State Legislative Approach to Enumerating Behavioral Health Workforce Shortages: Lessons Learned in New Mexico.

Nationally, the behavioral health workforce is in crisis because of a lack of resources, culturally responsive services, quality clinical supervision, sufficient training in evidence-based practices, and targeted recruitment and retention. Disparities in access to behavioral health care are particularly significant in New Mexico, where 25% of the population live in rural areas, and behavioral health shortages are among the highest in the nation. Additionally, as a Medicaid expansion state, New Mexico providers experience increased demand for services at a time when the state is challenged with limited workforce capacity. To address this issue, the Health Care Work Force Data Collection, Analysis and Policy Act was legislatively enacted in 2011 to systematically survey all state licensed health professionals to determine reasons for the healthcare shortage and address the shortage through policy. The Act was amended in 2012 to transfer all data to the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center. In 2015, a total of 4,488 behavioral health providers completed a survey as a mandatory part of their license renewal. Findings from the survey indicate a dearth of licensed behavioral health providers representative of the populations served, limited access to services via Medicaid and Medicare payer sources, limited access to providers working in public health settings, and limited access to Health Information Technology. This paper describes the workforce context in New Mexico, the purpose of the legislation, the analytic findings from the survey, the policies implemented as a result of these efforts, lessons learned, and a discussion of the relevancy of the New Mexico model for other states. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled The Behavioral Health Workforce: Planning, Practice, and Preparation, which is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

After Newtown: mental illness and violence.

In the wake of the latest mass shooting, there are calls to marshal the evidence and take steps to identify and treat mental illness early in life.

Immediate breast reconstruction and lymphedema incidence.

BACKGROUND: As breast cancer survivorship increases, more women are being affected by treatment sequelae, including lymphedema. The purpose of this study was to evaluate lymphedema incidence among immediate breast reconstruction patients and determine what factors are associated with lymphedema, including reconstruction method. METHODS: The authors reviewed the outcomes of all consecutive patients who underwent immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction at their institution between 2001 and 2006. Patient, treatment, and outcome characteristics were compared among reconstruction types: expander and implant, latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap and implant, and autologous flap alone. Regression models were used to determine whether patient and treatment characteristics were associated with lymphedema development. RESULTS: This study included 1117 patients (1499 breasts), with a mean follow-up of 56 months. Axillary interventions (p < 0.001), high numbers of positive lymph nodes (p = 0.004), postoperative radiation therapy (p = 0.007), and body mass index of 25 kg/m or greater (p = 0.010) were strong predictors of increased lymphedema incidence. After excluding prophylactic mastectomy and reconstruction group changes, the authors found that the mean lymphedema incidence was 4.0 percent (of 1013 breasts). Reconstruction type had no significant effect on incidence of or time to lymphedema, and no interaction was found between axillary intervention and reconstruction type (p = 0.799). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of lymphedema after immediate reconstruction was associated with high body mass index, axillary interventions, and high numbers of positive lymph nodes. The reconstructive method did not appear to affect lymphedema incidence or timing. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Reduced incidence of breast cancer-related lymphedema following mastectomy and breast reconstruction versus mastectomy alone.

BACKGROUND: As breast cancer survivorship has increased, so has an awareness of the morbidities associated with its treatment. The incidence of breast cancer-related lymphedema has been reported to be 8 to 30 percent in all breast cancer survivors. To determine whether breast cancer reconstruction has an impact on the incidence of breast cancer-related lymphedema, the authors compared its incidence in patients who underwent mastectomy with reconstruction versus mastectomy alone. METHODS: All patients who underwent mastectomy, with or without immediate breast reconstruction, between 2001 and 2006, were identified through a search of prospective institutional databases. To reduce variation caused by known predictive factors, the individuals were cross-matched for age, axillary intervention, and postoperative axillary irradiation. The incidence of lymphedema was based on the presence of arm edema that lasted more than 6 months and was documented clinically. RESULTS: Of the 574 cross-matched patients included in the study, 78 (6.8 percent) developed lymphedema (21 with reconstructed breasts and 57 with unreconstructed breasts). Patients who did not undergo reconstruction were significantly more likely to develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (9.9 percent versus 3.7 percent; p < 0.001). Postoperative axillary radiation therapy (p < 0.001), one or more positive lymph nodes (p = 0.010), and body mass index of 25 or greater (p = 0.021) were also associated with an increased incidence of lymphedema. Reconstruction patients developed lymphedema significantly later than nonreconstruction patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo breast reconstruction have a lower incidence and a delay in onset of breast cancer-related lymphedema compared with patients who undergo mastectomy alone. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Random postoperative day-3 cortisol concentration as a predictor of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis integrity after transsphenoidal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a random postoperative day-3 cortisol value of 10 µg/dL or greater is predictive of adrenal sufficiency 3 to 10 weeks after transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) and during long-term clinical follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the case records of patients who underwent TSS at our institution between 1991 and 2008. Inclusion criteria were as follows: random cortisol measured on the morning of postoperative day 3, adrenal dynamic testing performed 3 to 10 weeks after TSS, and clinical assessment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis at least 6 months after TSS. RESULTS: A total of 466 patients underwent TSS at our institution during the study period. Eighty-three patients met study inclusion criteria. Sensitivity of a random postoperative day-3 serum cortisol value of 10 µg/dL or greater for the prediction of adrenal sufficiency at a median follow-up of 42 days was 64.81% (95% confidence interval, 50.6%-77.32%), with an odds ratio of 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-8.58). Specificity was 62.1% (95% confidence interval, 42.3%-79.3%). At a median follow-up of 500 days, only 2 patients with a postoperative day-3 cortisol value of 10 µg/dL or greater required hydrocortisone replacement, both of whom had multiple anterior pituitary hormone deficiencies and evidence of pituitary dysfunction during the perioperative period. CONCLUSIONS: In the appropriate clinical context, a postoperative day-3 cortisol value of 10 µg/dL or greater accurately predicts the integrity of the HPA axis. The final decision regarding corticosteroid replacement should be personalized, considering the postoperative day-3 cortisol level, the clinical context in which the measurement was obtained, and any evidence of concomitant pituitary dysfunction in the perioperative period.