Integrating MOUD and Primary Care: Outcomes of a Multicenter Learning Collaborative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care. METHODS: We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics. RESULTS: We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.

Clinician Experiences With Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder are common in primary care. Evidence supports collaborative care in primary care settings to treat depression and anxiety, and recent studies have evaluated its effectiveness in treating complex conditions such as PTSD and bipolar disorder. This study aimed to examine how primary care clinicians experience collaborative care for patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders. METHODS: The authors conducted semistructured interviews with 22 primary care clinicians participating in a pragmatic trial that included telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC) to treat patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder in rural or underserved areas. Analysis utilized a constant comparative method to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: Clinicians reported that TCC improved their confidence in managing medications for patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder and supported their ongoing learning and skill development. Clinicians also reported improvements in patient engagement in care. Care managers were crucial to realizing these benefits by fostering communication within the clinical team while engaging patients through regular outreach. Clinicians valued TCC because it included and supported them in improving the care of patients' mental health conditions, which opened opportunities for clinicians to enhance care and address co-occurring general medical conditions. Overall, benefits of the TCC model outweighed its minimal burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found that TCC supported their care of patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder. This approach has the potential to extend the reach of specialty mental health care and to support primary care clinicians treating patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.

Psychometric properties of the Telepsych User Experience Scale (TUES).

PURPOSE: To develop and psychometrically evaluate a brief measure of the telemental health experience among people receiving psychiatric and psychological care-the Telepsych User Experience Scale (TUES). METHODS: The TUES was administered at 6 months to 364 study participants who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and used telepsych services. The factor structure of the TUES was examined using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Psychometric testing of the final scale examined (1) internal reliability, (2) criterion validity, (3) convergent validity, and (4) test-retest reliability using omega coefficients, negative binomial regression, and correlations, respectively. A week after the 12-month follow-up survey was completed, a retest was administered to 29 patients to assess reliability. FINDINGS: Factor analytic methods indicated a single latent factor (user experience) and correlated error variance (method effect of item wording) for 2 items. To enhance clinical utility, we removed the 2 negatively worded items, resulting in a 5-item scale. Confirmatory analyses indicated excellent fit of the final model, which retained the best performing items from each hypothesized construct. The TUES demonstrated evidence of internal consistency (omega = 0.88-0.90), convergent validity, (r = 0.58), and criterion validity through telepsych engagement (incidence rate ratio = 1.19, P < .001), though test-retest reliability was unacceptable (r = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The TUES is a pragmatic instrument with evidence of validity and internal reliability. Replication is necessary, but this initial psychometric evaluation suggests the TUES is a promising, brief yet comprehensive measure of telemental health user experience with clinical populations in rural settings.

Comparison of Teleintegrated Care and Telereferral Care for Treating Complex Psychiatric Disorders in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Importance: Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings. Objective: To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months. Interventions: Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology-enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral [PER]) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects. Results: Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 2 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (ß = 1.0; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.8; P = .28). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; TER: Cohen d = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (ß = 2.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.7; P = .29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944.

Psychometric Properties of the Assessment of Perceived Access to Care (APAC) Instrument.

Valid measures of perceived access are needed to measure whether health care systems are providing adequate access. This research reports on the psychometric properties of the Assessment of Perceived Access to Care (APAC), which was administered to 1004 Community Health Center patients screening positive for psychiatric disorders. Known-group validity was good, with 6 of the 8 hypothesized associations between social determinants of access and perceived access being significant (P < .01). Better access was significantly (P < .01) correlated with more outpatient mental health visits, indicating good convergent validity. The test-retest Pearson correlation coefficient (0.64) was statistically significant (P < .01). The APAC has acceptable psychometric properties.

Developing Telemental Health Partnerships Between State Medical Schools and Federally Qualified Health Centers: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape and Policy Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) deliver care to 26 million Americans living in underserved areas, but few offer telemental health (TMH) services. The social missions of FQHCs and publicly funded state medical schools create a compelling argument for the development of TMH partnerships. In this paper, we share our experience and recommendations from launching TMH partnerships between 12 rural FQHCs and 3 state medical schools. EXPERIENCE: There was consensus that medical school TMH providers should practice as part of the FQHC team to promote integration, enhance quality and safety, and ensure financial sustainability. For TMH providers to practice and bill as FQHC providers, the following issues must be addressed: (1) credentialing and privileging the TMH providers at the FQHC, (2) expanding FQHC Scope of Project to include telepsychiatry, (3) remote access to medical records, (4) insurance credentialing/paneling, billing, and supplemental payments, (5) contracting with the medical school, and (6) indemnity coverage for TMH. RECOMMENDATIONS: We make recommendations to both state medical schools and FQHCs about how to overcome existing barriers to TMH partnerships. We also make recommendations about changes to policy that would mitigate the impact of these barriers. Specifically, we make recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid about insurance credentialing, facility fees, eligibility of TMH encounters for supplemental payments, and Medicare eligibility rules for TMH billing by FQHCs. We also make recommendations to the Health Resources and Services Administration about restrictions on adding telepsychiatry to the FQHCs' Scope of Project and the eligibility of TMH providers for indemnity coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Family Support During Resuscitation: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing support for family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a review of the literature revealed no published protocols or training curricula to guide hospitals in implementing a family support provider role. OBJECTIVES: To develop a curriculum and train dedicated resuscitation team members whose role is to provide family support during in-hospital resuscitation events. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team developed a 4-hour training session for the family support staff. The session included an introduction to the evidence for family presence during resuscitation and local data on resuscitations. The training was composed of 4 sections: (1) clinical aspects of resuscitation, (2) integration into the resuscitation team and steps for providing family support during resuscitation, (3) responding to families in distress, and (4) self-care practices. Before and after the training session, the participants completed surveys of self-rated knowledge and attitudes toward family presence during resuscitation. RESULTS: Fifty-nine social workers and 8 spiritual care providers were trained in 2015. There was a significant increase in all rated aspects of knowledge of the family support role and self-care strategies. CONCLUSION: Through the creation of an interdisciplinary curriculum, an institution can effectively train health care providers in a new resuscitation team role: the family support provider.