Clinician commentary on adapting psychotherapy in collaborative care for treating opioid use disorder and co-occurring psychiatric conditions in primary care.

Comments on the original article by French, et al. (see record 2023-74550-001) regarding adapting psychotherapy in collaborative care for treating opioid use disorder and co-occurring psychiatric conditions in primary care. This article provided a potential treatment pathway for certain patients. However, it has left the question: What options are available for patients who decline to participate in this collaborative care approach? It is important to emphasize that we do not want to deny them access to treatment for their (opioid use disorder) OUD. Are there alternative interventions with a lower intensity that may still hold value for patients who opt out of this particular approach? In future research, the current authors would like to see expanded treatment pathways that match patients at all levels of engagement. By offering a more diverse range of options, we can better meet the needs of a broader spectrum of patients, ultimately improving treatment outcomes for individuals with OUD and psychiatric symptoms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Practice integration profile revised: Improving item readability and completion.

INTRODUCTION: The Practice Integration Profile (PIP) is a reliable, valid, and broadly used measure of the integration of behavioral health (BH) into primary care. The PIP assesses operational and procedural elements that are grounded in the AHRQ Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. Prior analyses of PIP data and feedback from users suggested the measure was in need of revisions. This article describes the process used to improve readability, clarity, and pragmatic utility of the instrument. METHOD: Two rounds of structured cognitive interviews were conducted with clinicians in primary care settings. After each round, interview transcripts were coded by an analytic team using an iterative and consensus-driven process. Themes were identified based on codes. Themes and recommendations for revisions were reviewed and modified by committee. RESULTS: Based on feedback and a prior factor analysis of the PIP, revisions were undertaken to: (a) eliminate redundant or overlapping items; (b) clarify the meaning of items; (c) standardize the response categories, and (d) place items in the most appropriate domains. The resulting measure has 28 items in five domains. DISCUSSION: PIP 2.0 will need further examination to confirm its continuing use as a foundational tool for evaluating integrated care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Prevention of psychological trauma among health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented unique biological, psychological, and social threats to health care providers. The failure of local macrosystems placed providers at elevated risk of psychological and physical harm. To reduce the immediate risk of trauma to our local physician workforce, our team initiated a program of proactive psychological first aid in which physicians were regularly contacted by behavioral health colleagues to assess safety conditions and physician's well-being. When threats to the physician's safety were identified, these concerns were escalated to leadership and addressed when possible. When threats to well-being were identified, behavioral health team members provided supportive listening, and, if indicated, provided referral information for appropriate treatment resources. This paper reviews the rationale for this program, addresses ethical concerns, and proposes future directions for responding to threats to safety during events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Online training of behavioral health providers for primary care practice.

Introduction: Many behavioral health providers have not received training in primary care practice during their education. Since 2007, the online Certificate in Primary Care Behavioral Health course has been completed by thousands of behavioral health providers. An evaluation of the course assessed whether learner's baseline confidence in their abilities to address behavioral health concerns in primary care settings changed over time, whether learning outcomes for live offerings of the course differed from asynchronous offerings, and whether learning outcomes for psychologists and social workers differed. Method: Learners were asked to rate their confidence in their abilities using 10 retrospective pre-post questions. Responses from 14 cohorts of learners, between 2011 and 2019 were assessed. T-tests and analyses of variance were used to compare groups. Results: Learners' baseline confidence in their abilities changed in three of the areas assessed. Those completing the course asynchronously reported outcomes equal to or greater than those completing the course synchronously. In all but one domain, psychologists and social workers reported equal increases in their confidence. Discussion: Learners reported significant improvements in confidence in their ability to work as behavioral health providers in primary care. With one exception, these findings did not differ for psychologists and social workers. Over time, baseline confidence of behavioral health providers enrolling in the course increased in some areas, particularly those focused on patients with substance use disorders. Learning outcomes for the asynchronous version of the course support the continued delivery of asynchronous training of behavioral health providers working in primary care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Measuring the integration of primary care and behavioral health services.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a factor analysis of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a 30-item practice-level measure of primary care and behavioral health integration derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Lexicon for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration. DATA SOURCES: The PIP was completed by 735 individuals, representing 357 practices across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: The study design was a cross-sectional survey. An exploratory factor analysis and assessment of internal consistency reliability via Cronbach's alpha were performed. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Participant responses were collected using REDCap, a secure, web-based data capture tool. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five of the PIP's six domains had factor loadings for most items related to each factor representing the PIP of 0.50 or greater. However, one factor had items from two PIP domains that had loadings >0.50. A five-factor model with redistributed items resulted in improved factor loadings for all domains along with greater internal consistency reliability (>0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Five of the PIP's six domains demonstrated excellent internal consistency for measures of health care resources. Although minor improvements to strengthen the PIP are possible, it is a valid and reliable measure of the integration of primary care and behavioral health.

Evaluation of online and in-person motivational interviewing training for healthcare providers.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines the outcomes of a 22-hr motivational interviewing (MI) course and compares online and in-person offerings of the course. It also evaluates clinicians' ability to accurately self-assess their MI skills. METHOD: 34 clinicians participated in this study and completed MI workshops either in-person or online. Use of MI in an acting patient encounter was recorded early in the training and again following the training. Recordings of these encounters were coded using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) 3.1 coding system. After each acting patient encounter clinicians also self-evaluated their use of MI. RESULTS: Participants showed statistically significant improvement in MI skills measured by the MITI. There were no meaningful differences between the MI skills acquired by the participants in the online group compared with those who completed training in-person. There was little correlation between participants' self-assessment of MI skills and objective assessment. DISCUSSION: It is feasible to complete MI training through synchronous online workshops. Participant self-assessment of MI skill does not appear to be a useful approach for assessing MI skill. The acquisition of MI skills by health professionals is possible via the Internet. Learning should be assessed using objective measures rather than relying on self-report. (PsycINFO Database Record

Challenges in developing primary care physicians' motivational interviewing skills.

INTRODUCTION: Motivational interviewing (MI) skills are relevant for primary care providers (PCPs) who are responsible for caring for patients with diseases affected by behavior. There are significant challenges associated with developing PCP's MI skills. We report on an effort to document the acquisition of MI skills by PCPs using an objective measure of MI competence, the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) coding system. METHOD: Eleven PCPs volunteered to participate in 6 MI workshops over a period of 6 months and to submit work samples between each of these workshops to be assessed with the MITI coding system. RESULTS: Thirteen of the expected 55 work samples were submitted before the final workshop. A revised approach was implemented in which each participant completed 2 simulated patient encounters. None of the providers reached the MITI's Beginning Proficiency threshold of MI skill. DISCUSSION: Six MI workshops were not sufficient to help motivated PCPs achieve Beginning Proficiency as measured by the MITI. Participants failed to submit most of the work samples for feedback on their MI practice, which may have contributed to their limited acquisition of MI skills. Helping PCPs develop MI skills likely requires more than participation in a series of workshops totaling 18 h. Questions remain about the feasibility of training PCPs to be competent in MI. Approaches such as use of simulated patients, peer observation, or specific protected time for obtaining work samples may be required. (PsycINFO Database Record