An Observational Study of Proactive and On-Request Psychiatry Consultation Services: Evidence for Differing Roles and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Proactive psychiatric consultation services rapidly identify and assess medical inpatients in need of psychiatric care. In addition to more rapid contact, proactive services may reduce the length of stay and improve staff satisfaction. However, in some settings, it is impractical to integrate a proactive consultation service into every hospital unit; on-request and proactive services are likely to coexist in the future. Prior research has focused on changes in outcomes with the implementation of proactive services. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This report describes differences between contemporary proactive and on-request services within the same academic medical center, comparing demographic and clinical data collected retrospectively from a 4-year period from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The proactive service saw patients over four times as many initial admissions (7592 vs. 1762), but transitions and handoffs between services were common, with 434 admissions involving both services, comprising nearly 20% of the on-request service's total contacts. The proactive service admissions had a shorter length of stay and a faster time to first psychiatric contact, and the patients seen were more likely to be female, of Black race, and to be publicly insured. There were over three times as many admissions to psychiatry from the proactive service. The on-request service's admissions had a longer length of stay, were much more likely to involve intensive care unit services, surgical services, and transfers among units, and the patients seen were more likely to die in the hospital or to be discharged to subacute rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that the two services fulfill complementary roles, with the proactive service's rapid screening and contact providing care to a high volume of patients who might otherwise be unidentified and underserved. Simultaneously, the on-request service's ability to manage patients in response to consult requests over a much larger area of the hospital provided important support and continuity for patients with complex health needs. Institutions revising their consultation services will likely need to consider the best balance of these differing functions to address perceived demand for services.

Role Distinctions and Role Overlap Among Behavioral Health Providers.

Integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) models are a growing trend for health care delivery, particularly in the primary setting. Clinicians working within IBHC contexts provide a spectrum of behavioral health services, including screening, prevention and health promotion, assessment, and treatment services. Integration of behavioral health providers into primary and specialty medical settings addresses the significant need for behavioral health services, improves care quality, improves patient experience, and reduces costs of care, access issues, and delays in service provision. While benefits are clear, what type of model to implement and which behavioral health care providers to include in that model remain elusive. This is partly due to the failure of IBHC models to include all behavioral health providers in their design, a lack of clarity of the expertise of each provider, and how providers work together. IBHC models are also complicated by contextual issues such as the relative availability of each profession, population health needs in different clinic populations, and financial factors. The purpose of this manuscript is to the clarify roles and responsibilities of different behavioral health professions including similarities and differences in their training, areas of unique expertise (role distinctions), shared responsibilities (role overlap), and relative cost and availability in the United States.

The Intensive Treatment Unit: A brief inpatient detoxification facility demonstrating good postdetoxification treatment entry.

Inpatient detoxification is frequently used to treat substance use disorders, despite consistent findings that drug use soon after detoxification is the norm. A number of lines of evidence suggest the most rational means of improving outcomes after detoxification is to improve postdetoxification treatment entry. This report presents outcomes from the Intensive Treatment Unit (ITU), a brief inpatient detoxification unit in Baltimore, MD, found to have good postdischarge treatment entry outcomes. The patients followed were predominantly male African Americans in early middle age who were sequentially admitted to the unit (N = 134) and demonstrated severe social disruption and psychiatric comorbidity. More than 80% of the patients discharged from the ITU were admitted to treatment postdetoxification, with most going to long-term residential settings or recovery houses. Success was associated with seeking residential treatment, and failure was concentrated among the minority discharged with no plan for aftercare and those seeking outpatient treatments. The report explores patient and process factors associated with these outcomes and discusses the possibility that the ITU may be a model system for improving outcomes postdetoxification.