An Economic Analysis of the Implementation of Team-based Collaborative Care in Outpatient General Mental Health Clinics

A Trauma-Informed Approach to Outpatient Psychiatric Services

A trauma-informed care interdisciplinary team within an outpatient psychiatry practice provides a framework for intentional consideration of the impact of trauma on psychopathology and patient engagement. This column highlights practical ways in which trauma-informed principles have the potential to transform clinical processes, improve patient engagement, improve provider sense of empowerment, and decrease patient emergency department visits and inpatient care utilization. Challenges with program development, implementation, and evaluation are also identified.

Community-based Collaborative Care for Serious Mental Illness: A Rapid Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Health Care Providers' Experiences and Perspectives

Community-based collaborative care (CBCC) is an effective approach for addressing the needs of people with mental health conditions. However, even with the established components of CBCC in place, CBCCs effectiveness for serious mental illnesses (SMIs) remains unknown. This review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence of health care providers' experiences of CBCC in order to identify key factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration in the specific context of SMIs. We searched databases to identify 3368 studies. The eligibility criteria included qualitative studies focusing on health care providers' experiences in delivering a CBCC intervention for people with SMIs. Studies were included if they had at least 2 of 3 CBCC components: a multidisciplinary team, case management, and structured communication. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise the findings, and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research framework was used to assess the quality of included studies. The protocol is registered on Prospero. Of the 19 studies included in our review, 5 had achieved collaboration, which was driven by several key ingredients: the availability of on-site case managers and psychiatrists, or the psychiatrists' willingness to travel to the site; the psychiatrists' efforts in actively engaging and supporting the CBCC team; the primary care clinicians' willingness to collaborate with the team and reduce traditional hierarchical engagement; the team's understanding of CBCC; and case managers with strong interpersonal and professional skills. The inclusion of CBCC components do not guarantee collaboration. The findings emphasise the importance of on-site mental health specialists, clearly defined roles, and proactive providers in achieving collaboration.

Getting to Fidelity: Consensus Development Process to Identify Core Activities of Implementation Facilitation

Transferring successful implementation strategies from research to practice requires approaches for assessing fidelity to the strategy's core components. Implementation facilitation (IF) is a strategy involving an interactive process of problem-solving, enabling, and supporting individuals in efforts to implement clinical innovations that occurs in the context of a recognized need for improvement and supportive interpersonal relationships. Because IF is a dynamic strategy involving numerous activities, our objective was to conduct a rigorous consensus development process to identify core activities for monitoring fidelity to IF when applied in clinical settings. We first conducted a scoping literature review to identify the range of activities used when IF has been applied in clinical settings, searching multiple citation databases for English-language articles including "facilitation" or other commonly-used terms for the strategy published from 1996-2015. Through multi-stage screening, 135 articles (from 94 studies) were identified for data extraction on IF activities, frequency with which IF activities were identified as 'core' by study authors, and study outcomes. From the literature review, we identified 32 distinct IF activities and developed definitions/examples for each. Next, we conducted a 3-stage, modified-Delphi expert panel consensus development process to identify core IF activities across three implementation phases (i.e., Pre-Implementation, Implementation, Sustainment). The expert panel identified 8 core activities for the Pre-Implementation Phase, 8 core activities for the Implementation Phase, and 4 core activities for the Sustainment Phase. This work provides an important foundation for developing measures/tools to assess use of core IF activities to ensure the strategy is delivered with fidelity.

Sustaining the collaborative chronic care model in outpatient mental health: a matrixed multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs) is crucial to ensuring care quality and addressing health disparities. Approaches to identifying factors related to sustainability are critically needed. One such approach is Matrixed Multiple Case Study (MMCS), which identifies factors and their combinations that influence implementation. We applied MMCS to identify factors related to the sustainability of the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM) at nine Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient mental health clinics, 3-4 years after implementation support had concluded.

METHODS

We conducted a directed content analysis of 30 provider interviews, using 6 CCM elements and 4 Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) domains as codes. Based on CCM code summaries, we designated each site as high/medium/low sustainability. We used i-PARIHS code summaries to identify relevant factors for each site, the extent of their presence, and the type of influence they had on sustainability (enabling/neutral/hindering/unclear). We organized these data into a sortable matrix and assessed sustainability-related cross-site trends.

RESULTS

CCM sustainability status was distributed among the sites, with three sites each being high, medium, and low. Twenty-five factors were identified from the i-PARIHS code summaries, of which 3 exhibited strong trends by sustainability status (relevant i-PARIHS domain in square brackets): "Collaborativeness/Teamwork [Recipients]," "Staff/Leadership turnover [Recipients]," and "Having a consistent/strong internal facilitator [Facilitation]" during and after active implementation. At most high-sustainability sites only, (i) "Having a knowledgeable/helpful external facilitator [Facilitation]" was variably present and enabled sustainability when present, while (ii) "Clarity about what CCM comprises [Innovation]," "Interdisciplinary coordination [Recipients]," and "Adequate clinic space for CCM team members [Context]" were somewhat or less present with mixed influences on sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

MMCS revealed that CCM sustainability in VA outpatient mental health clinics may be related most strongly to provider collaboration, knowledge retention during staff/leadership transitions, and availability of skilled internal facilitators. These findings have informed a subsequent CCM implementation trial that prospectively examines whether enhancing the above-mentioned factors within implementation facilitation improves sustainability. MMCS is a systematic approach to multi-site examination that can be used to investigate sustainability-related factors applicable to other EBPs and across multiple contexts.

Adaptation for sustainability in an implementation trial of team-based collaborative care

Background

Sustaining healthcare interventions once they have been implemented is a pivotal public health endeavor. Achieving sustainability requires context-sensitive adaptations to evidence-based practices (EBPs) or the implementation strategies used to ensure their adoption. For replicability of adaptations beyond the specific setting in question, the underlying logic needs to be clearly described, and adaptations themselves need to be plainly documented. The goal of this project was to describe the process by which implementation facilitation was adapted to improve the uptake of clinical care practices that are consistent with the collaborative chronic care model (CCM).

Method

Quantitative and qualitative data from a prior implementation trial found that CCM-consistent care practices were not fully sustained within outpatient general mental health teams that had received 1 year of implementation facilitation to support uptake. We undertook a multistep consensus process to identify adaptations to implementation facilitation based on these results, with the goal of enhancing the sustainability of CCM-based care in a subsequent trial. The logic for these adaptations, and the resulting adaptations themselves, were documented using two adaptation-oriented implementation frameworks (the iterative decision-making for evaluation of adaptations [IDEA] and the framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based implementation strategies [FRAME-IS], respectively).

Results

Three adaptations emerged from this process and were documented using the FRAME-IS: (a) increasing the scope of implementation facilitation within the medical center, (b) having the internal facilitator take a greater role in the implementation process, and (c) shortening the implementation timeframe from 12 to 8 months, while increasing the intensity of facilitation support during that time.

Conclusions

EBP sustainability may require careful adaptation of EBPs or the implementation strategies used to get them into routine practice. Recently developed frameworks such as the IDEA and FRAME-IS may be used to guide decision-making and document resulting adaptations themselves. An ongoing funded study is investigating the utility of the resulting adaptations for improving healthcare.

Emergency Department Use by Young Adults With Chronic Illness Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

There was a significant decrease in emergency department encounters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our large urban emergency department observed decreased encounters and admissions by youths with chronic health conditions. This study aimed to compare the frequency of emergency department encounters for certain young adults before the pandemic and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using medical records of patients ages 20 to 26 years from October 2018 to September 2019 and February 2020 to February 2021. Files set for inclusion were those with a primary diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, sickle cell disease, asthma, and certain psychiatric disorders for potentially preventable health events.

RESULTS

We included 1203 total encounters (853 before the pandemic and 350 during the pandemic), with the total number of subjects included in the study 568 (293 before the pandemic to 239 during the pandemic). During the pandemic, young adults with mental health conditions (53.1%) accounted for most encounters. Encounters requiring hospital admissions increased from 27.4% to 52.5% during the pandemic, primarily among patients with diabetes (41.8% vs 61.1%) and mental health conditions (50% vs 73.3%).

DISCUSSION

The number of young adults with certain chronic health conditions decreased during COVID-19, with encounters for subjects with mental health conditions increasing significantly. The proportion of admissions increased during the pandemic with increases for subjects with mental health disorders and diabetes. The number of frequent users decreased during COVID-19. Future research is needed to understand better the causes for these disparities in young adults with chronic conditions who use the emergency department as a source of care.

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy

BACKGROUND

Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts.

OBJECTIVE

Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy.

METHODS

Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes.

FINDINGS

Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator's role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process.

IMPACT

Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

Interdisciplinary behavioral health provider perceptions of implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model: an i-PARIHS-guided qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM), developed to help structure care for chronic health conditions, comprises six elements: work role redesign, patient self-management support, provider decision support, clinical information systems, linkages to community resources, and organizational/leadership support. As the CCM is increasingly implemented in real-world settings, there is heightened interest in understanding specific influences upon implementation. Therefore, guided by the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework, we (i) identified innovation-, recipient-, context-, and facilitation-related influences on CCM implementation and (ii) assessed the influences' relationship to each CCM element's implementation.

METHODS

Using semi-structured interviews, we examined interdisciplinary behavioral health providers' experiences at nine VA medical centers that implemented the CCM. We used i-PARIHS constructs as a priori codes for directed content analysis, then analyzed the data for cross-coding by CCM element and i-PARIHS construct.

RESULTS

Participants (31 providers) perceived the CCM innovation as enabling comprehensive care but challenging to coordinate with existing structures/procedures. As recipients, participants recounted not always having the authority to design CCM-consistent care processes. They perceived local leadership support to be indispensable to implementation success and difficult to garner when CCM implementation distracted from other organizational priorities. They found implementation facilitation helpful for keeping implementation on track. We identified key themes at the intersection of i-PARIHS constructs and core CCM elements, including (i) the CCM being an innovation that offers a formal structure to stepping down care intensity for patients to encourage their self-management, (ii) recipients accessing their multidisciplinary colleagues' expertise for provider decision support, (iii) relationships with external services in the community (e.g., homelessness programs) being a helpful context for providing comprehensive care, and (iv) facilitators helping to redesign specific interdisciplinary team member roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Future CCM implementation would benefit from (i) facilitating strategic development of supportive maintenance plans for patients' self-management, (ii) collocating multidisciplinary staff (on-site or virtually) to enhance provider decision support, (iii) keeping information on available community resources up to date, and (iv) making clearer the explicit CCM-consistent care processes that work roles can be designed around. This work can inform concrete tailoring of implementation efforts to focus on the more challenging CCM elements, which is crucial to better account for multiple influences that vary across diverse care settings in which the CCM is being implemented.

Sustainability of the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in Outpatient Mental Health Teams Three Years Post-Implementation: A Qualitative Analysis

Our goal was to investigate the sustainability of care practices that are consistent with the collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in nine outpatient mental health teams located within US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers, three to four years after the completion of CCM implementation. We conducted qualitative interviews (N = 30) with outpatient mental health staff from each of the nine teams. We based our directed content analysis on the six elements of the CCM. We found variable sustainability of CCM-based care processes across sites. Some care processes, such as delivery of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) and use of measurement-based care (MBC) to guide clinic decision-making, were robustly maintained or even expanded within participating teams. In contrast, other care processes-which had in some cases been developed with considerable effort-had not been sustained. For example, care manager roles were diminished in scope or eliminated completely in response to workload pressures, frontline care needs, or the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, processes for engaging Veterans more fully in decision-making had generally been scaled back. Leadership support in the form of adequate team staffing and time to conduct team meetings were seen as crucial for sustaining CCM-consistent care. Given the potential impact of leadership turnover on sustainability in mental health, future efforts to implement CCM-based mental health care should strive to involve multiple leaders in implementation and sustainment efforts, lest one key departure undo years of implementation work. Our results also suggest that implementing CCM processes may best be conceptualized as a partnership across multiple levels of medical center leadership.

Primary aim results of a clustered SMART for developing a school-level, adaptive implementation strategy to support CBT delivery at high schools in Michigan

BACKGROUND

Schools increasingly provide mental health services to students, but often lack access to implementation strategies to support school-based (and school professional [SP]) delivery of evidence-based practices. Given substantial heterogeneity in implementation barriers across schools, development of adaptive implementation strategies that guide which implementation strategies to provide to which schools and when may be necessary to support scale-up.

METHODS

A clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) of high schools across Michigan was used to inform the development of a school-level adaptive implementation strategy for supporting SP-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). All schools were first provided with implementation support informed by Replicating Effective Programs (REP) and then were randomized to add in-person Coaching or not (phase 1). After 8 weeks, schools were assessed for response based on SP-reported frequency of CBT delivered to students and/or barriers reported. Responder schools continued with phase 1 implementation strategies. Slower-responder schools (not providing ≥ 3 CBT components to ≥10 students or >2 organizational barriers identified) were re-randomized to add Facilitation to current support or not (phase 2). The primary aim hypothesis was that SPs at schools receiving the REP + Coaching + Facilitation adaptive implementation strategy would deliver more CBT sessions than SPs at schools receiving REP alone. Secondary aims compared four implementation strategies (Coaching vs no Coaching × Facilitation vs no Facilitation) on CBT sessions delivered, including by type (group, brief and full individual). Analyses used a marginal, weighted least squares approach developed for clustered SMARTs.

RESULTS

SPs (n = 169) at 94 high schools entered the study. N = 83 schools (88%) were slower-responders after phase 1. Contrary to the primary aim hypothesis, there was no evidence of a significant difference in CBT sessions delivered between REP + Coaching + Facilitation and REP alone (111.4 vs. 121.1 average total CBT sessions; p = 0.63). In secondary analyses, the adaptive strategy that offered REP + Facilitation resulted in the highest average CBT delivery (154.1 sessions) and the non-adaptive strategy offering REP + Coaching the lowest (94.5 sessions).

CONCLUSIONS

The most effective strategy in terms of average SP-reported CBT delivery is the adaptive implementation strategy that (i) begins with REP, (ii) augments with Facilitation for slower-responder schools (schools where SPs identified organizational barriers or struggled to deliver CBT), and (iii) stays the course with REP for responder schools.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03541317 , May 30, 2018.

Time-motion analysis of external facilitation for implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in general mental health clinics: Use of an interval-based data collection approach

Background: Facilitation is an effective strategy to implement evidence-based practices, often involving external facilitators (EFs) bringing content expertise to implementation sites. Estimating time spent on multifaceted EF activities is complex. Furthermore, collecting continuous time-motion data for facilitation tasks is challenging. However, organizations need this information to allocate implementation resources to sites. Thus, our objectives were to conduct a time-motion analysis of external facilitation, and compare continuous versus noncontinuous approaches to collecting time-motion data. Methods: We analyzed EF time-motion data from six VA mental health clinics implementing the evidence-based Collaborative Chronic Care Model (CCM). We documented EF activities during pre-implementation (4-6 weeks) and implementation (12 months) phases. We collected continuous data during the pre-implementation phase, followed by data collection over a 2-week period (henceforth, "a two-week interval") at each of three time points (beginning/middle/end) during the implementation phase. As a validity check, we assessed how closely interval data represented continuous data collected throughout implementation for two of the sites. Results: EFs spent 21.8 ± 4.5 h/site during pre-implementation off-site, then 27.5 ± 4.6 h/site site-visiting to initiate implementation. Based on the 2-week interval data, EFs spent 2.5 ± 0.8, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 1.2 ± 0.6 h/week toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end, respectively. Prevalent activities were preparation/planning, process monitoring, program adaptation, problem identification, and problem-solving. Across all activities, 73.6% of EF time involved email, phone, or video communication. For the two continuous data sites, computed weekly time averages toward the implementation's beginning, middle, and end differed from the interval data's averages by 1.0, 0.1, and 0.2 h, respectively. Activities inconsistently captured in the interval data included irregular assessment, stakeholder engagement, and network development. Conclusions: Time-motion analysis of CCM implementation showed initial higher-intensity EF involvement that tapered. The 2-week interval data collection approach, if accounting for its potential underestimation of irregular activities, may be promising/efficient for implementation studies collecting time-motion data.

Screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: An implementation-oriented systematic review

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. Screening for IPV within healthcare settings can identify women who experience IPV and inform counseling, referrals, and interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring externally funded study staff and resources. This systematic review therefore investigated the utility of IPV screening administered by frontline clinical personnel.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review focusing on studies of IPV screening programs for women delivered by frontline healthcare staff. We based our data synthesis on two widely used implementation models (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [RE-AIM] and Proctor's dimensions of implementation effectiveness).

Results

We extracted data from 59 qualifying studies. Based on data extraction guided by the RE-AIM framework, the median reach of the IPV screening programs was high (80%), but Emergency Department (ED) settings were found to have a much lower reach (47%). The median screen positive rate was 11%, which is comparable to the screen-positive rate found in studies using externally funded research staff. Among those screening positive, a median of 32% received a referral to follow-up services. Based on data extraction guided by Proctor's dimension of appropriateness, a lack of available referral services frustrated some efforts to implement IPV screening. Among studies reporting data on maintenance or sustainability of IPV screening programs, only half concluded that IPV screening rates held steady during the maintenance phase. Other domains of the RE-AIM and Proctor frameworks (e.g., implementation fidelity and costs) were reported less frequently.

Conclusions

IPV is a population health issue, and successfully implementing IPV screening programs may be part of the solution. Our review emphasizes the importance of ongoing provider trainings, readily available referral sources, and consistent institutional support in maintaining appropriate IPV screening programs.

Plain language abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a population health problem affecting millions of women worldwide. IPV screening and response can identify women who experience IPV and can inform interventions to improve their health outcomes. Unfortunately, many of the screening programs used to detect IPV have only been tested in research contexts featuring administration by externally funded study staff. This systematic review of IPV screening programs for women is particularly novel, as previous reviews have not focused on clinical implementation. It provides a better understanding of successful ways of implementing IPV screening and response practices with frontline clinical personnel in the context of routine care. Successfully implementing IPV screening programs may help mitigate the harms resulting from IPV against women. Findings from this review can inform future efforts to improve implementation of IPV screening programs in clinical settings to ensure that the victims of IPV have access to appropriate counseling, resources, and referrals.