Satisfaction and Mental Health Outcomes Associated with a Large Regional Helpline.

We surveyed users of a behavioral health helpline serving New York City and surroundings, to assess their helpline experiences, changes in psychological distress after contacting the helpline, and factors associated with differences in these measures. We surveyed users twice: roughly 2 weeks following their helpline contact, from 4/2019 to 9/2019 (N = 1097 respondents) and again 6 months following contact, from 10/2019 to 3/2020 (N = 732 respondents). Eighty-nine percent of respondents reported that contacting the helpline helped them deal a little or a lot more effectively with their problems. Rates of psychological distress decreased from 41.3% 2 weeks following helpline contact to 29.0% 6 months after (P < 0.05). Improvements in psychological distress were found across a range of demographic characteristics and were greatest for repeat users. Users reported broadly positive experiences with the helpline and improved psychological distress 6 months later. Behavioral health helplines can offer beneficial services to diverse populations, complementing the formal behavioral healthcare system.

Acceptance of New Clients by Mental Health Clinicians in Massachusetts: Findings From a Representative Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the number of new clients accepted by licensed mental health clinicians in Massachusetts and clinician characteristics associated with new clients accepted. METHODS: Surveys about client access to outpatient mental health care were sent to a stratified random sample of 2,250 licensed mental health clinicians (psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed certified social workers, licensed independent clinical social workers, licensed mental health counselors, and licensed marriage and family therapists) practicing in Massachusetts. The survey was administered from September 2016 to March 2017 by using a mail survey with a push-to-Web design and telephone follow-up. The final adjusted response rate was 28% (N=413). Results were weighted to reflect the sampling design and for nonresponse and are representative of all licensed mental health clinicians in Massachusetts. RESULTS: On average, clinicians accepted seven new clients per month. Although most clinicians reported accepting one or more new clients per month, half reported accepting four or fewer new clients per month. After adjustment for other factors, the analysis showed that clinicians in practices owned by hospitals or health systems reported accepting eight more new clients per month, on average, than clinicians in solo private practices (p<0.05). Clinicians in private group practices reported accepting two more new clients per month on average than clinicians in solo private practices (p<0.05). Working fewer than 30 hours per week and tenure of more than 1 year in one's current position were negatively associated with acceptance of new clients. CONCLUSIONS: New client acceptance varied by practice setting but not by type of clinician. These findings can inform mental health system and workforce planning to improve access to mental health services.

A review of instruments to measure interprofessional team-based primary care.

Interprofessional team-based care is increasingly regarded as an important feature of delivery systems redesigned to provide more efficient and higher quality care, including primary care. Measurement of the functioning of such teams might enable improvement of team effectiveness and could facilitate research on team-based primary care. Our aims were to develop a conceptual framework of high-functioning primary care teams to identify and review instruments that measure the constructs identified in the framework, and to create a searchable, web-based atlas of such instruments (available at: http://primarycaremeasures.ahrq.gov/team-based-care/ ). Our conceptual framework was developed from existing frameworks, the teamwork literature, and expert input. The framework is based on an Input-Mediator-Output model and includes 12 constructs to which we mapped both instruments as a whole, and individual instrument items. Instruments were also reviewed for relevance to measuring team-based care, and characterized. Instruments were identified from peer-reviewed and grey literature, measure databases, and expert input. From nearly 200 instruments initially identified, we found 48 to be relevant to measuring team-based primary care. The majority of instruments were surveys (n = 44), and the remainder (n = 4) were observational checklists. Most instruments had been developed/tested in healthcare settings (n = 30) and addressed multiple constructs, most commonly communication (n = 42), heedful interrelating (n = 42), respectful interactions (n = 40), and shared explicit goals (n = 37). The majority of instruments had some reliability testing (n = 39) and over half included validity testing (n = 29). Currently available instruments offer promise to researchers and practitioners to assess teams' performance, but additional work is needed to adapt these instruments for primary care settings.