A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Development and validation of the patient centeredness index for primary care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of the Patient Centeredness Index (PCI), evaluate its psychometric characteristics and evaluate the relationships between scores on the PCI and an established measure of empathy. BACKGROUND: Patient centeredness helps patients manage multiple chronic conditions with their providers, nurses and other team members. However, no instrument exists for evaluating patient centeredness within primary care practices treating this population. DESIGN: Multi-site instrument development and validation. STROBE reporting guidelines were followed. METHODS: To identify themes, we consulted literature on patient centeredness and engaged stakeholders who had or were caring for people with multiple chronic conditions (n = 7). We composed and refined items to represent those themes with input from clinicians and researchers. To evaluate reliability and convergent validity, we administered surveys to participants (n = 3622) with chronic conditions recruited from 44 primary care practices for a large-scale cluster randomised clinical trial of the effects of a practice-level intervention on patient and practice-level outcomes. Participants chose to complete the 16-item survey online, on paper or by phone. Surveys assessed demographics, number of chronic conditions and ratings of provider empathy. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to model the interrelationships among items. RESULTS: A single factor explained 93% of total variance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.55-0.85, and item-test correlations were ≥.67. Cronbach's alpha was .93. A moderate, linear correlation with ratings of provider's empathy (r = .65) supports convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The PCI is a new tool for obtaining patient perceptions of the patient centeredness of their primary care practice. The PCI shows acceptable reliability and evidence of convergent validity among patients managing chronic conditions. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The PCI rapidly identifies patients' perspectives on patient centeredness of their practice, making it ideal for administration in busy primary care settings that aim to efficiently address patient-identified needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.org Protocol ID: WLPS-1409-24372. TITLE: Integrating Behavioural Health and Primary Care for Comorbid Behavioural and Medical Problems (IBHPC).

A Descriptive analysis of urine drug screen results in patients with opioid use disorder managed in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug screening (UDS) is commonly used as part of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), including treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting. Very little is known about the value of UDS, the optimum screening frequency in general, or its specific use for buprenorphine treatment in primary care. To address this question, we thought that in a stable population receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in the primary care setting it would be useful to know how often UDS yielded expected and unexpected results. METHODS: We present a descriptive analysis of UDS results in patients treated with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting over a two-year period. An unexpected test result is: 1. A negative test for buprenorphine and/or 2. A positive test for opioids, methadone, cocaine and/or heroin. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients received care during the study period and a total of 2588 test results were analyzed from this population. We found that 64.4% of the patient population (n = 104 patients) demonstrated both treatment adherence (as measured by buprenorphine positive test results) and no apparent unexpected test findings, as defined by negative tests for opioids, methadone, cocaine and heroin. Of the 161 patients, 20 results were positive for opioids, 5 for methadone, 39 for heroin and 2 for cocaine. Analysis at the UDS level demonstrated that, of the 2588 test results, 38 (1.5%) results did not have buprenorphine. Of the 2588, 28 (1.1%) test results were positive for opioids, 8 (0.3%) were positive for methadone, 39 (1.5%) for cocaine and 2 (0.1%) for heroin. CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of patients in our study had expected urine results, it may be reasonable for less frequent urine testing in certain patients.

The Relationship Between Social Determinants of Health and Functional Capacity in Adult Primary Care Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Social determinants of health (SDoH) including insecure access to food, housing, and financial resources are critical threats to overall health. We sought to examine this relationship among adult primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: We obtained cross-sectional data on 2763 adults with chronic medical and behavioral conditions or greater than 2 chronic medical conditions from a survey of participants in Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care, a multicenter randomized trial. RESULTS: The prevalence of 1 or more insecurities was reported in 29% of participants, including food (13%), housing (3%), or financial (25%). Functional capacity ranged from 2.74 to 9.89 metabolic equivalents (METs) (median, 6.05). The distribution of functional capacity was significantly lower for those with any 1 or more SDoH than for those without. Each insecurity independently affected the functional capacity in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary care patients with chronic conditions, SDoH are associated with poorer functional capacity, independent of other social and demographic factors. Primary care offers a promising, if underused, opportunity to intervene in SDoH. There is a need for future studies to explore the role of screening and intervention by primary care providers to mitigate or prevent SDoH.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Adiposity, but not Obesity, Is Associated With Arterial Stiffness in Young Nulliparous Women.

Subclinical vascular dysfunction is increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The evidence linking indices of obesity and vascular dysfunction is mixed. As an example, some data suggest that adiposity may be a better predictor of endothelial dysfunction than body mass index (BMI). The aim of the current study is to compare the association of obesity, as evaluated by BMI, and a direct measure of body fat to biophysical parameters of vascular function including flow-mediated vasodilation and pulse wave velocity (PWV) in healthy nulliparous reproductive-age women. This is a secondary analysis of data collected as a prospective study of prepregnancy physiology in healthy, nulliparous women. Body mass index was calculated as weight (kg)/height (m2). Total and android body fat were calculated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Brachial PWV and flow-mediated vasodilation were assessed ultrasonographically. Seventy-nine women were evaluated. Mean BMI was 24.4 (5.4) kg/m2, and 15% of women were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). In contrast, 39% were considered to have excess adiposity, with ≥39% android body fat. Brachial PWV was associated with increased adiposity, but not obesity. We found no differences in flow-mediated dilation associated with either BMI or body fat. Adiposity may be superior to BMI in identifying women with vascular dysfunction at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome and cardiovascular disease. Proper identification may allow implementation of prevention strategies to improve perinatal outcomes and maternal health.

Methadone and buprenorphine for opioid dependence during pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare maternal characteristics, prenatal care, and newborn outcomes in a cohort of opioid-dependent pregnant women treated with methadone versus buprenorphine. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 609 pregnant, opioid-dependent women were treated with methadone (n = 248) or buprenorphine (n = 361) between 2000 and 2012 at a single institution. RESULTS: Mothers treated with buprenorphine were more likely to start medication before or earlier in pregnancy, had longer gestation, and gave birth to larger infants. Newborns of buprenorphine- versus methadone-maintained mothers required treatment for neonatal abstinence significantly less often and for a shorter duration. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest pregnancy outcomes with buprenorphine to treat opioid dependence during pregnancy in clinical practice are as good and often better than outcomes with methadone. These results are consistent with efficacy data from randomized clinical trials and further support the use of buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid dependence during pregnancy.

Ductal lavage of cancerous and unaffected breasts: procedure success rate and cancer detection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ductal lavage (DL) performance in women with known breast cancer and to assess cell yield from contralateral high-risk breasts. STUDY DESIGN: Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were offered study participation. They underwent bilateral nipple aspiration, followed by DL of those ducts demonstrating nipple aspiration fluid (NAF) production. The procedures were conducted in the operating room prior to definitive surgery. Samples were interpreted masked as to which breast was malignant, and the interpretation used a 5-category scheme: insufficient, benign, mildly atypical, markedly atypical or malignant. RESULTS: A total of 23 women with 24 cancers were enrolled, ranging in age from 32 to 76. One had ductal carcinoma in situ; there were 13 T1, 6 T2 and 4 T3 lesions. NAF was identified in 72% of breasts, more commonly in cancerous than unaffected breasts. DL was performed on 33 breasts; of these, 55% were adequate. Only 16.6% of samples from malignant breasts contained abnormality, marked atypia in 1 and malignancy in 3. No samples from unaffected breasts demonstrated cellular abnormalities. CONCLUSION: The low sensitivity of DL performed on malignant breasts to identify abnormal cells adds to the growing body of evidence that this is not an effective tool in identifying existing breast cancer. Numbers are small, but the ability of DL to identify atypia in unaffected high-risk breasts may also be suboptimal. Future efforts should focus on molecular markers of risk and on alternate means of cell or tissue retrieval.

Phase I/II trial of adjuvant dose-dense docetaxel/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (TEC) in stage II and III breast cancer.

UNLABELLED: This phase I/II trial investigates the safety and feasibility of six cycles of concurrent taxane, anthracycline and cyclophosphamide on a dose dense schedule. Patients with stage II/III breast cancer were treated with docetaxel (T) 75 mg/m(2), epirubicin (E) 75 mg/m(2) (cohort 1, n = 3) or 100 mg/m(2) (cohort 2, n = 12), and cyclophosphamide (C) 500 mg/m(2) IV on day 1, with pegfilgrastim 6 mg subcutaneously on day 2, every 2 weeks for six cycles. Patients were assessed for toxicity every 2 weeks; cardiac function and response (if neoadjuvant) were assessed after six cycles. All patients in cohort 1 received 100% planned dose intensity; in cohort 2, five of twelve patients received 100% and 11/12 received >80%. There were no dose reductions or delays for day 1 myelotoxicity. Dose reductions as a result of febrile neutropenia (FN) occurred in cohort 2, with six of twelve patients experiencing FN in seven of sixty-nine cycles. Six patients had anemia > or =grade 3; five received RBC transfusion and seven received an erythropoietic growth factor. Four patients required dose reductions for nonhematologic toxicity (two mucositis; one neurotoxicity; one diarrhea + cellulitis). Four patients developed thrombophlebitis, which was associated with FN in one of four. Two of fourteen evaluable patients had asymptomatic decreases in LVEF >10%; all remained within normal range. All four patients receiving neoadjuvant TEC had significant clinical responses (one CR, three PR). No pathologic CRs were seen. CONCLUSIONS: Dose dense TEC chemotherapy is feasible, has acceptable toxicity at doses equivalent to TAC (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), epirubicin 75 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)), and has moderate but manageable toxicity using a higher epirubicin dose of 100 mg/m(2), with FN occurring in six of twelve patients at the higher dose.