Implementation strategies for collaborative primary care-mental health models

Co-location of specialized mental health services in an intimate partner violence advocacy organization

Historically, services for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors predominantly focused on advocacy, resulting in service gaps for IPV survivors who need mental health care. When mental health services are offered, there are several barriers that limit treatment engagement. To address these gaps, a novel, integrated care model, comprised of psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers were embedded into the five New York City (NYC) Family Justice Centers (FJCs), to provide free co-located mental health care to adult survivors of IPV alongside the existing advocacy, social, and legal services. This article reports on the evaluation of the Health + Hospitals Family Justice Center Mental Health Program (FJCMHP) via: (i) seven focus groups with FJC clients and staff and Health + Hospitals (H+H) clinicians; and (ii) de-identified online surveys completed by 53 FJC clients and 130 FJC staff. Clients reported increased access to care, with 67.2% seeing a mental health clinician within two weeks of a request, and improvement in symptom relief, including sleep, mood, irritability, reduction in thoughts of self-harm, improved relationships with others, especially their children, and improved self-efficacy in parenting skills. Additionally, FJC staff reported satisfaction with the FJCMHP model, and increased understanding of clients' mental health needs. The evaluation results highlight the feasibility and tolerability of integrated mental health services in a non-medical setting. The evaluation also identifies areas for improvement, as well as the strengths of an integrated, multidisciplinary mental health service program for IPV survivors co-located in a non-medical, advocacy setting.

Implementation Barriers and Experiences of Eligible Patients Who Failed to Enroll in Collaborative Care for Depression and Anxiety

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.

Themes for evaluating the quality of initiatives to engage patients and family caregivers in decision-making in healthcare systems: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the key themes for evaluating the quality of initiatives to engage patients and family caregivers in decision-making across the organisation and system domains of healthcare systems.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review. Seven databases of journal articles were searched from their inception to June 2019. Eligible articles were literature reviews published in English and provided useful information for determining aspects of engaging patients and family caregivers in decision-making to evaluate. We extracted text under three predetermined categories: structure, process and outcomes that were adapted from the Donabedian conceptual framework. These excerpts were then independently open-coded among four researchers. The subsequent themes and their corresponding excerpts were summarised to provide a rich description of each theme.

RESULTS

Of 7747 unique articles identified, 366 were potentially relevant, from which we selected the 42 literature reviews. 18 unique themes were identified across the three predetermined categories. There were six structure themes: engagement plan, level of engagement, time and timing of engagement, format and composition, commitment to support and environment. There were four process themes: objectives, engagement approach, communication and engagement activities. There were eight outcome themes: decision-making process, stakeholder relationship, capacity development, stakeholder experience, shape policy/service/programme, health status, healthcare quality, and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The 18 themes and their descriptions provide a foundation for identifying constructs and selecting measures to evaluate the quality of initiatives for engaging patients and family caregivers in healthcare system decision-making within the organisation and system domains. The themes can be used to investigate the mechanisms through which relevant initiatives are effective and investigate their effectiveness.

The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice-a citation analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was developed two decades ago and conceptualizes successful implementation (SI) as a function (f) of the evidence (E) nature and type, context (C) quality, and the facilitation (F), [SI = f (E,C,F)]. Despite a growing number of citations of theoretical frameworks including PARIHS, details of how theoretical frameworks are used remains largely unknown. This review aimed to enhance the understanding of the breadth and depth of the use of the PARIHS framework.

METHODS

This citation analysis commenced from four core articles representing the key stages of the framework's development. The citation search was performed in Web of Science and Scopus. After exclusion, we undertook an initial assessment aimed to identify articles using PARIHS and not only referencing any of the core articles. To assess this, all articles were read in full. Further data extraction included capturing information about where (country/countries and setting/s) PARIHS had been used, as well as categorizing how the framework was applied. Also, strengths and weaknesses, as well as efforts to validate the framework, were explored in detail.

RESULTS

The citation search yielded 1613 articles. After applying exclusion criteria, 1475 articles were read in full, and the initial assessment yielded a total of 367 articles reported to have used the PARIHS framework. These articles were included for data extraction. The framework had been used in a variety of settings and in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. With regard to types of use, 32% used PARIHS in planning and delivering an intervention, 50% in data analysis, 55% in the evaluation of study findings, and/or 37% in any other way. Further analysis showed that its actual application was frequently partial and generally not well elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with previous citation analysis of the use of theoretical frameworks in implementation science, we also found a rather superficial description of the use of PARIHS. Thus, we propose the development and adoption of reporting guidelines on how framework(s) are used in implementation studies, with the expectation that this will enhance the maturity of implementation science.

Towards community-based and recovery-oriented care for severe mental disorders in Southern and Eastern Europe: aims and design of a multi-country implementation and evaluation study (RECOVER-E)

BACKGROUND

Substantial strides have been made around the world in reforming mental health systems by shifting away from institutional care towards community-based services. Despite an extensive evidence base on what constitutes effective care for people with severe mental ill-health, many people in Europe do not have access to optimal mental health care. In an effort to consolidate previous efforts to improve community mental health care and support the complex transition from hospital-based to community-based care delivery, the RECOVER-E (LaRge-scalE implementation of COmmunity based mental health care for people with seVere and Enduring mental ill health in EuRopE) project aims to implement and evaluate multidisciplinary community mental health teams in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This paper provides a brief overview of the RECOVER-E project and its methods.

METHODS

Five implementation sites were selected (Sofia, Bulgaria; Zagreb, Croatia; Skopje, North Macedonia; Kotor, Montenegro; Siret-Suceava, Romania) where hospital-based mental health services are available (care as usual, CAU) for patients with severe mental disorders (severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia). The intervention consists of the introduction of a new service delivery model in each site, consisting of community-based recovery-oriented care delivered by trained multidisciplinary community mental health teams (including a peer worker with lived experience of a severe mental disorder). The implementation outcomes of the teams and the effect of the team's approach on patient and service utilisation outcomes will be evaluated using a mix of research methods. The study includes five planned hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials (1 per site) with patient-level randomization (n = 180, with patients randomised to either care as usual or intervention condition). Effectiveness is evaluated using a pragmatic non-blinded design with patients randomised into two parallel groups: receiving new community-based care or receiving usual care in the form of institutional, hospital-based mental health care. Trial-based health economic evaluation will be conducted; implementation outcomes will be evaluated, with data aligned with dimensions from the RE-AIM framework. Pathways to sustaining project results will be developed through policy dialogue sessions, which will be carried out in each country and through ongoing policy engagement activities at the European level.

DISCUSSION

The RECOVER-E project has been developed and conducted to demonstrate the impact of implementing an evidence-based service delivery model for people with severe mental illness in different contexts in middle-income countries in Central and Eastern Europe. It is expected that the results will contribute to the growing evidence-base on the health and economic benefits of recovery-oriented and community-based service models for health systems in transition.Trial registration Each trial was registered before participant enrolment in the clinicaltrials.gov database: Site-Croatia, Zagreb (Trial Reg. No. NCT03862209); Montenegro, Kotor (Trial Reg. No. NCT03837340); Romania, Suceava (Trial Reg. No. NCT03884933); Macedonia, Skopje (Trial Reg. No. NCT03892473); Bulgaria, Sofia (Trial Reg. No. NCT03922425).

Bridging the Behavioral Health Gap in Serious Illness Care: Challenges and Strategies for Workforce Development

Comorbidity with behavioral health conditions is highly prevalent among those experiencing serious medical illnesses and is associated with poor outcomes. Siloed provision of behavioral and physical healthcare has contributed to a workforce ill-equipped to address the often complex needs of these clinical populations. Trained specialist behavioral health providers are scarce and there are gaps in core behavioral health competencies among serious illness care providers. Core competency frameworks to close behavioral health training gaps in primary care exist, but these have not extended to some of the distinct skills and roles required in serious illness care settings. This paper seeks to address this issue by describing a common framework of training competencies across the full spectrum of clinical responsibility and behavioral health expertise for those working at the interface of behavioral health and serious illness care. The authors used a mixed-method approach to develop a model of behavioral health and serious illness care and to delineate seven core skill domains necessary for practitioners working at this interface. Existing opportunities for scaling-up the workforce as well as priority policy recommendation to address barriers to implementation are discussed.

Systems levers for commissioning primary mental healthcare: a rapid review

Primary Health Networks (PHNs) are a new institution for health systems management in the Australian healthcare system. PHNs will play a key role in mental health reform through planning and commissioning primary mental health services at a regional level, specifically adopting a stepped care approach. Selected PHNs are also trialling a healthcare homes approach. Little is known about the systems levers that could be applied by PHNs to achieve these aims. A rapid review of academic and grey literature published between 2006 and 2016 was undertaken to describe the use of systems levers in commissioning primary care services. Fifty-six documents met the inclusion criteria, including twelve specific to primary mental healthcare. Twenty-six levers were identified. Referral management, contracts and tendering processes, and health information systems were identified as useful levers for implementing stepped care approaches. Location, enrolment, capitation and health information systems were identified as useful in implementing a healthcare homes approach. Other levers were relevant to overall health system functioning. Further work is needed to develop a robust evidence-base for systems levers. PHNs can facilitate this by documenting and evaluating the levers that they deploy, and making their findings available to researchers and other commissioning bodies.

Measuring Perceived Level of Integration During the Process of Primary Care Behavioral Health Implementation

Provider- and staff-perceived levels of integration were measured during implementation of a primary care behavioral health clinic; these data were used to tailor and evaluate quality improvement strategies. Providers and staff at an urban, academic, adult primary care clinic completed the 32-item Level of Integration Measure (LIM) at baseline and 7 months. The LIM assesses 6 domains of integrated care. Overall and domain scores were calibrated from 0 to 100, with ≥80 representing a highly integrated clinic. Response rate was 79% (N = 46/58) at baseline and 83% (N = 52/63) at follow-up. Overall, LIM score increased from 64.5 to 70.1, P = .001. The lowest scoring domains at baseline were targeted for quality improvement and increased significantly: integrated clinical practice, 60.0 versus 68.4, P < .001; systems integration, 57.0 versus 63.8, P = .001; and training, 56.7 versus 65.3, P = .001. Ongoing quality improvement, including organizational and financial strategies, is needed to achieve higher levels of integration.

Engaging multilevel stakeholders in an implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in VA women's health primary care

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has undertaken primary care transformation based on patient-centered medical home (PCMH) tenets. VHA PCMH models are designed for the predominantly male Veteran population, and require tailoring to meet women Veterans' needs. We used evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI), a stakeholder-driven implementation strategy, in a cluster randomized controlled trial across 12 sites (eight EBQI, four control) that are members of a Practice-Based Research Network. EBQI involves engaging multilevel, inter-professional leaders and staff as stakeholders in reviewing evidence and setting QI priorities. The goal of this analysis was to examine processes of engaging stakeholders in early implementation of EBQI to tailor VHA's medical home for women. Four inter-professional regional stakeholder planning meetings were conducted; these meetings engaged stakeholders by providing regional data about gender disparities in Veterans' care experiences. Subsequent to each meeting, qualitative interviews were conducted with 87 key stakeholders (leaders and staff). Stakeholders were asked to describe QI efforts and the use of data to change aspects of care, including women's health care. Interview transcripts were summarized and coded using a hybrid deductive/inductive analytic approach. The presentation of regional-level data about gender disparities resulted in heightened awareness and stakeholder buy-in and decision-making related to women's health-focused QI. Interviews revealed that stakeholders were familiar with QI, with regional and facility leaders aware of inter-disciplinary committees and efforts to foster organizational change, including PCMH transformation. These efforts did not typically focus on women's health, though some informal efforts had been undertaken. Barriers to engaging in QI included lack of communication across clinical service lines, fluidity in staffing, and lack of protected time. Inter-professional, multilevel stakeholders need to be engaged in implementation early, with data and discussion that convey the importance and relevance of a new initiative. Stakeholder perspectives on institutional norms (e.g., gender norms) and readiness for population-specific QI are useful drivers of clinical initiatives designed to transform care for clinical subpopulations.

User involvement in the implementation of clinical guidelines for common mental health disorders: a review and compilation of strategies and resources

BACKGROUND

There is now broad consensus regarding the importance of involving users in the process of implementing guidelines. Few studies, however, have addressed this issue, let alone the implementation of guidelines for common mental health disorders. The aim of this study is to compile and describe implementation strategies and resources related to common clinical mental health disorders targeted at service users.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed and resources for the implementation of clinical guidelines were compiled using the PRISMA model. A mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed based on a series of categories developed ad hoc.

RESULTS

A total of 263 items were included in the preliminary analysis and 64 implementation resources aimed at users were analysed in depth. A wide variety of types, sources and formats were identified, including guides (40%), websites (29%), videos and leaflets, as well as instruments for the implementation of strategies regarding information and education (64%), self-care, or users' assessment of service quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The results reveal the need to establish clear criteria for assessing the quality of implementation materials in general and standardising systems to classify user-targeted strategies. The compilation and description of key elements of strategies and resources for users can be of interest in designing materials and specific actions for this target audience, as well as improving the implementation of clinical guidelines.

Achieving change in primary care--effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: systematic review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

To identify, summarise and synthesise available literature on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for optimising implementation of complex interventions in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of reviews.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched, from first publication until December 2013; the bibliographies of relevant articles were screened for additional reports.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Eligible reviews had to (1) examine effectiveness of single or multifaceted implementation strategies, (2) measure health professional practice or process outcomes and (3) include studies from predominantly primary care in developed countries. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles of potentially eligible reviews for inclusion.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

91 reviews were included. The most commonly evaluated strategies were those targeted at the level of individual professionals, rather than those targeting organisations or context. These strategies (eg, audit and feedback, educational meetings, educational outreach, reminders) on their own demonstrated a small to modest improvement (2-9%) in professional practice or behaviour with considerable variability in the observed effects. The effects of multifaceted strategies targeted at professionals were mixed and not necessarily more effective than single strategies alone. There was relatively little review evidence on implementation strategies at the levels of organisation and wider context. Evidence on cost-effectiveness was limited and data on costs of different strategies were scarce and/or of low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a substantial literature on implementation strategies aimed at changing professional practices or behaviour. It remains unclear which implementation strategies are more likely to be effective than others and under what conditions. Future research should focus on identifying and assessing the effectiveness of strategies targeted at the wider context and organisational levels and examining the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementation strategies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014009410.