Using a Delphi Technique to Define Primary Care Behavioral Health Clinical Supervision Competencies

There is an increasing need for Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) workforce development (i.e., increase in well-trained PCBH providers) given the growth of behavioral health (BH) integration into primary care, specifically at a time when behavioral health needs are increasing because of the COVID-19 pandemic (Kanzler and Ogbeide in Psychol Trauma 12(S1):S177-S179, https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000761 , 2020). Therefore, it is imperative to provide current and future behavioral health clinical supervisors in primary care settings specific competencies, given there are no current competencies specific to clinical supervision within the PCBH Model. Using a Delphi process, the authors identified and reached expert consensus on competencies for BH clinical supervisors in primary care. A purposive sample (in: Patton, Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage, Newbury Park, 1990) of fifteen experts (n = 15) in PCBH clinical training and education evaluated quantitative and qualitative domains and specific competencies associated with PCBH supervision gathered during an initial in-depth qualitative interview. This was followed by two subsequent rounds of quantitative Delphi surveys to reach consensus. The response rates from our panel of experts were 100% (15/15) for all stages (interviews, round one and round two surveys). Three domains (Primary Care Knowledge, Clinical Supervisor Development, and Clinical Supervision Skills) were rated as essential for providing clinical supervision with PCBH for pre-licensure level learners. The development of competencies will further support BH clinical supervisor needs, professional development, and provide a concrete way to evaluate progress towards teaching and training excellence. This will also have a great impact on the development of the future BH workforce within primary care.

Primary Care Behavioral Health in Sweden - a protocol of a cluster randomized trial evaluating outcomes related to implementation, organization, and patients (KAIROS)

BACKGROUND

Providing comprehensive and continuous care for patients whose conditions have mental or behavioral components is a central challenge in primary care and an important part of improving universal health coverage. There is a great need for high and routine availability of psychological interventions, but traditional methods for delivering psychotherapy often result in low reach and long wait times. Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) is a method for organizing primary care in which behavioral health staff provide brief, flexible interventions to a large part of the population in active collaboration with other providers. While PCBH holds promise in addressing important challenges, it has not yet been thoroughly evaluated.

METHODS

This cluster randomized trial will assess 17 primary care centers (PCCs) that are starting a PCBH implementation process. The PCCs will be divided into two groups, with one starting immediate implementation and the other acting as a control, implementing six months later. The purpose of the study is to strengthen the evidence base for PCBH regarding implementation-, organization-, and patient-level outcomes, taking into consideration that there is a partially dependent relationship between the three levels. Patient outcomes (such as increased daily functioning and reduction of symptoms) may be dependent on organizational changes (such as availability of treatment, waiting times and interprofessional teamwork), which in turn requires change in implementation outcomes (most notably, model fidelity). In addition to the main analysis, five secondary analyses will compare groups based on different combinations of randomization and time periods, specifically before and after each center achieves sufficient PCBH fidelity.

DISCUSSION

A randomized comparison of PCBH and traditional primary care has, to our knowledge, not been made before. While the naturalistic setting and the intricacies of implementation pose certain challenges, we have designed this study in an effort to evaluate the causal effects of PCBH despite these complex aspects. The results of this project will be helpful in guiding decisions on how to organize the delivery of behavioral interventions and psychological treatment within the context of primary care in Sweden and elsewhere.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05335382. Retrospectively registered on March 13th, 2022.

Addressing chronic pain with Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in integrated primary care: findings from a mixed methods pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Over 100 million Americans have chronic pain and most obtain their treatment in primary care clinics. However, evidence-based behavioral treatments targeting pain-related disability are not typically provided in these settings. Therefore, this study sought to: 1) evaluate implementation of a brief evidence-based treatment, Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (FACT-CP), delivered by an integrated behavioral health consultant (BHC) in primary care; and 2) preliminarily explore primary (self-reported physical disability) and secondary treatment outcomes (chronic pain acceptance and engagement in valued activities).

METHODS

This mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial included twenty-six participants with non-cancer chronic pain being treated in primary care (54% women; 46% Hispanic/Latino). Active participants completed a 30-min individual FACT-CP visit followed by 3 weekly 60-min group visits and a booster visit 2 months later. An enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) control group received 4 handouts about pain management based in cognitive-behavioral science. Follow-up research visits occurred during and after treatment, at 12 weeks (booster visit), and at 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data after the last research visit. General linear mixed regression models with repeated measures explored primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The study design and FACT-CP intervention were feasible and acceptable. Quantitative analyses indicate at 6-month follow-up, self-reported physical disability significantly improved pre-post within the FACT-CP arm (d = 0.64); engagement in valued activities significantly improved within both the FACT-CP (d = 0.70) and ETAU arms (d = 0.51); and chronic pain acceptance was the only outcome significantly different between arms (d = 1.04), increased in the FACT-CP arm and decreased in the ETAU arm. Qualitative data analyses reflected that FACT-CP participants reported acquiring skills for learning to live with pain, consistent with increased chronic pain acceptance.

CONCLUSION

Findings support that FACT-CP was acceptable for patients with chronic pain and feasible for delivery in a primary care setting by a BHC. Results provide preliminary evidence for improved physical functioning after FACT-CP treatment. A larger pragmatic trial is warranted, with a design based on data gathered in this pilot.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04978961 (27/07/2021).

Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO): process of adapting collaborative care for co-occurring opioid use and mental disorders

Background

Opioid use disorders (OUD), co-occurring with either depression and/or PTSD, are prevalent, burdensome, and often receive little or low-quality care. Collaborative care is a service delivery intervention that uses a team-based model to improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes in primary care patients, but has not been evaluated for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. To address this treatment and quality gap, we adapted collaborative care for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders.

Methods

Our adapted model is called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO). We used the five-step Map of Adaptation Process (McKleroy in AIDS Educ Prev 18:59–73, 2006) to develop the model. For each step, our stakeholder team of research and clinical experts, primary care partners, and patients provided input into adaptation processes (e.g., adaptation team meetings, clinic partner feedback, patient interviews and beta-testing). To document each adaptation and our decision-making process, we used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (Wiltsey Stirman in Implement Sci 14:1–10, 2019).

Results

We documented 12 planned fidelity-consistent adaptations to collaborative care, including a mix of content, context, and training/evaluation modifications intended to improve fit with the patient population (co-occurring disorders) or the New Mexico setting (low-resource clinics in health professional shortage areas). Examples of documented adaptations include use of community health workers as care coordinators; an expanded consultant team to support task-shifting to community health workers; modified training protocols for Problem-Solving Therapy and Written Exposure Therapy to incorporate examples of treating patients for depression or PTSD with co-occurring OUD; and having care coordinators screen for patients’ social needs.

Conclusions

We completed the first three steps of the Map of Adaptation Process, resulting in a variety of adaptations that we believe will make collaborative care more acceptable and feasible in treating co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. Future steps include evaluating the effectiveness of CLARO and documenting reactive and/or planned adaptations to the model that occur during its implementation and delivery.

Trial registration NCT04559893, NCT04634279. Registered 08 September 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04559893

Further Experience with the Practice Integration Profile: A Measure of Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration

Valid measures of behavioral health integration have the potential to enable comparisons of various models of integration, contribute to the overall development of high-quality care, and evaluate outcomes that are strategically aligned with standard improvement efforts. The Practice Integration Profile has proven to discriminate among clinic types and integration efforts. We continued the validation of the measure's internal consistency, intra-rater consistency, and inter-rater consistency with a separate and larger sample from a broader array of practices. We found that the Practice Integration Profile demonstrated a high level of internal consistency, suggesting empirically sound measurement of independent attributes of integration, and high reliability over time. The Practice Integration Profile provides internally consistent and interpretable results and can serve as both a quality improvement and health services research tool.

Conducting a Pragmatic Trial in Integrated Primary Care: Key Decision Points and Considerations

Pragmatic trials testing the effectiveness of interventions under “real world” conditions help bridge the research-to-practice gap. Such trial designs are optimal for studying the impact of implementation efforts, such as the effectiveness of integrated behavioral health clinicians in primary care settings. Formal pragmatic trials conducted in integrated primary care settings are uncommon, making it difficult for researchers to anticipate the potential pitfalls associated with balancing scientific rigor with the demands of routine clinical practice. This paper is based on our experience conducting the first phase of a large, multisite, pragmatic clinical trial evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of behavioral health consultants treating patients with chronic pain using a manualized intervention, brief cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (BCBT-CP). The paper highlights key choice points using the PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) tool. We discuss the dilemmas of pragmatic research that we faced and offer recommendations for aspiring integrated primary care pragmatic trialists.

A Primary Care Prevention System for Behavioral Health: The Behavioral Health Annual Wellness Checkup

Behavioral health problems are involved in the majority of primary care visits. These behavior disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, smoking, insomnia, etc.) are costly, burdensome to both the patient and the healthcare system, and result in greater medical utilization/cost and poorer future health outcomes. Integrated behavioral healthcare has been proposed as a model for more efficiently addressing the burden of behavioral health problems. While this model has demonstrated some promise in the treatment of behavioral health problems, as well as in the reduction in costs and improvement in healthcare outcomes, the primary prevention of behavioral health problems in this delivery model has been relatively neglected. The present paper discusses the potential value of incorporating the prevention of behavioral health problems into the annual physical/wellness checkup and proposes a detailed system for how this might be accomplished. Limitations, future research, and costs associated with increased prevention in a primary care context are discussed.

Training the Doctors: A Scoping Review of Interprofessional Education in Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH)

Primary care behavioral health (PCBH) is a model of integrated healthcare service delivery that has been well established in the field of psychology and continues to grow. PCBH has been associated with positive patient satisfaction and health outcomes, reduced healthcare expenditures, and improved population health. However, much of the education and training on PCBH has focused on developing behavioral health providers to practice in this medical setting. Less attention has been paid to physician team members to support and practice within an integrated environment. This is problematic as underdeveloped physician team members may contribute to low utilization and attrition of behavioral health consultants. A scoping review was conducted to examine the training of physicians in this domain since 2006. Twenty-one studies were identified, predominantly in Family Medicine training programs. Although PCBH training was generally well received, more program evaluation, formalized curriculum, and faculty development are needed to establish best practices.

Patient outcomes associated with primary care behavioral health services: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review focused on Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) services delivered under normal clinic conditions that included the patient outcomes of: 1) access/utilization of behavioral health services, 2) health status, and 3) satisfaction.

METHOD

Following PRISMA guidelines, comprehensive database searches and rigorous coding procedures rendered 36 articles meeting inclusion criteria. The principle summary measures of odd ratios or Cohen's d effect sizes were reported.

RESULTS

Due to significant limitations in the methodological rigor of reviewed studies, robust findings only emerged for healthcare utilization: PCBH is associated with shorter wait-times for treatment, higher likelihood of engaging in care, and attending a greater number of visits. Several small, uncontrolled studies report emerging evidence that functioning, depression, and anxiety improve overtime. There was no evidence of greater improvement in patient health status when PCBH was compared to other active treatments. The limited available evidence supports that patient satisfaction with PCBH services is high.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of PCBH services is ahead of the science supporting the usefulness of these services. Patient outcomes for PCBH are weaker than outcomes for Collaborative Care. More rigorous investigations of patient outcomes associated with PCBH are needed to allow for optimization of services.

Psychological interventions for anxiety in adult primary care patients: A review and recommendations for future research

Anxiety symptoms are prevalent in primary care, yet treatment rates are low. The integration of behavioral health providers into primary care via the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model offers a promising way to improve treatment options by adding a team member with the necessary skillset to deliver evidence-based psychological interventions for anxiety. We conducted a narrative review of psychological interventions for anxiety applied within adult primary care settings (k = 44) to update the literature and evaluate the fit of existing interventions with the PCBH model. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 70.5%). Most interventions utilized cognitive-behavioral therapy (68.2%) and were delivered individually, face-to-face (52.3%). Overall, 65.9% of interventions (58.6% of RCTs, 91.7% of pre-post) were effective in reducing anxiety symptoms, and 83.3% maintained the gains at follow-up. Although it is encouraging that most interventions significantly reduced anxiety, their longer formats (i.e., number and duration of sessions) and narrow symptom targets make translation into practice difficult. Methodological limitations of the research included homogenous samples, failure to report key procedural details, pre-post designs, and restrictive eligibility criteria. We offer recommendations to guide future research to improve the likelihood of successful translation of anxiety interventions into clinical practice.