Engaging frontline workers in policy development to support the implementation of measurement-based care: Lessons learned from a field-based workgroup.

Measurement-Based Care (MBC) is the use of patient-reported outcome measures repeatedly over the course of treatment to track progress and empower both providers and patients to collaboratively set goals and plan treatment. The Measurement-Based Care in Mental Health Initiative within the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention partnered with the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Mentoring Program to create an interdisciplinary field-based workgroup. The workgroup included psychologists, clinical social workers, and mental health counselors from PTSD Clinical Teams. The task of the workgroup was to create guidelines for best practice in delivery of MBC in PTSD Clinical Teams given anticipated policy requiring MBC to be used in PTSD Clinical Teams. Framed in the Strategic Action Field Framework for Policy Implementation Research, the current paper evaluates this hybrid top-down and bottom-up process of policy development. Major barriers included difficulty with the workgroup as an authentic bottom-up process, inability to reach the entire field (e.g., focus groups not widely attended by providers), and limited diversity in the workgroup. Facilitators included using consensus to make decisions, support provided to workgroup members by national operations partners, and collaboration and mutual respect among workgroup members. Workgroup members noted an equal, respectful partnership between operations partners and the workgroup; they reported feeling empowered and believed the viewpoints of the field were included in the guidelines. Further, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the workgroup included more guidelines specific to telehealth into the guidelines. This hybrid model provides a process through which frontline workers can inform policy development and implementation.

Mental Health Service Utilization before and after Receipt of a Service-Connected Disability Award for PTSD: Findings from a National Sample.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns of mental health service use before and after VA disability compensation awards for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). DATA SOURCES: A 10 percent random sample of VHA-enrolled Veterans with new or increased PTSD service connection between 2012 and 2014 (n = 22,249). STUDY DESIGN: We used latent trajectory analysis to identify utilization patterns and multinomial logistic regression to assess associations between Veteran characteristics and trajectory membership. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We assessed receipt of VHA mental health encounters in each of the 52 weeks prior to and following PTSD disability rating or rating increase. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The best fitting model had five groups: No Use (36.6 percent), Low Use (37.7 percent), Increasing Use (9.4 percent), Decreasing Use (11.2 percent), and High Use (5.1 percent). Adjusting for demographic characteristics and compared with the No Use group, Veterans in the other groups were more likely to reside closer to a VHA facility, receive a higher PTSD disability rating, and screen positive for military sexual trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Service use remained stable (80 percent) or increased (9 percent) for the vast majority of Veterans. Service utilization declined for only 11 percent. Data did not indicate substantial service discontinuation following rating. Low VHA service utilization suggests opportunities to enhance outreach for Veterans with PTSD-related disability benefits.

Integrative outpatient treatment for returning service members.

Veterans returning from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) frequently present with multiple psychological and physical symptoms. The authors propose an innovative approach in which primary care providers, polytrauma specialists, vocational rehabilitation specialists, and mental health clinicians work together to provide care that is not simply concurrent, but truly integrated. All members of this interdisciplinary team must provide a consistent message that supports treatment engagement and progress. The authors illustrate this approach with a case report of a soldier deployed to both OEF and OIF, requiring subsequent treatment for joint pain, headaches, mild traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse. Despite the emphasis on early intervention, treatment engagement and retention remain challenges in this population.