Where are social workers co-located with primary care physicians?

Social workers are increasingly working in primary care clinics that provide Integrated Behavioral Healthcare (IBH) in which a patient's physical, behavioral, and social determinants of health are addressed on a collaborative team. Co-location, where care is housed in the same physical space, is a key element of IBH. Yet, little is known about the rate of social workers co-located with primary care physicians (PCPs). To identify national rates of social worker co-location, data were drawn from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES; n = 232,021 social workers, n = 380,690 PCPs). Practice addresses were geocoded and straight-line distances between practice locations of social workers and PCPs were calculated. More than 26% of social workers were co-located with a PCP. However, in rural settings only 21% were co-located (p < .001). Co-location also varied by PCP practice size, specialty, and state. This study serves as a benchmark of the growth of IBH and continued monitoring of co-location is needed to ensure social work workforce planning and training are aligned with changing models of care. Further, identifying mechanisms to support social work education, current providers, and health systems to increase IBH implementation is greatly needed.

Which Complex Patients Should Be Referred for Intensive Care Management? A Mixed-Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large and increasing proportion of health care costs are spent caring for a small segment of medically and socially complex patients. To date, it has been difficult to identify which patients are best served by intensive care management. OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors that best identify which complex patients are most suited for intensive care management. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods study involving 35 care managers (CMs; 10 licensed social workers and 25 registered nurses) working in intensive care management programs within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) outpatient medical centers. We asked CMs to review a randomly selected list of up to 50 patients referred to them in the prior year and to categorize each patient as either (1) "good candidates" for care management, (2) "not needing" intensive care management, or (3) "needing more" than traditional care management could provide. We then conducted semi-structured interviews to understand how CMs separated patients into these three groups. RESULTS: CMs assigned 1178 patients into the 3 referral categories. Less than two thirds (62%, n = 736) of referred patients were considered good candidates, with 18% (n = 216) categorized as not needing care management and 19% (n = 226) as needing more. Compared to the other two categories, good candidates were older (76.2 years vs. 73.2 for not needing and 69.8 for needing more, p < 0.001), prescribed more medications (p = 0.02) and had more prior year outpatient visits (p = 0.04), while the number of prior year hospital and emergency room admissions were greater than not needing but less than needing more (p < 0.001). A logistic regression model using available electronic record data predicted good candidate designation with a c statistic of 0.75. Several qualitative themes emerged that helped define appropriateness for referral, including availability of social support, patient motivation, non-medical transitions, recent trajectory of medical condition, and psychiatric or substance use issues. CONCLUSION: Many apparently complex patients are not good candidates for intensive care management. Current electronic medical records do not capture several of the most salient characteristics that determine appropriateness for care management. Our findings suggest that systematic collection of social support, patient motivation, and recent non-medically related life change information may help identify which complex patients are most likely to benefit from care management.

Integrating clients' religion/spirituality in clinical practice: A comparison among social workers, psychologists, counselors, marriage and family therapists, and nurses.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to describe and compare five helping professions' views and behaviors regarding the integration of clients' religion/spirituality (RS) in clinical practice. METHOD: A cross-sectional design was used to survey 3,500 licensed clinical psychologists, nurses, marriage and family therapists (LMFTs), clinical social workers, and professional counselors across Texas. A total of 550 responded to this online survey, which included the Religious/Spiritually Integrated Practice Assessment Scale and background questions. RESULTS: Attitudes concerning the integration of clients' RS did not differ by profession and were fairly positive. However, differences emerged regarding self-efficacy, perceived feasibility, and behaviors, with LMFTs reporting the highest scores for these subscales. CONCLUSION: This is the first comparison of these five professions' attitudes, behaviors, perceived feasibility, and self-efficacy regarding integrating clients' RS. These encouraging results not only indicate helping professionals' openness to integrating clients' RS, but also highlight key differences in training, self-efficacy, views of feasibility, and implementation.

A postgraduation follow-up of social work students trained in "SBIRT": Rates of usage and perceptions of effectiveness.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based modality that can help social workers work with substance-using clients as part of an integrated health care approach. This study reports the findings of a post-graduation one-year follow-up survey of 193 master's and bachelor's social work students trained in SBIRT in practice courses at a Northeast urban college. Forty-three percent of the trainees who were practicing social work after graduation were using SBIRT. A content analysis of participants' comments found that the vast majority found SBIRT to be a valuable practice modality, with barriers to utilization of SBIRT identified.

Primary Care-Mental Health Integration in the VA Health System: Associations Between Provider Staffing and Quality of Depression Care.

OBJECTIVES: The study examined whether staffing of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) services in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system is related to quality of depression care. METHODS: Site surveys and administrative data from 349 VA facilities for fiscal year 2013 were used to calculate PCMHI staffing (full-time equivalents) per 10,000 primary care patients and discipline-specific staffing proportions for PCMHI psychologists, social workers, nurses, and psychiatric medication prescribers. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted at the facility level and assessed associations between PCMHI staffing ratios and the following indicators of depression treatment in the three months following a new episode of depression: any antidepressant receipt, adequacy of antidepressant receipt, any psychotherapy receipt, and psychotherapy engagement (three or more visits). RESULTS: Higher facility PCMHI staffing ratios were associated with a greater percentage of patients who received any psychotherapy treatment (B=1.16, p<.01) and who engaged in psychotherapy (B=.39, p<.01). When analyses controlled for total PCMHI staffing, the proportion of social workers as part of PCMHI was positively correlated with the percentage of patients with adequate antidepressant treatment continuation (B=3.16, p=.03). The proportion of nurses in PCMHI was negatively associated with the percentage of patients with engagement in psychotherapy (B=-2.83, p=.02). CONCLUSIONS: PCMHI programs with greater overall staffing ratios demonstrated better performance on indicators of psychotherapy for depression but not on indicators of antidepressant treatment. Further investigation is needed to determine whether differences in discipline-specific staffing play a causal role in driving associated differences in receipt of treatment.