Prescribing and Acceptance of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in VA Primary Care: Veteran and Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine/naloxone can effectively treat OUD and reduce opioid-related mortality, but they remain underutilized, especially in non-substance use disorder settings such as primary care (PC). OBJECTIVE: To uncover the factors that can facilitate successful prescribing of MOUD and uptake/acceptance of MOUD by patients in PC settings in the Veterans Health Administration. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 77 providers (e.g., primary care providers, hospitalists, nurses, addiction psychiatrists) and 22 Veteran patients with experience taking MOUD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. KEY RESULTS: Providers and patients shared their general perceptions and experiences with MOUD, including high satisfaction with buprenorphine/naloxone with few side effects and caveats, although some patients reported drawbacks to methadone. Both providers and patients supported the idea of prescribing MOUD in PC settings to prioritize patient comfort and convenience. Providers described individual-level barriers (e.g., time, stigma, perceptions of difficulty level), structural-level barriers (e.g., pharmacy not having medications ready, space for inductions), and organizational-level barriers (e.g., inadequate staff support, lack of nursing protocols) to PC providers prescribing MOUD. Facilitators centered on education and knowledge enhancement, workflow and practice support, patient engagement and patient-provider communication, and leadership and organizational support. The most common barrier faced by patients to starting MOUD was apprehensions about pain, while facilitators focused on personal motivation, encouragement from others, education about MOUD, and optimally timed provider communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help improve provider-, clinic-, and system-level supports for MOUD prescribing across multiple settings, as well as foster communication strategies that can increase patient acceptance of MOUD. They also point to how interprofessional collaboration across service lines and leadership support can facilitate MOUD prescribing among non-addiction providers.

Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems have implemented intensive outpatient primary care programs with the hopes of reducing healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization or death, or "high-risk." We evaluated whether a referral model would decrease high-risk patient costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design comparing 456 high-risk patients referred to PIM from October 2017 to September 2018 to 415 high-risk patients matched on propensity score. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans in the top 10th percentile of risk for 90-day hospitalization or death and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit. INTERVENTION: PIM consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, intensive case management, and care coordination services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in VHA and non-VHA outpatient utilization, inpatient admissions, and costs 12 months pre- and post-index date. KEY RESULTS: Of the 456 patients referred to PIM, 301 (66%) enrolled. High-risk patients referred to PIM had a marginal reduction in ED visits (- 0.7; [95% CI - 1.50 to 0.08]; p = 0.08) compared to propensity-matched high-risk patients; overall outpatient costs were similar. High-risk patients referred to PIM had similar number of medical/surgical hospitalizations (- 0.2; [95% CI, - 0.6 to 0.16]; p = 0.2), significant increases in length of stay (6.36; [CI, - 0.01 to 12.72]; p = 0.05), and higher inpatient costs ($22,628, [CI, $3587 to $41,669]; p = 0.02) than those not referred to PIM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: VHA intensive outpatient primary care was associated with higher costs. Referral to intensive case management programs targets the most complex patients and may lead to increased utilization and costs, particularly in an integrated healthcare setting with robust patient-centered medical homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PIM 2.0: Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Intensive Management (PIM) Project (PIM2). NCT04521816. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04521816.

Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. RESULTS: The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. CONCLUSION: We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

The Effectiveness of a Specialized Primary Care Medical Home for Patients with Serious Mental Illness.

BACKGROUND: There are unmet primary care needs among people with serious mental illness that might be improved with integrated care and medical care management. Many healthcare organizations have attempted to address this problem, but few interventions have been rigorously studied and found to be effective. OBJECTIVE: Study the implementation and effectiveness of a novel, specialized primary care medical home designed to improve the healthcare of patients with serious mental illness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clustered controlled trial for a median of 401 days. One Veterans Health Administration medical center was assigned to intervention and two were assigned to usual care (control). Thirty-nine clinicians and managers were included in the study, as well as 331 patients who met eligibility criteria. INTERVENTION: A specialized medical home with systematic patient engagement, proactive nurse panel management, a collaborative care psychiatrist, and a primary care physician providing care that included psychiatric treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Quality of care, chronic illness care and care experience, symptoms, and quality of life. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-five intervention patients (40%) moved all psychiatric care to the primary care team. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. Compared with control, intervention patients had greater improvement over time in appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose (χ2 = 6.9, 14.3, and 3.9; P's < .05); greater improvement in all domains of chronic illness care (activation, decision support, goal-setting, counseling, coordination) and care experience (doctor-patient interaction, shared decision-making, care coordination, access; F for each 10-24, P's < .05); and greater improvement in mental health-related quality of life (F = 3.9, P = .05) and psychotic symptoms (F = 3.9, P = .05). CONCLUSION: A primary care medical home for serious mental illness can be feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668355.

What Is the Return on Investment of Caring for Complex High-need, High-cost Patients?

Randomized controlled trials to improve care for complex, high-need, high-cost patients have not consistently demonstrated a relative decrease in acute care utilization or cost savings. However, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been able to glean lessons from these trials and generate realistic expectations for success. Lessons include the following: (1) combining population management tools (e.g., risk scores) and clinician judgment is more effective than either alone to identify the patients best suited for intensive management; (2) treatment adherence and engagement may contribute more to preventable emergency department visits and hospitalizations than care coordination; and (3) efforts should focus on assessing for and treating those risk factors that are most amenable to intervention. Because it is unlikely that cost savings can fund add-on intensive management programs, the VHA Office of Primary Care plans to incorporate those intensive management practices that are feasible into existing patient-centered medical homes as a high reliability organization.

What Do Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Teams Need to Improve Care for Primary Care Patients with Complex Needs?

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative. OBJECTIVES: Explore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams' workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care. METHODS: We interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: Higher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Increasing Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder and Complementary and Integrative Health Services in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based therapies for opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, such as medications for OUD (MOUD) and complementary and integrative health (CIH; e.g., acupuncture and meditation) therapies, exist. However, their adoption has been slow, particularly in primary care, due to numerous implementation challenges. We sought to expand the use of MOUD and CIH within primary care by using an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) implementation strategy. METHODS: We used EBQI to engage two facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from June 2018 to September 2019. EBQI included multilevel stakeholder engagement, with external facilitators providing technical support, practice facilitation, and routine data feedback. We established a quality improvement (QI) team at each facility with diverse stakeholders (e.g., primary care, addiction, pain, nursing, pharmacy). We met monthly with regional stakeholders to address implementation barriers. We also convened an advisory board to ensure alignment with national priorities. RESULTS: Pre-implementation interviews indicated facility-level and provider-level barriers to prescribing buprenorphine, including strong primary care provider resistance. Both facilities developed action plans. They both conducted educational meetings (e.g., Grand Rounds, MOUD waiver trainings). Facility A also offered clinical preceptorships for newly trained primary care prescribers. Facility B used mass media and mailings to educate patients about MOUD and CIH options and dashboards to identify potential candidates for MOUD. After 15 months, both facilities increased their OUD treatment rates to the ≥ 90th percentile of VHA medical centers nationally. Exit interviews indicated an attitudinal shift in MOUD delivery in primary care. Stakeholders valued the EBQI process, particularly cross-site collaboration. IMPLICATIONS: Despite initial implementation barriers, we effectively engaged stakeholders using EBQI strategies. Local QI teams used an assortment of QI interventions and developed tools to catapult their facilities to among the highest performers in VHA OUD treatment. IMPACTS: EBQI is an effective strategy to partner with stakeholders to implement MOUD and CIH therapies.

Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

High-Need Patients' Goals and Goal Progress in a Veterans Affairs Intensive Outpatient Care Program.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems nationwide are implementing intensive outpatient care programs to optimize care for high-need patients; however, little is known about these patients' personal goals and factors associated with goal progress. OBJECTIVE: To describe high-need patients' goals, and to identify factors associated with their goal progress DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 113 high-need patients participated in a single-site Veterans Affairs intensive outpatient care program. MAIN MEASURES: Two independent reviewers examined patients' goals recorded in the electronic health record, categorized each goal into one of three domains (medical, behavioral, or social), and determined whether patients attained goal progress during program participation. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with goal progress. RESULTS: The majority (n = 72, 64%) of the 113 patients attained goal progress. Among the 100 (88%) patients with at least one identified goal, 58 set goal(s) in the medical domain; 60 in the behavioral domain; and 52 in the social domain. Within each respective domain, 41 (71%) attained medical goal progress; 34 (57%) attained behavioral goal progress; and 32 (62%) attained social goal progress. Patients with mental health condition(s) (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.9; p = 0.03) and those living alone (aOR 0.4; 95% CI 0.1-1.0; p = 0.05) were less likely to attain goal progress. Those with mental health condition(s) and those who were living alone were least likely to attain goal progress (interaction aOR 0.1 compared to those with neither characteristic; 95% CI 0.0-0.7; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-need patients participating in an intensive outpatient care program, patient goals were fairly evenly distributed across medical, behavioral, and social domains. Notably, individuals living alone with mental health conditions were least likely to attain progress. Future care coordination interventions might incorporate strategies to address this gap, e.g., broader integration of behavioral and social service components.

Identifying Latent Subgroups of High-Risk Patients Using Risk Score Trajectories.

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare systems employ population-based risk scores to prospectively identify patients at high risk of poor outcomes, but it is unclear whether single point-in-time scores adequately represent future risk. We sought to identify and characterize latent subgroups of high-risk patients based on risk score trajectories. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 7289 patients discharged from Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals during a 1-week period in November 2012 and categorized in the top 5th percentile of risk for hospitalization. METHODS: Using VA administrative data, we calculated weekly risk scores using the validated Care Assessment Needs model, reflecting the predicted probability of hospitalization. We applied the non-parametric k-means algorithm to identify latent subgroups of patients based on the trajectory of patients' hospitalization probability over a 2-year period. We then compared baseline sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service use, and social instability markers between identified latent subgroups. RESULTS: The best-fitting model identified two subgroups: moderately high and persistently high risk. The moderately high subgroup included 65% of patients and was characterized by moderate subgroup-level hospitalization probability decreasing from 0.22 to 0.10 between weeks 1 and 66, then remaining constant through the study end. The persistently high subgroup, comprising the remaining 35% of patients, had a subgroup-level probability increasing from 0.38 to 0.41 between weeks 1 and 52, and declining to 0.30 at study end. Persistently high-risk patients were older, had higher prevalence of social instability and comorbidities, and used more health services. CONCLUSIONS: On average, one third of patients initially identified as high risk stayed at very high risk over a 2-year follow-up period, while risk for the other two thirds decreased to a moderately high level. This suggests that multiple approaches may be needed to address high-risk patient needs longitudinally or intermittently.

Care coordination and provider stress in primary care management of high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is a critical component of managing high-risk patients, who tend to have complex and multiple medical and psychosocial problems and are typically at high risk for increased hospitalization and incur high health care expenditures. Primary care models such as the patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are designed to improve care coordination and reduce care fragmentation. However, little is known about how the burden of care coordination for high-risk patients influences PCMH team members' stress. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between provider stress and care coordination time in high-risk patient care and whether availability of help is associated with reduced stress. STUDY DESIGN: Multivariable regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey of PCMH primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 164 PCPs and 272 nurses in primary care practices at five geographically diverse Veteran Health Administration (VA) medical center health systems. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome variable was provider stress due to high-risk patient care. Independent variables were the reported proportion of high-risk patients in PCP/nurse patient panels, time spent coordinating care for these patients, and provider satisfaction with help received in caring for them. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 44%. Spending more than 8 h per week coordinating care was significantly associated with a 0.21-point increase in reported provider stress compared to spending 8 h or less per week (95% CI: 0.04-0.39; p = 0.015). The magnitude of the association between stress and care coordination time was diminished when provider satisfaction with help received was included in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived provider stress from care of high-risk patients may arise from challenges related to coordinating their care. Our findings suggest that the perception of receiving help for high-risk patient care may be valuable in reducing provider stress.

A clustered controlled trial of the implementation and effectiveness of a medical home to improve health care of people with serious mental illness: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) die many years prematurely, with rates of premature mortality two to three times greater than the general population. Most premature deaths are due to "natural causes," especially cardiovascular disease and cancer. Often, people with SMI are not well engaged in primary care treatment and do not receive high-value preventative and medical services. There have been numerous efforts to improve this care, and few controlled trials, with inconsistent results. While people with SMI often do poorly with usual primary care arrangements, research suggests that integrated care and medical care management may improve treatment and outcomes, and reduce treatment costs. METHODS: This hybrid implementation-effectiveness study is a prospective, cluster controlled trial of a medical home, the SMI Patient-Aligned Care Team (SMI PACT), to improve the healthcare of patients with SMI enrolled with the Veterans Health Administration. The SMI PACT team includes proactive medical nurse care management, and integrated mental health treatment through regular psychiatry consultation and a collaborative care model. Patients are recruited to receive primary care through SMI PACT based on having a serious mental illness that is manageable with treatment, and elevated risk for hospitalization or death. In a site-level prospective controlled trial, this project studies the effect, relative to usual care, of SMI PACT on provision of appropriate preventive and medical treatments, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and medical and mental health treatment utilization and costs. Research includes mixed-methods formative evaluation of usual care and SMI PACT implementation to strengthen the intervention and assess barriers and facilitators. Investigators examine relationships among organizational context, intervention factors, and patient and clinician outcomes, and identify patient factors related to successful patient outcomes. DISCUSSION: This will be one of the first controlled trials of the implementation and effectiveness of a patient centered medical home for people with serious mental illness. It will provide information regarding the value of this strategy, and processes and tools for implementing this model in community healthcare settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668355 . Registered August 20, 2012.

Predictors of primary care management of depression in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) vary in skills to effectively treat depression. Key features of evidence-based collaborative care models (CCMs) include the availability of depression care managers (DCMs) and mental health specialists (MHSs) in primary care. Little is known, however, about the relationships between PCP characteristics, CCM features, and PCP depression care. OBJECTIVE: To assess relationships between various CCM features, PCP characteristics, and PCP depression management. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a provider survey. PARTICIPANTS: 180 PCPs in eight VA sites nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: Independent variables included scales measuring comfort and difficulty with depression care; collaboration with a MHS; self-reported depression caseload; availability of a collocated MHS, and co-management with a DCM or MHS. Covariates included provider type and gender. For outcomes, we assessed PCP self-reported performance of key depression management behaviors in primary care in the past 6 months. KEY RESULTS: Response rate was 52 % overall, with 47 % attending physicians, 34 % residents, and 19 % nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Half (52 %) reported greater than eight veterans with depression in their panels and a MHS collocated in primary care (50 %). Seven of the eight clinics had a DCM. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors for PCP depression management included comfort, difficulty, co-management with MHSs and numbers of veterans with depression in their panels. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs who felt greater ease and comfort in managing depression, co-managed with MHSs, and reported higher depression caseloads, were more likely to report performing depression management behaviors. Neither a collocated MHS, collaborating with a MHS, nor co-managing with a DCM independently predicted PCP depression management. Because the success of collaborative care for depression depends on the ability and willingness of PCPs to engage in managing depression themselves, along with other providers, more research is necessary to understand how to engage PCPs in depression management.

The anatomy of primary care and mental health clinician communication: a quality improvement case study.

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of comorbid physical and mental illnesses among veterans is well known. Therefore, ensuring effective communication between primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) clinicians in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is essential. The VA's Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) initiative has further raised awareness of the need for communication between PC and MH. Improving such communication, however, has proven challenging. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively understand barriers to PC-MH communication in an academic community-based clinic by using continuous quality improvement (CQI) tools and then initiate a change strategy. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND APPROACH: An interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) work group composed of 11 on-site PC and MH providers, administrators, and researchers identified communication barriers and facilitators using fishbone diagrams and process flow maps. The work group then verified and provided context for the diagram and flow maps through medical record review (32 patients who received both PC and MH care), interviews (6 stakeholders), and reports from four previously completed focus groups. Based on these findings and a previous systematic review of interventions to improve interspecialty communication, the team initiated plans for improvement. KEY RESULTS: Key communication barriers included lack of effective standardized communication processes, practice style differences, and inadequate PC training in MH. Clinicians often accessed advice or formal consultation based on pre-existing across-discipline personal relationships. The work group identified collocated collaborative care, joint care planning, and joint case conferences as feasible, evidence-based interventions for improving communication. CONCLUSIONS: CQI tools enabled providers to systematically assess local communication barriers and facilitators and engaged stakeholders in developing possible solutions. A locally tailored CQI process focusing on communication helped initiate change strategies and ongoing improvement efforts.

Variation in benefit among patients with serious mental illness who receive integrated psychiatric and primary care.

PURPOSE: The population with serious mental illness has high risk for hospitalization or death due to unhealthy behaviors and inadequate medical care, though the level of risk varies substantially. Programs that integrate medical and psychiatric services improve outcomes but are challenging to implement and access is limited. It would be useful to know whether benefits are confined to patients with specific levels of risk. METHODS: In a population with serious mental illness and increased risk for hospitalization or death, a specialized medical home integrated services and improved treatment and outcomes. Treatment quality, chronic illness care, care experience, symptoms, and quality of life were assessed for a median of 385 days. Analyses examine whether improvements varied by baseline level of patient risk. RESULTS: Patients with greater risk were more likely to be older, more cognitively impaired, and have worse mental health. Integrated services increased appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose, but increases did not differ significantly by level of risk. Integrated services also improved chronic illness care, care experience, mental health-related quality of life, and psychotic symptoms. There were also no significant differences by risk level. CONCLUSIONS: There were benefits from integration of primary care and psychiatric care at all levels of increased risk, including those with extremely high risk above the 95th percentile. When developing integrated care programs, patients should be considered at all levels of risk, not only those who are the healthiest.

Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death ("high-risk Veterans") are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population's complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown. The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients' cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach. METHODS: We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation. ANALYSIS: We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP. DISCUSSION: Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 PROTOCOL VERSION: This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.

Informing implementation and dissemination of a specialized primary care medical home for patients with serious mental illness: Clinician and administrator perspectives.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) have lower rates of use of preventative medical services and higher rates of mortality compared to the general population. Research shows that specialized primary care medical homes improve the health care of patients with SMI and are feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care. However, specialized medical homes remain uncommon and model dissemination limited. As part of a controlled trial assessing an SMI-specialized medical home, we examined clinician and administrator perspectives regarding specialized versus mainstream primary care and identified ways to enhance the scale-up of a specialized primary care model for future dissemination. We conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and administrators at three sites prior to the implementation of an SMI-specialized primary care medical home (n = 26) and at 1-year follow-up (n = 24); one site implemented the intervention, and two sites served as controls. Interviews captured service design features that affected the quality of care provided; contextual factors that supported or impeded medical home implementation; and knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the care of patients with SMI. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Clinicians and administrators described SMI-specialized primary care medical homes as advancing care coordination and outcomes for patients with SMI. Stakeholders identified elements of a specialized medical home that they viewed as superior to usual care, including having a holistic picture of patients' needs and greater care coordination. However, to enable scale-up, efforts are needed to increase staffing on care teams, develop robust clinician onboarding or training, and ensure close coordination with mental health care providers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.