Automated Screening to Enhance Proactive Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Services in Acute Medicine Units: Evaluation of Service Outcomes.

Objective: Proactive consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry aims to meet the mental health needs of medical-surgical populations-many of which go unmet by the conventional C-L model-through systematic screening and integrated care. We implemented an automated screening list to enhance case identification of an existing proactive C-L service and evaluated service metrics along with clinician- and patient-reported outcomes.Methods: Service outcomes were evaluated using historical and contemporary comparison data. Adjusted difference-in-difference analyses were used to determine change in consult characteristics, mean length of stay (LOS), and scores on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). Practitioners and nurses were surveyed regarding service satisfaction, perceived safety, and burnout.Results: During the intervention, the consult rate was 3-fold higher than at baseline. Change in time to consultation was equivocal. Overall mean LOS was not reduced, but observed LOS was 1.2 days shorter than expected among non-COVID patients receiving psychiatric consultation (P = not significant). Mean patient-rated hospital satisfaction on HCAHPS was 1 point higher on intervention units during the intervention. Surveys revealed broad satisfaction with this model among practitioners and improved perception of safety among nurses.Conclusions: Proactive C-L psychiatry enhanced by automated screening was associated with improved service utilization and evidence suggestive of LOS reduction among those most likely to receive direct benefit from this model of care. Further, both patient and clinician ratings were improved during the intervention. Proactive C-L psychiatry provides benefits to patients, clinicians, and health systems and may be poised to achieve the Triple Aim in health care.Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2024;26(2):23m03647. Author affiliations are listed at the end of this article.

Comprehensive Approach to Opioid Management in a Primary Care Network.

In response to the opioid epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released best practice recommendations for prescribing, yet adoption of these guidelines has been fragmented and frequently met with uncertainty by both patients and providers. This study aims to describe the development and implementation of a comprehensive approach to improving opioid stewardship in a large network of primary care providers. The authors developed a 3-tier approach to opioid management: (1) establishment and implementation of best practices for prescribing opioids, (2) development of a weaning process to decrease opioid doses when the risk outweighs benefits, and (3) support for patients when opioid use disorders were identified. Across 44 primary care practices caring for >223,000 patients, the total number of patients prescribed a chronic opioid decreased from 4848 patients in 2018 to 3106 patients in 2021, a decrease of 36% (P < 0.001). The percent of patients with a controlled substance agreement increased from 13% to 83% (P < 0.001) and the percent of patients completing an annual urine drug screen increased from 17% to 53% (P < 0.001). The number of patients coprescribed benzodiazepines decreased from 1261 patients at baseline to 834 at completion. A total of 6.5% of patients were referred for additional support from a certified alcohol and substance abuse counselor embedded within the program. Overall, the comprehensive opioid management program provided the necessary structure to support opioid prescribing and resulted in improved adherence to best practices, facilitated weaning of opioids when medically appropriate, and enhanced support for patients with opioid use disorders.

Primary Care Behavioral Health Integration and Care Utilization: Implications for Patient Outcome and Healthcare Resource Use.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral health (BH) integration in primary care (PC) can potentially improve outcomes and reduce cost of care. While different models of integration exist, evidence from real-world examples is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness and value of integration. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of six PC practice sites located in Western New York that implemented a primary care behavioral health (PCBH) integration model. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of PCBH on all-cause healthcare utilization rates. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study based on historical multi-payer health insurance claims data. Claims data were aggregated on a per-member-per-month basis to compare utilization rates among the patients in the PC practice sites that had implemented PCBH to those in the sites that had not yet done so. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included 6768 unique adult health plan members between October 2015 and June 2017 with at least one BH diagnosis code who were attributed to one of the six newly integrated PC practice sites. INTERVENTIONS: Under the PCBH integration model, BH specialists were embedded in PC practice sites to treat a wide range of BH conditions. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of all-cause ED visits and hospital admissions, along with rates of PC provider and BH provider visits. KEY RESULTS: PCBH implementation was associated with reductions in the rates of outpatient ED visits (14.2%; p < 0.001) and PC provider visits (12.0%; p < 0.001), as well as with an increased rate of BH provider visits (7.5%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: PCBH integration appears to alter the treatment patterns among patients with BH conditions by shifting patient visits away from ED and PC providers toward BH providers who specialize in treatment of such patients.

Employer-sponsored behavioral health program impacts on care utilization and cost.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of an employer-sponsored behavioral health (BH) program on all-cause health care utilization and cost. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data obtained from a large employer in western New York covering a 25-month period between 2016 and 2018. Those employees treated by the employer-sponsored BH program were compared against a contemporaneous comparison group of employees of the same employer who had eligible BH diagnoses for the program but were treated elsewhere. METHODS: A difference-in-differences method was used to estimate the program's impact on all-cause care utilization (physician office visits and acute care utilization) and total cost of care, including prescription drug costs. RESULTS: Program participation was associated with a reduction of approximately 28% in total cost of care including prescription drug costs (P = .043) over an 18-month period following the initial program encounter, as well as 27% reductions in primary care provider (PCP) visits (P = .001) and non-BH specialist visits (P = .005). No significant impacts were observed for acute care utilization and BH specialist visit rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the employer-sponsored BH program implementation may have shifted treatments of certain BH conditions away from PCPs and non-BH specialists who may not have the proper training or resources to manage such conditions. Therefore, these results are consistent with the expectation that improved access to BH care is likely to improve efficiency in the health care system via provision of more appropriate care for those who need it.

Utilization of an Employee Behavioral Health Program and Its Effects on Outcomes for Depression and Anxiety Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of an employer-sponsored behavioral health program on depression and anxiety by assessing dose effect of psychotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis of patients with baseline scores more than or equal to 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD7). Survival analyses were conducted to assess whether those with a higher number of therapy sessions per episode (dose) achieved faster response (score reduction by 50% or below 10). RESULTS: Patients with medium (8 to 12 visits) or high (more than 12 visits) dose achieved faster response than those with low dose (less than eight visits; hazard ratios more than 1.5, P < 0.05). No significant difference was found between the medium and high dose. CONCLUSION: Higher dose of psychotherapy is correlated with improved behavioral health outcomes, although there appears to be no incremental benefit beyond a certain level.

An open-label study to evaluate switching from an SSRI or SNRI to tiagabine to alleviate antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction in generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated tiagabine monotherapy in subjects with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) who had been switched from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as a result of antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction. METHODS: Adults with DSM-IV GAD, an adequate therapeutic response (> or =50% decrease in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety [HAM-A] total score) to SSRI or SNRI and sexual dysfunction were switched to open-label tiagabine 4-12 mg/day for 14 weeks. Assessments included the HAM-A, Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale (HADS) and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX); assessments were made at baseline and at Weeks 4, 8, and 14. RESULTS: Twenty six subjects were included in the analysis. Tiagabine showed no worsening in baseline symptoms of GAD, with non-significant changes from baseline in mean HAM-A total scores and HADS Anxiety and Depression subscale scores. There was a significant (p < 0.001) reduction in ASEX total scores from baseline following tiagabine, indicating an alleviation of sexual dysfunction. Tiagabine was reasonably tolerated; the most commonly reported adverse events were dizziness/light headedness (n = 6; 23%), nausea (n = 6; 23%) and fatigue (n = 2; 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Tiagabine may be useful in subjects who respond to previous antidepressant therapy but develop sexual dysfunction as an adverse event.