) perception of autonomy when working with IBHCs, (4) satisfaction with the clinic, and (5) perceived educational value of BH learning modes. RESULTS: Altogether, 117 residents participated in our survey (73.1% response rate). Residents who had co-managed ≥ five patients alongside IBHCs reported significantly higher confidence than those who had co-managed < five patients with BH conditions. The association remained significant after adjustment for residents' level of training and specialty. In rating BH learning modes, residents rated most highly active collaboration with IBHCs and observation with feedback from clinic preceptors. CONCLUSIONS: BHI training within residency enhances perceived learning and confidence in providing BH care.

The Practice Integration Profile: Rationale, development, method, and research.

Insufficient knowledge exists regarding how to measure the presence and degree of integrated care. Prior estimates of integration levels are neither grounded in theory nor psychometrically validated. They provide scant guidance to inform improvement activities, compare integration efforts, discriminate among practices by degree of integration, measure the effect of integration on quadruple aim outcomes, or address the needs of clinicians, regulators, and policymakers seeking new models of health care delivery and funding. We describe the development of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a novel instrument designed to measure levels of integrated behavioral health care within a primary care clinic. The PIP draws upon the Agency for Health care Research & Quality's (AHRQ) Lexicon of Collaborative Care which provides theoretic justification for a paradigm case of collaborative care. We used the key clauses of the Lexicon to derive domains of integration and generate measures corresponding to those key clauses. After reviewing currently used methods for identifying collaborative care, or integration, and identifying the need to improve on them, we describe a national collaboration to describe and evaluate the PIP. We also describe its potential use in practice improvement, research, responsiveness to multiple stakeholder needs, and other future directions. (PsycINFO Database Record

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.

Treating psychological problems in medical settings: primary care as the de facto mental health system and the role of hypnosis.

Psychological comorbidity with medical illness is associated with poor health status, complicated medical management, and increased utilization and greater costs of medical services. Hypnosis practitioners in specialty psychological or psychiatric treatment settings infrequently treat such patients, since there is a greater likelihood of patients' psychological problems being treated solely in primary medical care. Referring patients from primary care to the mental health system will most likely not result in patients initiating psychological or hypnotic treatment. At the same time, integrated provision of medical and psychological treatment in the medical office has demonstrated much higher rates of initiation of treatment and improved medical outcomes. Although hypnosis has been found to be an empirically effective treatment for many medical problems, when hypnosis practitioners do not practice in these medical sites then patients do not have access to effective hypnotic interventions for cotreatment of medical problems.

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.