Sustainability of collaborative care management for depression in primary care settings with academic affiliations across New York State.

BACKGROUND: In a large statewide initiative, New York State implemented collaborative care (CC) from 2012 to 2014 in 32 primary care settings where residents were trained and supported its sustainability through payment reforms implemented in 2015. Twenty-six clinics entered the sustainability phase and six opted out, providing an opportunity to examine factors predicting continued CC participation and fidelity. METHODS: We used descriptive statistics to assess implementation metrics in sustaining vs. opt-out clinics and trends in implementation fidelity 1 and 2 years into the sustainability phase among sustaining clinics. To characterize barriers and facilitators, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists, clinic administrators, primary care physicians, and depression care managers (24 at sustaining, 7 at opt-out clinics). RESULTS: At the end of the implementation phase, clinics opting to continue the program had significantly higher care manager full-time equivalents (FTEs) and achieved greater clinical improvement rates (46% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.004) than opt-out clinics. At 1 and 2 years into sustainability, the 26 sustaining clinics had steady rates of depression screening, staffing FTEs and treatment titration rates, significantly higher contacts/patient and improvement rates and fewer enrolled patients/FTE. During the sustainability phase, opt-out sites reported lower patient caseloads/FTE, psychiatry and care manager FTEs, and physician/psychiatrist CC involvement compared to sustaining clinics. Key barriers to sustainability noted by respondents included time/resources/personnel (71% of respondents from sustaining clinics vs. 86% from opt-out), patient engagement (67% vs. 43%), and staff/provider engagement (50% vs. 43%). Fewer respondents mentioned early implementation barriers such as leadership support, training, finance, and screening/referral logistics. Facilitators included engaging patients (e.g., warm handoffs) (79% vs. 86%) and staff/providers (71% vs. 100%), and hiring personnel (75% vs. 57%), particularly paraprofessionals for administrative tasks (67% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinics that saw early clinical improvement and who invested in staffing FTEs were more likely to elect to enter the sustainability phase. Structural rules (e.g., payment reform) both encouraged participation in the sustainability phase and boosted long-term outcomes. While limited to settings with academic affiliations, these results demonstrate that patient and provider engagement and care manager resources are critical factors to ensuring sustainability.

Co-managed Care for Medical Inpatients, C-L vs C/L Psychiatry.

OBJECTIVE: We report on a quality improvement program to co-manage patients with co-morbid medical and psychiatric disorders in the general hospital. A philanthropic donation allowed a high volume, high-acuity urban hospital to hire a co-managing inpatient psychiatrist. The expectation was that facilitating psychiatric evaluation/treatment of medical patients would result in fewer patients staying beyond the expected length of stay (LOS). METHOD: The psychiatrist became a member of a general medical team working with a group of internists and actively co-managing medical patients. After one year, we compared time-to-consultation request and LOS for patients seen through the traditional Consultation-Liaison model and patients seen through the co-managed care model. A second co-managing psychiatrist was hired. A new QI project investigated reduction in lost days. RESULTS: There was a decrease in LOS for patients seen in the co-managed care model when compared with those seen via the traditional Consultation-Liaison model. Co-managed patients were seen earlier in the hospitalization. Excluding very-long-stay outliers, there was a reduction in LOS of 1.19 days (p < 0.003). There was an estimated annualized saving to the hospital of 2889 patient days. CONCLUSIONS: A program of co-managed care reduced both LOS and lost days to the hospital. This resulted in an increase in hospital support to hire 2.5 full-time equivalent psychiatrists and 1.0 full-time equivalent social worker for the Consultation-Liaison service. Such programs may permit the return of modernized psychiatric liaison programs to medical and surgical services.

What Should Primary Care Providers Know About the Changes in DSM-5?

Primary care providers are increasingly involved in the management of patients with mental disorders, particularly as integrated models of care emerge. The recent publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) represents a shift in the classification of several mental disorders commonly encountered by primary care providers. With the advent of ICD-10 and the movement toward diagnostic specificity, it is crucial that primary care providers understand the rationale behind these changes. This paper provides an overview of the changes in the classification of mental disorders in DSM-5, a description of how these changes relate to frequently used screening tools in the primary care setting, and a critique of how these changes will affect mental health practice from a primary care perspective.