Search

Introduction: Integrated primary care (IPC) models have empirical support for improving access to and quality of behavioral health care and can be effectively implemented in a diverse range of formats1. Various studies have demonstrated that primary care service providers tend to positively endorse IPC models of pediatric behavioral health care, especially in comparison to traditional, non-integrated care2-3. However, there is a paucity of research evaluating parent perceptions and attitudes towards behavioral health care, especially when delivered in an IPC setting. The present paper describes a survey tool designed to better understand and meet patient care needs. Methods and Aims: The Parent Acceptance of Pediatric Integrated Care Survey (PAPICS) was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of integrated care experts at the University of Michigan Medicine to evaluate parent perceptions and acceptance of integrated primary care (IPC) models for treatment of behavioral health problems in children. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the PAPICS was expanded to include more items focused on virtual services in IPC and revised to address items with poor factor loadings. Methods include Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to analyze and validate the survey. Results: The original 35-item PAPICS was distributed to parents pre-pandemic with children under 18 across the United States and was completed by 422 respondents4. Items on this survey largely pertained to face-to-face care within the clinic and an EFA only was conducted to analyze the data. Parents overwhelming favored an IPC model and supported learning skills to help their child. More variability was evidenced for parents' perceptions of one-on-one talk therapy between their child and the psychologist. Some parents had concerns about stigma and privacy, but agreement was more inconsistent. After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, Michigan Medicine's IPC clinics converted to 100% virtual care. The PAPICS was revised using patient feedback data for applicability to virtual care delivery and was completed by 875 respondents. Conclusions: Data collection from the revised PAPICS was completed in December 2021. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) are presently be conducted and will be reviewed at ICIC22. Results will provide insight into parent perceptions of virtual IPC and allow for comparison to those for face-to-face care. Implications for applicability/transferability, sustainability, and limitations: The PAPICS survey provides a template for assessing beliefs and preferences of families to provide high-quality, patient-centered behavioral health care in an IPC setting. Though certain items on the survey may not be applicable in some settings, the scale can be adapted as needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This programme evolved from the Complex Case and Recovery Management Framework (The CCaRM1), developed within Merseycare Specialist LD Services. •This value-based platform was being used by the Specialist Support Team (SST) to support people in the community with Learning Disability and Autism diagnosis with complex needs. •With lockdown constraints, the service became reliant on working indirectly through family and carers. Aims & Hypothesis, Theory/Methods: Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 epidemic, several resourceful initiatives were implemented, across the clinical landscape The Self-guided CCaRM Programme was developed under QI framework as a format for on-line workshops with those concerned. The expectation was to reframe support already there and streamline further support to best effect Pre-workshop exercise was shared for each attendee A skype-based workshop practised Explored areas of strengths, concerns, & possible fresh approaches towards the themes Collaborative care plans were refreshed. Key Findings: PDSA 1-ONLINE CCARM Workshop 2020: A skype-based workshop was convened for all relevant parties. In advance, attendees reviewed concerns using the 6 self-guided CCaRM headings, in line with the original CCaRM, as follows: Having a good circle of support Having a good shared understanding Having clear problem areas thought about Social Participation and Living a Good Life Keeping people safe and well Making progress. For each theme, areas of strengths, concerns, and possible fresh approaches were explored. Subsequently, collaborative care plans were refreshed accordingly. PDSA 2-ONLINE Complex case management workshop 2021-TRAINEEES &TRAINERS: 60-minute slot is proposed, on the end of the NWLD Northwest monthly academic teaching forum meetings, starting from June 2021 The structure of the workshop will borrow the informality and spirit of support from Balint groups. Each session will conclude with an evaluation discussion of workshop usefulness. There were 8 such workshops conducted over the lockdown in PDSA1 and 6 workshops conducted for PDSA 2 Participants included support staff and family members, though no service users in the first PDSA cycle. Second PDSA cycle included educators professionals and trainees of Psychiatry Excellent feedback: that the experience helped with understanding and confidence in roles and generated fresh ideas to try. Conclusions: We consider that the online workshops is a great success in creating competent and well-rounded MDT professionals and the ID psychiatrist in Northwest region of England Implications: Our paper outlines the impact of value-based complex case management workshops in Intellectual Disability and Autism Care to ensure better outcomes in challenging times •By Analysing the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Intellectual Disability complex case management. •By strengthening self-management capabilities for complex care needs •By developing expertise as a collaborative project •By Coping with Diagnostic Overshadowing •By developing a value-based case management process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mexico has been one of the countries most affected by the international public health emergency brought on by COVID-19 (short for corona virus disease 2019), at the end of June 2021, the country has had 2.642.068 confirmed cases and 236.015 deaths. In response to the pandemic, governments around the world have reacted by implementing a wide variety of public health policies with a wide range of nuances and huge heterogeneity that make them difficult to compare and assess in view of scaling up some of them, as well as it complicates the possibility of making global recommendations. The aim of this paper is to analyze the decision making of the Mexican health system in the governance of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess its strengths according to the WHO guide for COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP). We conducted a qualitative investigation based on semi-structured interviews of 41 key actors of the health system, from June to November, 2020. Interviews were audio-recorded, organized into categories following the framework of the COVID-19 SPRP and the ""health policy triangle"", using ATLAS.ti-v.9 software. Conclusions: The health policy response focused on intersectoral communication between the health sector and other sector such as education, economy or public security; advice of expert in health policies; portability of health-care services, equitable policies, and improving the information system (Epidemiological Stoplight); which allowed an intermediate response to COVID-19. Implications: Strengthening an effective response of the Mexican health system to face COVID-19, according to the WHO guide for COVID-19-SPRP, requires the prompt formulation of evidencebased policies, such as restrictions on international movement, efficient testing policy and contact tracing, in addition to the intersectoral, equitable, collaborative, and responsible policies currently implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]