Improving outcomes for homeless people with alcohol disorders: a multi-program community-based approach.

Background: Relatively few community-based programs have been found to be helpful for homeless people with alcohol disorders, even though this group represents a high-risk, vulnerable population prone to poor outcomes.Aims: This study sought to implement and evaluate intensive community-based programs for homeless people with alcohol disorders.Method: The project worked closely with a homeless outreach team for referrals, and then provided two different, intensive substance abuse treatment approaches matched to the needs of two subgroups: homeless individuals with alcohol disorders without severe mental illness received community reinforcement approach (CRA) and case management services, while those with alcohol and severe mental illness were assigned to assertive community treatment and integrated dual disorders (ACT/IDDT) services. The study enrolled 322 homeless people with alcohol disorders and outcomes were assessed at six months and program discharge.Results: Participants improved significantly over the first six months in a number of outcome areas, including substance abuse, mental health, housing, employment and health; progress generally remained stable between six months and discharge.Conclusions: Community-based programs that coordinate with mobile outreach teams and then provide CRA and ACT/IDDT appear to be promising approaches for helping individuals with alcohol disorders out of homelessness and into recovery.

Implementing illness management and recovery within assertive community treatment teams: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to assess the feasibility, advantages/disadvantages, and factors that hinder or facilitate the implementation of illness management and recovery (IMR) within assertive community treatment (ACT) teams. METHOD: A qualitative study was conducted with 11 ACT teams that implemented IMR. We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 17 persons enrolled in services and 55 ACT staff in individual and focus groups. Questions were designed to assess perceptions of IMR implementation, effects of IMR, staff training considerations, and recommendations. Data were analyzed using an inductive, consensus-building, thematic analysis, which included multiple research staff reviewing interview transcripts and field notes, developing and refining a codebook, constructing data summaries, and thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed six major themes: (a) a generally positive fit exists between the two models and population served, (b) both people with serious mental illness and staff benefited from ACT + IMR, (c) ACT teams encountered significant implementation barriers, (d) relationships and engagement with participants facilitated implementation, (e) taking a flexible approach to IMR and ACT improved implementation, and (f) programs should focus on greater integration of IMR within ACT teams. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: While there can be barriers to implementing IMR within ACT teams, there is generally a positive fit, it is feasible to implement, and it offers meaningful benefits. ACT teams should improve their recovery orientation by more widespread implementation of IMR. Future research on ACT + IMR should include mixed-methods approaches, implementation methodologies to identify barriers and facilitators, and idiographic measures that capture the individualized recovery goals of people with serious mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A Comparative Effectiveness Trial to Reduce Burnout and Improve Quality of Care.

Clinician burnout is presumed to negatively impact healthcare quality; yet scant research has rigorously addressed this hypothesis. Using a mixed-methods, randomized, comparative effectiveness design, we tested two competing approaches to improve care-one addressing clinician burnout and the other addressing how clinicians interact with consumers-with 192 clinicians and 469 consumers at two community mental health centers. Although qualitative reports were promising, we found no comparative effectiveness for either intervention on burnout, patient-centered processes, or other outcomes. Discussion includes identifying ways to strengthen approaches to clinician burnout.