Barriers and facilitators to collaborative care implementation within the New York State Collaborative Care Medicaid Program.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, the New York State Office of Mental Health has provided state primary care clinics with outreach, free training and technical assistance, and the opportunity to bill Medicaid for the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) as part of its Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. This study aims to describe the characteristics of New York State primary care clinics at each step of CoCM implementation, and the barriers and facilitators to CoCM implementation for the New York State Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, clinics were categorized into RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) steps. Clinics were sent a survey, which included questions related to payer mix, funding sources, billing codes used, and patient population demographics. Qualitative interviews were conducted with clinic representatives, focusing on barriers or facilitators clinics experienced affecting their progression to the next RE-AIM step. RESULTS: One thousand ninety-nine surveys were sent to primary care clinics across New York State, with 107 (9.7%) completing a survey. Significant differences were observed among the different RE-AIM steps for multiple demographic variables including primary payer, percentage of patients with a diagnose of depression or anxiety, and percent of behavioral health services that are reimbursed, in addition to others. Three main themes regarding barriers and facilitators to implementing CoCM for New York State Medicaid billing emerged from 31 qualitative interviews: (1) Billing requirements, (2) Reimbursement rates, and (3) Buy-in to CoCM. CONCLUSIONS: Survey data align with what we would expect to see demographically in NYS primary care clinics. Qualitative data indicated that CoCM billing requirements/structure and reimbursement rates were perceived as barriers to providing CoCM, particularly with New York State Medicaid, and that buy-in, which included active involvement from organizational leaders and providers that understand the Collaborative Care model were facilitators. Having dedicated staff to manage billing and data reporting is one way clinics minimize barriers, however, there appeared to be a disconnect between what clinics can bill for and the reimbursed amount several clinics are receiving, illustrating the need for stronger billing workflows and continued refinement of billing options across different payers.

Can Baseline Patient Clinical and Demographic Characteristics Predict Response to Early Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Interventions After Physical Injury?

OBJECTIVE: A growing evidence base supports stepped care interventions for the early treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after physical injury. Few investigations have examined the characteristics of patients who do and do not respond to these interventions. METHOD: This investigation was a secondary analysis that used previously collected data from three randomized clinical trials of stepped care interventions (patient N = 498). The study hypothesized that a subgroup of patients would manifest persistent PTSD symptoms regardless of randomization to intervention or control conditions, and that characteristics present at the time of baseline injury hospitalization could distinguish patients who would develop persistent symptoms from potential treatment responders. Regression analyses identified baseline patient clinical and demographic characteristics that were associated with persistent PTSD symptoms over the 6-months post-injury. Additional analyses identified treatment attributes of intervention patients who were and were not likely to demonstrate persistent symptoms. RESULTS: A substantial subgroup of patients (n = 222, 44.6%) demonstrated persistent PTSD symptoms over time. Greater numbers of pre-injury trauma, pre-injury PTSD symptoms, elevated early post-injury PTSD symptoms, unemployment, and non-White race identified patients with persistent symptoms. Patients with ≥3 of these baseline risk characteristics demonstrated diminished treatment responses when compared to patients with <3 characteristics. Intervention patients with ≥3 risk characteristics were less likely to engage in treatment and required greater amounts of interventionist time. CONCLUSIONS: Injured trauma survivors have readily identifiable characteristics at the time of hospitalization that can distinguish responders to PTSD stepped care interventions versus patients who may be treatment refractory.

Engaging and following physical injury survivors at risk for developing posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: A 25 site US national study.

INTRODUCTION: Early intervention for patients at risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) relies upon the ability to engage and follow trauma-exposed patients. Recent requirements by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) have mandated screening and referral for patients with high levels of risk for the development of PTSD or depression. Investigations that assess factors associated with engaging and following physically injured patients may be essential in assessing outcomes related to screening, intervention, and referral. METHODS: This investigation was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a United States level I trauma center site randomized clinical trial. All 635 patients were ages ≥18 and had high PTSD symptom levels (i.e., DSM-IV PTSD Checklist score ≥35) at the time of the baseline trauma center admission. Baseline technology use, demographic, and injury characteristics were collected for patients who were followed up with over the course of the year after physical injury. Regression analyses were used to assess the associations between technology use, demographic and injury characteristics, and the attainment of follow-up outcome assessments. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of participants were missing one or more 3-, 6- or 12-month follow-up outcome assessments. Increased risk of missing one or more outcome assessments was associated with younger age (18-30 versus ≥55 Relative Risks [RR] = 1.78, 95 % Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.09, 2.91), lack of cell phone (RR = 1.32, 95 % CI = 1.01, 1.72), no internet access (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.01, 2.16), public versus private insurance (RR = 1.47, 95 % CI = 1.12, 1.92), having no chronic medical comorbidities (≥4 versus none, RR = 0.28, 95 % CI = 0.20, 0.39), and worse pre-injury mental health function (RR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.98, 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This multisite investigation suggests that younger and publicly insured and/or uninsured patients with barriers to cell phone and internet access may be particularly vulnerable to lapses in trauma center follow-up. Clinical research informing trauma center-based screening, intervention, and referral procedures could productively explore strategies for patients at risk for not engaging and adhering to follow-up care and outcome assessments.

Can stepped collaborative care interventions improve post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors?

Objectives: No large-scale randomized clinical trial investigations have evaluated the potential differential effectiveness of early interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among injured patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. The current investigation assessed whether a stepped collaborative care intervention trial conducted at 25 level I trauma centers differentially improved PTSD symptoms for racial and ethnic minority injury survivors. Methods: The investigation was a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial. Patients endorsing high levels of distress on the PTSD Checklist (PCL-C) were randomized to enhanced usual care control or intervention conditions. Three hundred and fifty patients of the 635 randomized (55%) were from non-white and/or Hispanic backgrounds. The intervention included care management, cognitive behavioral therapy elements and, psychopharmacology addressing PTSD symptoms. The primary study outcome was PTSD symptoms assessed with the PCL-C at 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Mixed model regression analyses compared treatment effects for intervention and control group patients from non-white/Hispanic versus white/non-Hispanic backgrounds. Results: The investigation attained between 75% and 80% 3-month to 12-month follow-up. The intervention, on average, required 122 min (SD=132 min). Mixed model regression analyses revealed significant changes in PCL-C scores for non-white/Hispanic intervention patients at 6 months (adjusted difference -3.72 (95% CI -7.33 to -0.10) Effect Size =0.25, p<0.05) after the injury event. No significant differences were observed for white/non-Hispanic patients at the 6-month time point (adjusted difference -1.29 (95% CI -4.89 to 2.31) ES=0.10, p=ns). Conclusion: In this secondary analysis, a brief stepped collaborative care intervention was associated with greater 6-month reductions in PTSD symptoms for non-white/Hispanic patients when compared with white/non-Hispanic patients. If replicated, these findings could serve to inform future American College of Surgeon Committee on Trauma requirements for screening, intervention, and referral for PTSD and comorbidities. Level of evidence: Level II, secondary analysis of randomized clinical trial data reporting a significant difference. Trial registration number: NCT02655354.

Stepped collaborative care versus American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma required screening and referral for posttraumatic stress disorder: Clinical trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Each year in the US, approximately 1.5-2.5 million individuals are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospital admissions. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (College) now requires that trauma centers have in place protocols to identify and refer hospitalized patients at risk injury psychological sequelae. Literature review revealed no investigations that have identified optimal screening, intervention, and referral procedures in the wake of the College requirement. METHODS: The single-site pragmatic trial investigation will individually randomize 424 patients (212 intervention and 212 control) to a brief stepped care intervention versus College required mental health screening and referral control conditions. Blinded follow-up interviews at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-injury will assess the symptoms of PTSD and related comorbidity for all patients. The emergency department information exchange (EDIE) will be used to capture population-level automated emergency department and inpatient utilization data for the intent-to-treat sample. The investigation aims to test the primary hypotheses that intervention patients will demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and emergency department/inpatient utilization when compared to control patients. The study incorporates a Rapid Assessment Procedure-Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) implementation process assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The overarching goal of the investigation is to advance the sustainable delivery of high-quality trauma center mental health screening, intervention, and referral procedures for diverse injury survivors. An end-of-study policy summit will harness pragmatic trial data to inform the capacity for US trauma centers to implement high-quality acute care mental health screening, intervention and referral services for diverse injured patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT05632770.

Emergency Department and Inpatient Utilization Reductions and Cost Savings Associated With Trauma Center Mental Health Intervention: Results From a 5-year Longitudinal Randomized Clinical Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and refer patients at high risk for the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma now requires that trauma centers have in-place protocols. No investigations have documented reductions in utilization and associated potential cost savings associated with trauma center mental health interventions. BACKGROUND: The investigation was a randomized clinical trial analysis that incorporated novel 5-year emergency department (ED)/inpatient health service utilization follow-up data. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a mental health intervention, targeting the psychological sequelae of traumatic injury (n = 85) versus enhanced usual care control (n = 86) conditions. The intervention included case management that coordinated trauma center-to-community care linkages, psychotropic medication consultation, and psychotherapy elements. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention and control group utilization differences over time. An economic analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Over the course of the 5-year intervention, patients demonstrated significant reductions in ED/inpatient utilization when compared with control patients [ F (19,3210) = 2.23, P = 0.009]. Intervention utilization reductions were greatest at 3 to 6 months (intervention 15.5% vs control 26.7%, relative risk = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 1.00) and 12 to 15 months (intervention 16.5% vs control 30.6%, relative risk = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.91) postinjury time points. The economic analysis suggested potential intervention cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health intervention is associated with significant reductions in ED and inpatient utilization, as well as potential cost savings. These findings could be productively integrated into future American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma policy discussions.

Association of organizational culture and climate with variation in the clinical outcomes of collaborative care for maternal depression in community health centers.

Background: Organizational factors may help explain variation in the effectiveness of evidence-based clinical innovations through implementation and sustainment. This study tested the relationship between organizational culture and climate and variation in clinical outcomes of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for treatment of maternal depression implemented in community health centers. Method: Organizational cultures and climates of 10 community health centers providing CoCM for depression among low-income women pregnant or parenting were assessed using the organizational social context (OSC) measure. Three-level hierarchical linear models tested whether variation in culture and climate predicted variation in improvement in depression symptoms from baseline to 6.5-month post-baseline for N = 468 women with care ±1 year of OSC assessment. Depression symptomology was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Results: After controlling for patient characteristics, case mix, center size, and implementation support, patients served by centers with more proficient cultures improved significantly more from baseline to 6.5-month post-baseline than patients in centers with less proficient cultures (mean improvement = 5.08 vs. 0.14, respectively, p = .020), resulting in a large adjusted effect size of dadj = 0.78. A similar effect was observed for patients served by centers with more functional climates (mean improvement = 5.25 vs. 1.12, p < .044, dadj = 0.65). Growth models indicated that patients from all centers recovered on average after 4 months of care. However, those with more proficient cultures remained stabilized whereas patients served by centers with less proficient cultures deteriorated by 6.5-month post-baseline. A similar pattern was observed for functional climate. Conclusions: Variation in clinical outcomes for women from historically underserved populations receiving Collaborative Care for maternal depression was associated with the organizational cultures and climates of community health centers. Implementation strategies targeting culture and climate may improve the implementation and effectiveness of integrated behavioral health care for depression.

While many implementation theories espouse the importance of organizational culture and climate for the successful implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care, there is little research that tests this hypothesis. Since there are interventions which can improve organizational culture and climate, having more evidence that these factors are associated with implementation would support efforts to modify these aspects of a community health center as a means of improving implementation. This study showed that the extent to which patients clinically benefitted from the evidence-based Collaborative Care Model for maternal depression was related to the prevailing culture and climate of community health centers where they received treatment. Specifically, women seen at centers in which the staff and providers indicated that their organizations prioritize responsiveness to patients' needs over competing organizational goals and maintain competence in up-to-date treatment models (referred to as proficient culture), and understand their role in the organization and receive the cooperation and support they need from colleagues and supervisors to perform their job well (functional climate) were associated with sustained improvements in depression symptoms. This benefit was independent of other factors already known to be associated with these outcomes. Implementation strategies that target organizational culture (i.e., priorities and expectations for staff) and climate (i.e., quality of working environment) may improve the clinical outcomes of integrated collaborative care models for depression and reduce the commonly seen variation in outcomes across health centers.

Integrating pragmatic and implementation science randomized clinical trial approaches: a PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods have advanced substantially. Pragmatic and implementation studies have natural areas of overlap, particularly relating to the goal of using clinical trial data to leverage health care system policy changes. Few investigations have addressed pragmatic and implementation science randomized trial methods development while also considering policy impact. METHODS: The investigation used the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tools to evaluate the design of two multisite randomized clinical trials that targeted patient-level effectiveness outcomes, provider-level practice changes and health care system policy. Seven raters received PRECIS-2 training and applied the tools in the coding of the two trials. Descriptive statistics were produced for both trials, and PRECIS-2 wheel diagrams were constructed. Interrater agreement was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation (ICC) and Kappa statistics. The Rapid Assessment Procedure Informed Clinical Ethnography (RAPICE) qualitative approach was applied to understanding integrative themes derived from the PRECIS-2 ratings and an end-of-study policy summit. RESULTS: The ICCs for the composite ratings across the patient and provider-focused PRECIS-2 domains ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, and the Kappa values ranged from 0.25 to 0.37, reflecting overall fair-to-good interrater agreement for both trials. All four PRECIS-2 wheels were rated more pragmatic than explanatory, with composite mean and median scores ≥ 4. Across trials, the primary intent-to-treat analysis domain was consistently rated most pragmatic (mean = 5.0, SD = 0), while the follow-up/data collection domain was rated most explanatory (mean range = 3.14-3.43, SD range = 0.49-0.69). RAPICE field notes identified themes related to potential PRECIS-2 training improvements, as well as policy themes related to using trial data to inform US trauma care system practice change; the policy themes were not captured by the PRECIS-2 ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation documents that the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS can be simultaneously used to feasibly and reliably characterize clinical trials with patient and provider-level targets. The integration of pragmatic and implementation science clinical trial research methods can be furthered by using common metrics such as the PRECIS-2 and PRECIS-2-PS. Future study could focus on clinical trial policy research methods development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DO-SBIS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00607620. registered on January 29, 2008. TSOS ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354, registered on July 27, 2015.

Effectiveness of Collaborative Care and Colocated Specialty Care for Bipolar Disorder in Primary Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with bipolar disorder commonly present for treatment in primary care settings. Collaborative care and colocated specialty care models can improve quality of care and outcomes, though it is unknown which model is more effective. OBJECTIVE: To compare 12-month treatment outcomes for primary care patients with bipolar disorder randomized to treatment with collaborative care or colocated specialty care. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 191 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder treated for 12 months during a comparative effectiveness trial in 12 Federally Qualified Health Centers in three states. Characteristics and outcomes were assessed at enrollment and 12 months. The primary outcome was mental health quality of life scores (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Health Component Summary), and secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety symptom scores, euthymic mood state, and recovery. T-tests and multiple linear and logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: Among participants (mean age: 40 years; 73% women), the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Health Component Summary increased in both arms over 12 months (baseline: collaborative care 21.99, SD 10.78; colocated specialty 24.15, SD 12.05; 12-month collaborative care 30.63, SD 13.33; colocated specialty 34.16, SD 12.65). The mean Mental Health Component Summary change did not differ by arm (collaborative care: MΔ = 9.09; colocated specialty: MΔ = 10.73; t = -0.67, P = 0.50). Secondary outcomes also improved at 12 months compared to baseline measured by the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (MΔ = -0.75; SD = 0.85), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (MΔ = -3.92; SD = 6.48), and Recovery Assessment Scale (MΔ = 0.37; SD = 0.65) and did not differ significantly by arm. The proportion of participants with euthymic mood state increased from 11% to 25% with no statistically significant difference by arm. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of collaborative care and that of colocated specialty care were similar. Both were associated with substantial improvements in mental health quality of life and symptom reduction.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and alcohol and drug use comorbidity at 25 US level I trauma centers.

Background: Questions regarding the extent to which post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is comorbid with alcohol and drug use are particularly germane in an era when the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) is considering policy requiring screening, intervention and/or referral services for patients presenting with psychological sequalae of traumatic injury. Literature review revealed few multisite trauma-center-based investigations that have assessed the association between PTSD symptoms and alcohol and drug use comorbidities in injured patients. Methods: This investigation was a secondary analysis of baseline data collected prior to randomization in a 25-site trauma center pragmatic clinical trial. All 635 patients included in the investigation had elevated PTSD symptom levels at the time of trauma center admission. Self-report questionnaire screening, laboratory toxicology results, and electronic health record data were combined to assess the frequencies of alcohol, stimulant (i.e., amphetamine and cocaine), opioid and marijuana use comorbidities for injured patients. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between demographic and injury characteristics and alcohol and drug use comorbidity. Results: The frequency of patients with one or more alcohol or substance use comorbidity was between 62% and 79%. Over 50% of patients were positive for one or more alcohol or cannabis comorbidity. Approximately 26% of patients were positive for stimulants and 10% for opioid comorbidity. Discussion: This multisite investigation suggests that between 62% and 79% of hospitalized injury survivors with elevated PTSD symptoms have one or more alcohol or drug use comorbidity. Orchestrated ACS-COT policy and trauma center service delivery development should incorporate the key finding that a substantial majority of patients with high levels of psychological distress (eg, elevated PTSD symptoms) may have alcohol and drug use comorbidities. Level of evidence: Level II (epidemiological investigation of untreated controls from a multisite randomized clinical trial). Trial registration number: NCT02655354.

Bipolar disorder in primary care: Medication treatment by co-located psychiatrists versus primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medication treatment of individuals with bipolar disorder in two primary care-based integrated care models. METHODS: Participants were randomized to 12-months of treatment with direct care by co-located psychiatrists in primary care, or collaborative care (primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists). Medication data at initial and last treatment visits were extracted from the clinical registry for 191 patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Participants receiving no medication treatment decreased from 28% to 11% (direct co-located) (χ2 = 10.9, p < .001) and 39% to 17% (collaborative care; χ2 = 16.9, p < .001). Last visit medication prescriptions for antipsychotic medication (approximately one-half of participants) increased significantly compared to initial visit and did not differ between arms. Anticonvulsant mood-stabilizing medication (approximately one-third of participants in both arms) was higher than lithium prescription (approximately 6% of participants) at last visit. CONCLUSION: Similar patterns of medication treatment were observed in participants with bipolar disorder receiving either direct care from psychiatrists, or medication treatment by primary care clinicians supported by psychiatrists.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial Approach to Assessing and Monitoring Suicidal Ideation: Results from A National US Trauma Care System Study.

OBJECTIVE: Few investigations have comprehensively described methods for assessing and monitoring suicidal ideation in pragmatic clinical trials of mental health services interventions. This investigation's goal was to assess a collaborative care intervention's effectiveness in reducing suicidal ideation and describe suicide monitoring implementation in a nationwide protocol. METHOD: The investigation was a secondary analysis of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial at 25-Level I trauma centers. Injury survivors (N = 635) were randomized to control (n = 370) and intervention (n = 265) conditions and assessed at baseline hospitalization and follow-up at 3-, 6- and 12-months post-injury. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) item-9 was used to evaluate patients for suicidal ideation. Mixed model regression was used to assess intervention versus control group changes in PHQ-9 item-9 scores over time and associations between baseline characteristics and development of suicidal ideation longitudinally. As part of the study implementation process assessment, suicide outreach call logs were also reviewed. RESULTS: Over 50% of patients endorsed suicidal ideation at ≥1 assessment. Intervention patients relative to control patients demonstrated reductions in endorsements of suicidal ideation that did not achieve statistical significance (F[3,1461] = 0.74, P = .53). The study team completed outreach phone calls, texts or voice messages to 268 patients with PHQ-9 item-9 scores ≥1 (n = 161 control, n = 107 intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Suicide assessment and monitoring can be feasibly implemented in large-scale pragmatic clinical trials. Intervention patients demonstrated less suicidal ideation over time; however, these comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. Intensive pragmatic trial monitoring may mask treatment effects by providing control patients a supportive intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354.

The Patient Mania Questionnaire (PMQ-9): a Brief Scale for Assessing and Monitoring Manic Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Measurement-based care is an effective clinical strategy underutilized for bipolar disorder partly due to lacking a widely adopted patient-reported manic symptom measure. OBJECTIVE: To report development and psychometric properties of a brief patient-reported manic symptom measure. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized effectiveness trial comparing two treatments for 1004 primary care patients screening positive for bipolar disorder and/or PTSD. PARTICIPANTS: Two analytic samples included 114 participants with varied diagnoses and test-retest data, and 179 participants with psychiatrist-diagnosed bipolar disorder who had two or more assessments with the nine-item Patient Mania Questionnaire-9 [PMQ-9]). MAIN MEASURES: Internal and test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change were assessed. Minimally important difference (MID) was estimated by standard error of measurement (SEM) and by standard deviation (SD) effect sizes. KEY RESULTS: The PMQ-9 had high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and test-retest reliability (0.85). Concurrent validity correlation with manic symptom measures was high for the Internal State Scale-Activation Subscale (0.70; p<0.0001), and lower for the Altman Mania Rating Scale (0.26; p=0.007). Longitudinally, PMQ-9 was completed at 1511 clinical encounters in 179 patients with bipolar disorder. Mean PMQ-9 score at first and last encounters was 14.5 (SD 6.5) and 10.1 (SD 7.0), a 27% decrease in mean score during treatment, suggesting sensitivity to change. A point estimate of the MID was approximately 3 points (range of 2-4). CONCLUSIONS: The PMQ-9 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and sensitivity to change and was widely used and acceptable to patients and clinicians in a pragmatic clinical trial. Combined with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) measure of depressive symptoms this brief measure could inform measurement-based care for individuals with bipolar disorder in primary care and mental health care settings given its ease of administration and familiar self-report response format.

Population-based implementation of behavioral health detection and treatment into primary care: early data from New York state.

BACKGROUND: The Collaborative Care Model is a well-established, evidence-based approach to treating depression and other common behavioral health conditions in primary care settings. Despite a robust evidence base, real world implementation of Collaborative Care has been limited and very slow. The goal of this analysis is to better describe and understand the progression of implementation in the largest state-led Collaborative Care program in the nation-the New York State Collaborative Care Medicaid Program. Data are presented using the RE-AIM model, examining the proportion of clinics in each of the model's five steps from 2014 to 2019. METHODS: We used the RE-AIM model to shape our data presentation, focusing on the proportion of clinics moving into each of the five steps of this model over the years of implementation. Data sources included: a New York State Office of Mental Health clinic tracking database, billing applications, quarterly reports, and Medicaid claims. RESULTS: A total of 84% of clinics with which OMH had an initial contact [n = 611clinics (377 FQHCs and 234 non-FQHCs)] received some form of training and technical assistance. Of those, 51% went on to complete a billing application, 41% reported quarterly data at least once, and 20% were able to successfully bill Medicaid. Of clinics that reported data prior to the first quarter of 2019, 79% (n = 130) maintained Collaborative Care for 1 year or more. The receipt of any training and technical assistance was significantly associated with our implementation indices: (completed billing application, data reporting, billing Medicaid, and maintaining Collaborative Care). The average percent of patient improvement for depression and anxiety across 155 clinics that had at least one quarter of data was 44.81%. Training and technical assistance source (Office of Mental Health, another source, or both) and intensity (high/low) were significantly related to implementation indices and were observed in FQHC versus non-FQHC samples. CONCLUSIONS: Offering Collaborative Care training and technical assistance, particularly high intensity training and technical assistance, increases the likelihood of implementation. Other state-wide organizations might consider the provision of training and technical assistance when assisting clinics to implement Collaborative Care.

A Prospective US National Trauma Center Study of Firearm Injury Survivors Weapon Carriage and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic, injury-related, and mental health characteristics of firearm injury patients and trace firearm weapon carriage and PTSD symptoms over the year after injury. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Based on the increasing incidence of firearm injury and need for novel injury prevention strategies, hospital-based violence intervention programs are being implemented in US trauma centers. There is limited data on the long-term outcomes and risk behaviors of firearm injury survivors to guide this work. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a pragmatic 25-trauma center randomized trial (N = 635). Baseline characteristics of firearm-injured patients (N = 128) were compared with other trauma patients. Mixed model regression was used to identify risk factors for postinjury firearm weapon carriage and PTSD symptoms. RESULTS: Firearm injury patients were younger and more likely to be black, male and of lower socioeconomic status, and more likely to carry a firearm in the year before injury. Relative to preinjury, there was a significant drop in firearm weapon carriage at 3- and 6-months postinjury, followed by a return to preinjury levels at 12-months. Firearm injury was significantly and independently associated with an increased risk of postinjury firearm weapon carriage [relative risk = 2.08, 95% confidence interval (1.34, 3.22), P < 0.01] and higher PTSD symptom levels [Beta = 3.82, 95% confidence interval (1.29, 6.35), P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Firearm injury survivors are at risk for firearm carriage and high PTSD symptom levels postinjury. The significant decrease in the high-risk behavior of firearm weapon carriage at 3-6 months postinjury suggests that there is an important postinjury "teachable moment" that should be targeted with preventive interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354.

Assessing the Impact of Different Depression Treatment Success Metrics on Organizational Performance.

Objective: The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is commonly used to assess depression symptoms, but its associated treatment success criteria (i.e., metrics) are inconsistently defined. The authors aimed to analyze the impact of metric choice on outcomes and discuss implications for clinical practice and research. Methods: Analyses included three overlapping and nonexclusive time cohorts of adult patients with depression treated in 33 organizations between 2008 and 2018. Average depression improvement rates were calculated according to eight metrics. Organization-level rank orders defined by these metrics were calculated and correlated. Results: The 12-month cohort had higher rates of metrics indicating treatment success than did the 3- and 6-month cohorts; the degree of improvement varied by metric, although all organization-level rank orders were highly correlated. Conclusions: Different PHQ-9 treatment metrics are associated with disparate improvement rates. Organization-level rankings defined by different metrics are highly correlated. Consistency of metric use may be more important than specific metric choice.

Effectiveness of collaborative care in reducing suicidal ideation: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

To assess whether CC is more effective at reducing suicidal ideation in people with depression compared with usual care, and whether study and patient factors moderate treatment effects. METHOD: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL from inception to March 2020 for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of CC with usual care in depressed adults, and reported changes in suicidal ideation at 4 to 6 months post-randomisation. Mixed-effects models accounted for clustering of participants within trials and heterogeneity across trials. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020201747. RESULTS: We extracted data from 28 RCTs (11,165 patients) of 83 eligible studies. We observed a small significant clinical improvement of CC on suicidal ideation, compared with usual care (SMD, -0.11 [95%CI, -0.15 to -0.08]; I2, 0·47% [95%CI 0.04% to 4.90%]). CC interventions with a recognised psychological treatment were associated with small reductions in suicidal ideation (SMD, -0.15 [95%CI -0.19 to -0.11]). CC was more effective for reducing suicidal ideation among patients aged over 65 years (SMD, - 0.18 [95%CI -0.25 to -0.11]). CONCLUSION: Primary care based CC with an embedded psychological intervention is the most effective CC framework for reducing suicidal ideation and older patients may benefit the most.

Stepped Collaborative Care Targeting Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Comorbidity for US Trauma Care Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, few multisite investigations have evaluated early interventions for injured patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Objective: To simultaneously assess the effectiveness and implementation of a brief stepped collaborative care intervention targeting PTSD and comorbidity. Design, Setting, and Participants: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 25 US level I trauma centers. Participants included hospitalized survivors of physical injury who underwent a 2-step evaluation for PTSD symptoms. Patients reporting high levels of distress on the PTSD Checklist (PCL-C) were randomized (N = 635) per the stepped-wedge protocol to enhanced usual care control (n = 370) or intervention (n = 265) conditions. The study was conducted from January 4, 2016, through November 2018. Data analysis was performed from November 4, 2019, to December 8, 2020. Interventions: The Trauma Survivors Outcomes and Support collaborative care intervention included proactive injury case management that assisted patients transitioning from hospital inpatient to outpatient and community settings. The intervention also integrated evidence-based pharmacotherapy and psychotherapeutic elements targeting PTSD symptoms and comorbidity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was PTSD symptoms assessed with the PCL-C at baseline in the surgical ward and at 3, 6, and 12 months postinjury. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and physical function. Subgroup analyses examined the effect of baseline risk factors for enduring PTSD and quality of protocol implementation on study outcomes. Primary statistical analyses were conducted using the intent-to-treat sample. Results: A total of 327 men (51.5%) were included in analysis; mean (SD) age was 39.0 (14.2) years. The investigation attained follow-up of 75% to 80% of the participants at 3 to 12 months. The intervention lasted a mean (SD) of 122 (132) minutes. Mixed model regression analyses revealed statistically significant changes in PCL-C scores for intervention patients compared with control patients at 6 months (difference, -2.57; 95% CI, -5.12 to -0.03; effect size, 0.18; P < .05) but not 12 months (difference, -1.27; 95% CI, -4.26 to 1.73; effect size, 0.08; P = .35). Subgroup analyses revealed larger PTSD treatment effects for patients with 3 or more baseline risk factors for enduring PTSD and for patients, including firearm injury survivors, treated at trauma centers with good or excellent protocol implementation. Intervention effects for secondary outcomes did not attain statistical significance. Conclusions and Relevance: A brief stepped collaborative care intervention was associated with significant 6-month but not 12-month PTSD symptom reductions. Greater baseline PTSD risk and good or excellent trauma center protocol implementation were associated with larger PTSD treatment effects. Orchestrated efforts targeting policy and funding should systematically incorporate the study findings into national trauma center requirements and verification criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02655354.

Leveraging a health information exchange to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department utilization data among hospitalized injury survivors.

BACKGROUND: Accurate acute care medical utilization history is an important outcome for clinicians and investigators concerned with improving trauma center care. The objective of this study was to examine the accuracy of self-report emergency department (ED) utilization compared with utilization obtained from the Emergency Department Information Exchange (EDIE) in admitted trauma surgery patients with comorbid mental health and substance use problems. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 169 injured patients admitted to the University of Washington's Harborview Level I Trauma Center. Patients had high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and alcohol comorbidity. The investigation used EDIE, a novel health technology tool that collects information at the time a patient checks into any ED in Washington and other US states. Patterns of EDIE-documented visits were described, and the accuracy of injured patients' self-report visits was compared with EDIE-recorded visits during the course of the 12 months prior to the index trauma center admission. RESULTS: Overall, 45% of the sample (n=76) inaccurately recalled their ED visits during the past year, with 36 participants (21%) reporting less ED visits than EDIE indicated and 40 (24%) reporting more ED visits than EDIE indicated. Patients with histories of alcohol use problems and major psychiatric illness were more likely to either under-report or over-report ED health service use. DISCUSSION: Nearly half of all patients were unable to accurately recall ED visits in the previous 12 months compared with EDIE, with almost one-quarter of patients demonstrating high levels of disagreement. The improved accuracy and ease of use when compared with self-report make EDIE an important tool for both clinical and pragmatic trial longitudinal outcome assessments. Orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could further examine the benefits of introducing EDIE and other information exchanges into routine acute care clinical workflows. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II/III. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02274688.

Acceptability of a lay-delivered intervention for depression in senior centers.

OBJECTIVE: We examined: 1. depression rates among senior center clients; and 2. the acceptability of a lay-delivered intervention for depression ("Do More, Feel Better") from the perspective of key stakeholders prior to its implementation. METHOD: We conducted cross-sectional surveys at four Seattle-area senior centers of 140 clients, 124 volunteers, and 12 administrators and staff. Client measures included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to determine depression severity, and items assessing depression treatment preferences. Following description of "Do More, Feel Better" as a lay-delivered intervention focused on increasing participation in rewarding activities, we used quantitative and qualitative items to assess acceptability to: 1. clients participating in; 2. volunteers administering; and 3. administrators and staff supporting the intervention. RESULTS: 25% of senior center clients (35/140) endorsed elevated depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). 81% of clients (114/140) reported that they would consider participating in "Do More, Feel Better," and 59% percent of volunteers (73/123) expressed interest in learning how to assist others using the intervention. Administrators and staff reported high comfort levels with proposed volunteer training procedures, and they identified funding and staffing considerations as challenges to sustaining the intervention. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate high depression rates among senior center clients and support the acceptability of lay-delivered behavioral interventions for depression from a variety of stakeholders. Further investigation of the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of "Do More, Feel Better" is warranted, particularly in the context of a lack of health care professionals available to meet the mental health needs of older adults.