Search

Suboptimal multidisciplinary team collaboration is a barrier to effective health care provision for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We describe an example practice model of a clinical practice called Baptist Health Deaconess, based in Madisonville, Kentucky, USA, where a small multidisciplinary team consisting of an endocrinologist, nurse practitioner, and pharmacist (authors of this article) work collaboratively in an ambulatory care setting to provide health care to the patients they serve. Many of the patients who receive care at Baptist Health Deaconess are on a low income, have poor health literacy, and do not have a primary care physician. The presence of a pharmacist in the team allows for insurance/access investigations to assess drug choice and affordability; such aspects can be performed quickly with a pharmacist in the office. Plain Language Summary: Health care professionals (HCPs) supporting people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) may work at one or more health care settings such as a health care practice, a hospital, a pharmacy, or they might support people in their own homes. When HCPs do not work well together this negatively affects the quality of care that people visiting them receive. This paper gives the point of view of three HCPs (a nurse practitioner, a pharmacist, and a diabetes specialist [an endocrinologist]) who work at a health care practice called Baptist Health Deaconess situated in Kentucky, USA. The three HCPs describe how many of the people who visit them at their practice do not have much money, they do not really understand what their conditions are about or how they can be best treated, and they do not have a primary care physician. The HCP team believe that having a pharmacist on their team (which is not common throughout the USA) means that they work better together because it saves money, people with T2DM and CKD visiting get the best treatment recommendations for them, and this is all done quicker compared to having no pharmacist on the team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective and efficient implementation of the Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for depression and anxiety is imperative for program success. Studies examining barriers to implementation often omit patient perspectives. Objectives: To explore experiences and attitudes of eligible patients referred to CoCM who declined participation or were unable to be reached, and identify implementation barriers to inform strategies. Design: Convergent mixed-methods study with a survey and interview. Participants: Primary care patients at an academic medical center who were referred to a CoCM program for anxiety and depression by their primary care clinician (PCC) but declined participation or were unable to be reached by the behavioral health care manager to initiate care (n = 80). Interviews were conducted with 45 survey respondents. Main Measures: Survey of patients' referral experiences and behavioral health preferences as they related to failing to enroll in the program. Interview questions were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research version 2.0 (CFIR 2.0) to identify implementation barriers to enrollment. Key Results: Survey results found that patients were uncertain about insurance coverage, did not understand the program, and felt services were not necessary. Referred patients who declined participation were concerned about how their mental health information would be used and preferred treatment without medication. Men agreed more that they did not need services. Qualitative results exhibited a variety of implementation determinants (n = 23) across the five CFIR 2.0 domains. Barriers included mental health stigma, perceiving behavioral health as outside of primary care practice guidelines, short or infrequent primary care appointments, prioritizing physical health over mental health, receiving inaccurate program information, low motivation to engage, and a less established relationship with their PCC. Conclusions: Multiple barriers to enrollment led to failing to link patients to care, which can inform implementation strategies to address the patient-reported experiences and concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care (TCC) and Telepsychiatry/Telepsychology Enhanced Referral (TER) expand the reach of specialty mental health services to underserved populations.Objective: Assess clinical predictors of treatment engagement for complex psychiatric conditions in TCC-in which remote specialists consult with primary care teams via an onsite care manager who also provides brief psychotherapy-and TER, in which remote specialists provide direct telehealth treatment.Design: A randomized pragmatic trial from twenty-four primary care clinics without onsite psychiatrists or psychologists.Participants: A total of 1,004 adult patients screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)and/or bipolar disorder were randomized to receive TCC or TER for 1 year.Main Measures: Psychotherapy engagement was measured by the number of sessions completed, and pharmacotherapy engagement by the medication adherence item from the Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program Health Questionnaire (SCAP-HQ).Key Results: Engagement in TCC psychotherapy visits was greater compared to TER. There was no association between the PTSD symptom severity and treatment engagement. The internal state scale (ISS) activation subscale, an indicator of mania, was associated with reduced odds of initiating psychotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84) but not the number of sessions attended once psychotherapy started. The Drug Abuse Screening Test-10(DAST-10) score was associated with receipt of fewer psychotherapy sessions (incidence ratio rate [IRR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95). The number of physical health comorbidities was associated with greater engagement in psychotherapy (IRR = 1.11, 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.19) and pharmacotherapy (OR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.87). None of the findings varied by intervention group.Conclusions: Both teleintegrated and telereferral care offer an opportunity to treat patients with complex psychiatric conditions. While there was no difference in clinical characteristics predicting engagement, onsite care managers engaged patients in more psychotherapy sessions than remote therapists.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A previous study described the effect of a collaborative care intervention on improving adherence to antidepressant medications and depressive and functional outcomes of patients with persistent depressive symptoms 8 weeks after the primary care physician initiated treatment. This paper examined the 28-month effect of this intervention on adherence, depressive symptoms, functioning, and health care costs.Design: Randomized trial of stepped collaborative care intervention versus usual care.Setting: HMO in Seattle, Wash.Patients: Patients with major depression were stratified into severe and moderate depression groups prior to randomization.Interventions: A multifaceted intervention targeting patient, physician, and process of care, using collaborative management by a psychiatrist and a primary care physician.Measures and Main Results: The collaborative care intervention was associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms at 28 months in patients in the moderate-severity group (F1,87 = 8.65; P =.004), but not in patients in the high-severity group (F1,51 = 0.02; P =.88) Improvements in the intervention group in antidepressant adherence were found to occur for the first 6 months (chi2(1) = 8.23; P <.01) and second 6-month period (chi2(1) = 5.98; P <.05) after randomization in the high-severity group and for 6 months after randomization in the moderate-severity group(chi2(1) = 6.10; P <.05). There were no significant differences in total ambulatory costs between intervention and control patients over the 28-month period (F1,180 = 0.77; P =.40).Conclusions: A collaborative care intervention was associated with sustained improvement in depressive outcomes without additional health care costs in approximately two thirds of primary care patients with persistent depressive symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is often accompanied by depression or anxiety wherein co-occurring pain and mood symptoms can be more difficult to treat than either alone. However, few clinical trials have examined interventions that simultaneously target both pain and mood conditions.Objective: To determine the comparative effectiveness of automated self-management (ASM) vs. ASM-enhanced collaborative care.Design: Randomized clinical trial conducted in six primary care clinics in a VA medical center.Participants: Two hundred ninety-four patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain of at least moderate intensity and clinically significant depressive and/or anxiety symptoms.Intervention: ASM consisted of automated monitoring and 9 web-based self-management modules. Comprehensive symptom management (CSM) combined ASM with collaborative care management by a nurse-physician team. Both interventions were delivered for 12 months.Main Measures: Primary outcome was a composite pain-anxiety-depression (PAD) z-score consisting of the mean of the BPI, PHQ-9, and GAD-7 z-scores: 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent potentially small, moderate, and large clinical differences. Secondary outcomes included global improvement, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and health services use.Key Results: Both CSM and ASM groups had moderate PAD score improvement at 12 months (z = - 0.65 and - 0.52, respectively). Compared to the ASM group, the CSM group had a - 0.23 (95% CI, - 0.38 to - 0.08; overall P = .003) greater decline in composite PAD z-score over 12 months. CSM patients were also more likely to report global improvement and less likely to report worsening at 6 (P = .004) and 12 months (P = .013).Conclusions: Two intervention models relying heavily on telecare delivery but differing in resource intensity both produced moderate improvements in pain and mood symptoms. However, the model combining collaborative care led by a nurse-physician team with web-based self-management was superior to self-management alone.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT0175730. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the growing consensus that collaborative care is effective, limited research has focused on the importance of collaborative care fidelity as it relates to mental health clinical outcomes.Objective: To assess the relationship of collaborative care fidelity on symptom trajectories and clinical outcomes among military service members enrolled in a multi-site randomized controlled trial for the treatment of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Design: Study data for our analyses came from a two-parallel arm randomized trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a centralized collaborative care model compared to the existing collaborative care model for the treatment of PTSD and depression. All patients were included in the analyses to evaluate how longitudinal trajectories of PTSD and depression scores differed across various collaborative care fidelity groupings.Participants: A total of 666 US Military Service members screening positive for probable PTSD or depression through primary care.Main Measures: Disease registry data from a web-based clinical management support tool was used to measure collaborative care fidelity for patients enrolled in the trial. Participant depression and PTSD symptoms were collected independently from research survey assessments at four time points across the 1-year trial period. Treatment utilization records were acquired from the Military Health System administrative records to determine mental health service use.Key Results: Consistent and late fidelity to the collaborative care model predicted an improving symptom trajectory over the course of treatment. This effect was more pronounced for patients with depression than for patients with PTSD.Conclusions: Long-term fidelity to key collaborative care elements throughout care episodes may improve depression outcomes, particularly for patients with elevated symptoms. More controlled research is needed to further understand the influence of collaborative care fidelity on clinical outcomes.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01492348. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which discusses current knowledge and future aspects of integration of behavioral health and primary care. Topics discussed include transformation of health care with the help of integrated primary care (IPC), using cost-effective approach to provide patient-centered care, impact of unhealthy lifestyles on increased mortality in the U.S., and the role of behavior in determining physical health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Depression management can be challenging for primary care (PC) settings. While several evidence-based models exist for depression care, little is known about the relationships between PC practice characteristics, model characteristics, and the practice's choices regarding model adoption. OBJECTIVE: We examined three Veterans Affairs (VA)-endorsed depression care models and tested the relationships between theoretically-anchored measures of organizational readiness and implementation of the models in VA PC clinics. DESIGN: 1) Qualitative assessment of the three VA-endorsed depression care models, 2) Cross-sectional survey of leaders from 225 VA medium-to-large PC practices, both in 2007. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed PC readiness factors related to resource adequacy, motivation for change, staff attributes, and organizational climate. As outcomes, we measured implementation of one of the VA-endorsed models: collocation, Translating Initiatives in Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES), and Behavioral Health Lab (BHL). We performed bivariate and, when possible, multivariate analyses of readiness factors for each model. KEY RESULTS: Collocation is a relatively simple arrangement with a mental health specialist physically located in PC. TIDES and BHL are more complex; they use standardized assessments and care management based on evidence-based collaborative care principles, but with different organizational requirements. By 2007, 107 (47.5 %) clinics had implemented collocation, 39 (17.3 %) TIDES, and 17 (7.6 %) BHL. Having established quality improvement processes (OR 2.30, [1.36, 3.87], p = 0.002) or a depression clinician champion (OR 2.36, [1.14, 4.88], p = 0.02) was associated with collocation. Being located in a VA regional network that endorsed TIDES (OR 8.42, [3.69, 19.26], p < 0.001) was associated with TIDES implementation. The presence of psychologists or psychiatrists on PC staff, greater financial sufficiency, or greater spatial sufficiency was associated with BHL implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Both readiness factors and characteristics of depression care models influence model adoption. Greater model simplicity may make collocation attractive within local quality improvement efforts. Dissemination through regional networks may be effective for more complex models such as TIDES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims/hypothesis: We assessed country-level and individual-level patterns in patient and provider perceptions of diabetes care. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design with face-to-face or telephone interviews of diabetic patients and healthcare providers in 13 countries from Asia, Australia, Europe and North America. Participants were randomly selected adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n=5,104), and randomly selected diabetescare providers, including primary-care physicians (n=2,070), diabetes specialist physicians (n=635) and nurses (n=1,122). Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationships between outcomes and both country and respondent characteristics, and the interaction between these two factors. Results: Providers rated chronic-care systems and remuneration for chronic care as mediocre. Patients reported that ease of access to care was high, but not without financial barriers. Patients reported moderate levels of collaboration among providers, and providers indicated that several specialist disciplines were not readily available to them. Patients reported high levels of collaboration with providers in their own care. Provider endorsement of primary prevention strategies for type 2 diabetes was high. Patients with fewer socio-economic resources and more diabetes complications had lower access (and/or higher barriers) to care and lower quality of patient-provider collaboration. Countries differed significantly for all outcomes, and the relationships between respondent characteristics and outcomes varied by country. Conclusions/interpretation: There is much need for improvement in applying the chronic-care model to the treatment and prevention of diabetes in all of the countries studied. Each country must develop its own priorities for improving diabetes care and comparison with other countries can help identify strengths as well as weaknesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]