Clinical Workflows and the Associated Tasks and Behaviors to Support Delivery of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

Integrating primary care and behavioral health is an important focus of health system transformation. Cross-case comparative analysis of 19 practices in the United States describing integrated care clinical workflows. Surveys, observation visits, and key informant interviews analyzed using immersion-crystallization. Staff performed tasks and behaviors-guided by protocols or scripts-to support 4 workflow phases: (1) identifying; (2) engaging/transitioning; (3) providing treatment; and (4) monitoring/adjusting care. Shared electronic health records and accessible staffing/scheduling facilitated workflows. Stakeholders should consider these workflow phases, address structural features, and utilize a developmental approach as they operationalize integrated care delivery.

A qualitative study of patient experiences of care in integrated behavioral health and primary care settings: more similar than different.

Integrated behavioral health and primary care is a patient-centered approach designed to address a person's physical, emotional, and social healthcare needs. Increasingly, practices are integrating care to help achieve the Quadruple Aim, yet no studies have examined, using qualitative methods, patients' experiences of care in integrated settings. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' experiences of care in community-based settings integrating behavioral health and primary care. This is a qualitative study of 24 patients receiving care across five practices participating in Advancing Care Together (ACT). ACT was a 4-year demonstration project (2010-2014) of primary care and community mental health centers (CMHCs) integrating care. We conducted in-depth interviews in 2014 and a multidisciplinary team analyzed data using an inductive qualitative descriptive approach. Nineteen patients described receiving integrated care. Both primary care and CMHC patients felt cared for when the full spectrum of their needs, including physical, emotional, and social circumstances, were addressed. Patients perceived personal, interpersonal, and organizational benefits from integrated care. Interactions with integrated team members helped patients develop and/or improve coping skills; patients shared lessons learned with family and friends. Service proximity, provider continuity and trust, and a number of free initial behavioral health appointments supported patient access to, and engagement with, integrated care. In contrast, patients' prior experience, provider "mismatch," clinician turnover, and restrictive insurance coverage presented barriers in accessing and sustaining care. Patients in both primary care and CMHCs perceived similar benefits from integrated care related to personal growth, improved quality, and access to care. Policy makers and practice leadership should attend to proximity, continuity, trust, and cost/coverage as factors that can impede or facilitate engagement with integrated care.

Outcomes of Integrated Behavioral Health with Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Integrating behavioral health and primary care is beneficial to patients and health systems. However, for integration to be widely adopted, studies demonstrating its benefits in community practices are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate effect of integrated care, adapted to local contexts, on depression severity and patients' experience of care. METHODS: This study used a convergent mixed-methods design, merging findings from a quasi-experimental study with patient interviews conducted as part of Advancing Care Together, a community demonstration project that created an innovation incubator for practices implementing evidence-based integration strategies. The study included 475 patients with a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥10 at baseline, from 5 practices. RESULTS: Statistically significant reductions in mean PHQ-9 scores were observed in all practices, ranging from 2.72 to 6.46 points. Clinically, 50% of patients had a ≥5-point reduction in PHQ-9 score and 32% had a ≥50% reduction. This finding was corroborated by patient interviews that demonstrated positive experiences with behavioral health clinicians and acquiring new skills to cope with adverse situations at work and home. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating behavioral health and primary care, when adapted to fit into community practices, reduced depression severity and enhanced patients' experience of care. Integration is a worthwhile investment; clinical leaders, policymakers, and payers should support integration in their communities.

Clinician Staffing, Scheduling, and Engagement Strategies Among Primary Care Practices Delivering Integrated Care.

PURPOSE: To examine the interrelationship among behavioral health clinician (BHC) staffing, scheduling, and a primary care practice's approach to delivering integrated care. METHODS: Observational cross-case comparative analysis of 17 primary care practices in the United States focused on implementation of integrated care. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and integrated care experience. A multidisciplinary team analyzed documents, practice surveys, field notes from observation visits, implementation diaries, and semistructured interviews using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Across the 17 practices, staffing ratios ranged from 1 BHC covering 0.3 to 36.5 primary care clinicians (PCCs). BHC scheduling varied from 50-minute prescheduled appointments to open, flexible schedules slotted in 15-minute increments. However, staffing and scheduling patterns generally clustered in 2 ways and enabled BHCs to be engaged by referral or warm handoff. Five practices predominantly used warm handoffs to engage BHCs and had higher BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios; multiple BHCs on staff; and shorter, more flexible BHC appointment schedules. Staffing and scheduling structures that enabled warm handoffs supported BHC engagement with patients concurrent with the identification of behavioral health needs. Twelve practices primarily used referrals to engage BHCs and had lower BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios and BHC schedules prefilled with visits. This enabled some BHCs to bill for services, but also made them less accessible to PCCs in when patients presented with behavioral health needs during a clinical encounter. Three of these practices were experimenting with open scheduling and briefer BHC visits to enable real-time access while managing resources. CONCLUSION: Practices' approaches to PCC-BHC staffing, scheduling, and delivery of integrated care mutually influenced each other and were shaped by the local context. Practice leaders, educators, clinicians, funders, researchers, and policy makers must consider these factors as they seek to optimize integrated systems of care.

Preparing the Workforce for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration.

PURPOSE: To identify how organizations prepare clinicians to work together to integrate behavioral health and primary care. METHODS: Observational cross-case comparison study of 19 U.S. practices, 11 participating in Advancing Care Together, and 8 from the Integration Workforce Study. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and experience delivering integrated care. Multidisciplinary teams collected data (field notes from direct practice observations, semistructured interviews, and online diaries as reported by practice leaders) and then analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Organizations had difficulty finding clinicians possessing the skills and experience necessary for working in an integrated practice. Practices newer to integration underestimated the time and resources needed to train and organizationally socialize (onboard) new clinicians. Through trial and error, practices learned that clinicians needed relevant training to work effectively as integrated care teams. Training efforts exclusively targeting behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) and new employees were incomplete if primary care clinicians (PCCs) and others in the practice also lacked experience working with BHCs and delivering integrated care. Organizations' methods for addressing employees' need for additional preparation included hiring a consultant to provide training, sending employees to external training programs, hosting residency or practicum training programs, or creating their own internal training program. Onboarding new employees through the development of training manuals; extensive shadowing processes; and protecting time for ongoing education, mentoring, and support opportunities for new and established clinicians and staff were featured in these internal training programs. CONCLUSION: Insufficient training capacity and practical experience opportunities continue to be major barriers to supplying the workforce needed for effective behavioral health and primary care integration. Until the training capacity grows to meet the demand, practices must put forth considerable effort and resources to train their own employees.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care: Consulting, Coordinating and Collaborating Among Professionals.

PURPOSE: This paper sought to describe how clinicians from different backgrounds interact to deliver integrated behavioral and primary health care, and the contextual factors that shape such interactions. METHODS: This was a comparative case study in which a multidisciplinary team used an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze data from observations of practice operations, interviews with practice members, and implementation diaries. The observed practices were drawn from 2 studies: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado; and the Integration Workforce Study, consisting of 8 practices located across the United States. RESULTS: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians used 3 interpersonal strategies to work together in integrated settings: consulting, coordinating, and collaborating (3Cs). Consulting occurred when clinicians sought advice, validated care plans, or corroborated perceptions of a patient's needs with another professional. Coordinating involved 2 professionals working in a parallel or in a back-and-forth fashion to achieve a common patient care goal, while delivering care separately. Collaborating involved 2 or more professionals interacting in real time to discuss a patient's presenting symptoms, describe their views on treatment, and jointly develop a care plan. Collaborative behavior emerged when a patient's care or situation was complex or novel. We identified contextual factors shaping use of the 3Cs, including: time to plan patient care, staffing, employing brief therapeutic approaches, proximity of clinical team members, and electronic health record documenting behavior. CONCLUSION: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians, through their interactions, consult, coordinate, and collaborate with each other to solve patients' problems. Organizations can create integrated care environments that support these collaborations and health professions training programs should equip clinicians to execute all 3Cs routinely in practice.

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.

Electronic Health Record Challenges, Workarounds, and Solutions Observed in Practices Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

PURPOSE: This article describes the electronic health record (EHR)-related experiences of practices striving to integrate behavioral health and primary care using tailored, evidenced-based strategies from 2012 to 2014; and the challenges, workarounds and initial health information technology (HIT) solutions that emerged during implementation. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-case comparative study of 11 diverse practices, including 8 primary care clinics and 3 community mental health centers focused on the implementation of integrated care. Practice characteristics (eg, practice ownership, federal designation, geographic area, provider composition, EHR system, and patient panel characteristics) were collected using a practice information survey and analyzed to report descriptive information. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to analyze program documents, field notes from practice observation visits, online diaries, and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Eight primary care practices used a single EHR and 3 practices used 2 different EHRs, 1 to document behavioral health and 1 to document primary care information. Practices experienced common challenges with their EHRs' capabilities to 1) document and track relevant behavioral health and physical health information, 2) support communication and coordination of care among integrated teams, and 3) exchange information with tablet devices and other EHRs. Practices developed workarounds in response to these challenges: double documentation and duplicate data entry, scanning and transporting documents, reliance on patient or clinician recall for inaccessible EHR information, and use of freestanding tracking systems. As practices gained experience with integration, they began to move beyond workarounds to more permanent HIT solutions ranging in complexity from customized EHR templates, EHR upgrades, and unified EHRs. CONCLUSION: Integrating behavioral health and primary care further burdens EHRs. Vendors, in cooperation with clinicians, should intentionally design EHR products that support integrated care delivery functions, such as data documentation and reporting to support tracking patients with emotional and behavioral problems over time and settings, integrated teams working from shared care plans, template-driven documentation for common behavioral health conditions such as depression, and improved registry functionality and interoperability. This work will require financial support and cooperative efforts among clinicians, EHR vendors, practice assistance organizations, regulators, standards setters, and workforce educators.

Understanding Care Integration from the Ground Up: Five Organizing Constructs that Shape Integrated Practices.

PURPOSE: To provide empirical evidence on key organizing constructs shaping practical, real-world integration of behavior health and primary care to comprehensively address patients' medical, emotional, and behavioral health needs. METHODS: In a comparative case study using an immersion-crystallization approach, a multidisciplinary team analyzed data from observations of practice operations, interviews, and surveys of practice members, and implementation diaries. Practices were drawn from 2 studies of practices attempting to integrate behavioral health and primary care: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado, and the Integration Workforce Study, a study of 8 practices across the United States. RESULTS: We identified 5 key organizing constructs influencing integration of primary care and behavioral health: 1) Integration REACH (the extent to which the integration program was delivered to the identified target population), 2) establishment of continuum of care pathways addressing the location of care across the range of patient's severity of illness, 3) approach to patient transitions: referrals or warm handoffs, 4) location of the integration workforce, and 5) participants' mental model for integration. These constructs intertwine within an organization's historic and social context to produce locally adapted approaches to integrating care. Contextual factors, particularly practice type, influenced whether specialty mental health and substance use services were colocated within an organization. CONCLUSION: Interaction among 5 organizing constructs and practice context produces diverse expressions of integrated care. These constructs provide a framework for understanding how primary care and behavioral health services can be integrated in routine practice.

REACH of Interventions Integrating Primary Care and Behavioral Health.

PURPOSE: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices. METHODS: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test. RESULTS: Overall, 26.2% of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41% (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70%; 95% CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4%) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8%; P = .03). CONCLUSION: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers.

Start-Up and Ongoing Practice Expenses of Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration Interventions in the Advancing Care Together (ACT) Program.

PURPOSE: Provide credible estimates of the start-up and ongoing effort and incremental practice expenses for the Advancing Care Together (ACT) behavioral health and primary care integration interventions. METHODS: Expenditure data were collected from 10 practice intervention sites using an instrument with a standardized general format that could accommodate the unique elements of each intervention. RESULTS: Average start-up effort expenses were $44,076 and monthly ongoing effort expenses per patient were $40.39. Incremental expenses averaged $20,788 for start-up and $4.58 per patient for monthly ongoing activities. Variations in expenditures across practices reflect the differences in intervention specifics and organizational settings. Differences in effort to incremental expenditures reflect the extensive use of existing resources in implementing the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: ACT program incremental expenses suggest that widespread adoption would likely have a relatively modest effect on overall health systems expenditures. Practice effort expenses are not trivial and may pose barriers to adoption. Payers and purchasers interested in attaining widespread adoption of integrated care must consider external support to practices that accounts for both incremental and effort expense levels. Existing knowledge transfer mechanisms should be employed to minimize developmental start-up expenses and payment reform focused toward value-based, Triple Aim-oriented reimbursement and purchasing mechanisms are likely needed.