Storylines of family medicine VIII: clinical approaches.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'VIII: clinical approaches', authors address the following themes: 'Evaluation, diagnosis and management I-toward a working diagnosis', 'Evaluation, diagnosis and management II-process steps', 'Interweaving integrative medicine and family medicine', 'Halfway-the art of clinical judgment', 'Seamless integration in family medicine-team-based care', 'Technology-uncovering stories from noise' and 'Caring for patients with multiple long-term conditions'. May readers recognise in these essays the uniqueness of a family medicine approach to care.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

The Time Is Now: A Plan to Redesign Family Medicine Residency Education.

A new graduate medical education program in family medicine is urgently needed now. We propose an innovative plan to develop community-based, community-owned family medicine residency programs. The plan is founded on five guiding principles in which residencies will (1) transition to independent, community-owned organizations; (2) sustain comprehensiveness and generalism; (3) emphasize collaborative learning and interprofessional education; (4) develop local educators with national guidance; and (5) share resources, responsibilities, and learning. We describe actionable steps to begin the process of transforming residencies and strengthening primary care. As community-based and locally-run organizations, residencies will gain self-determination in how time is allocated, budgets are spent, and teams function. Building on the momentum of the National Academy of Medicine's 2021 primary care implementation plan and recommendations by family medicine organization leaders, we propose a Decade of Family Medicine Residency Transformation. We encourage individuals and organizations spanning disciplines, health care systems, and communities, to join forces to reimagine and recreate the preparation of outstanding personal physicians dedicated to individual and community health and well-being.

Shared Language for Shared Work in Population Health.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict.

A step at a time.

In this issue of Families, Systems, and Health are two articles that inch us on our winding way forward as we try to help people become healthier. This article takes stock of where we are now, starting from the start, equipped with three of our foundational guiding principles, and sighting our polestar to see what our best next moves might be. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Nomination of Parinda Khatri for Don Bloch Award, 2020.

This article focuses on Parinda Khatri, PhD, who was nominated for the annual Don Bloch Award. This award is the quintessential organizational award for members who have advanced the field of collaborative care, and who show intellectual, behavioral, and relational qualities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

An Adaptive, Contextual, Technology-Aided Support (ACTS) System for Chronic Illness Self-Management.

Policy Points Fundamental changes are needed in how complex chronic illness conditions are conceptualized and managed. Health management plans for chronic illness need to be integrated, adaptive, contextual, technology aided, patient driven, and designed to address the multilevel social environment of patients' lives. Such primary care-based health management plans are feasible today but will be even more effective and sustainable if supported by systems thinking, technological advances, and policies that create and reinforce home, work, and health care collaborations. CONTEXT: The current health care system is failing patients with chronic illness, especially those with complex comorbid conditions and social determinants of health challenges. The current system combined with unsustainable health care costs, lack of support for primary care in the United States, and aging demographics create a frightening probable future. METHODS: Recent developments, including integrated behavioral health, community resources to address social determinants, population health infrastructure, patient-centered digital-health self-management support, and complexity science have the potential to help address these alarming trends. This article describes, first, the opportunity to integrate these trends and, second, a proposal for an integrated, patient-directed, adaptive, contextual, and technology-aided support (ACTS) system, based on a patient's life context and home/primary care/work-setting "support triangle." FINDINGS: None of these encouraging trends is a panacea, and although most have been described previously, they have not been integrated. Here we discuss an example of integration using these components and how our proposed model (termed My Own Health Report) can be applied, along with its strengths, limitations, implications, and opportunities for practice, policy, and research. CONCLUSIONS: This ACTS system builds on and extends the current chronic illness management approaches. It is feasible today and can produce even more dramatic improvements in the future.

Without Wasting a Word: Extreme Improvements in Efficiency and Accuracy Using Computerized Adaptive Testing for Mental Health Disorders (CAT-MH).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review recent literature on the adaptive assessment of complex mental health disorders and provide a detailed comparison of classical test theory and adaptive testing based on multidimensional item response theory. RECENT FINDINGS: Adaptive tests for a wide variety of mental health traits (e.g., depression, anxiety, mania, substance misuse, suicidality) are now available in a cloud-based environment. These tests have been validated in a variety of settings against lengthy structured clinical interviews with excellent results and even higher reliability than fixed-length tests. Applications include screening and assessments in emergency departments, psychiatric and primary care clinics, student health clinics, perinatal medicine clinics, child welfare settings, and the judicial system. The future of mental health measurement will be based on automated screening and assessments. Adaptive tests will provide increased precision of measurement and decreased burden of measurement. Integration into the electronic health record is important and now easily accomplished.

Using Telepsychiatry to Enrich Existing Integrated Primary Care.

Background: Integrated care is characterized by evolving heterogeneity in models. Using telepsychiatry to enhance these models can increase access, quality, and efficiencies in care. Introduction: The purpose of this report is to describe the process and outcomes of adapting telepsychiatry into an existing integrated care service. Materials and Methods: Telepsychiatry was implemented into an existing integrated care model in a high-volume, urban, primary care clinic in Colorado serving patients with complex physical and behavioral needs. Consultative, direct care, educational/training encounters, provider-to-provider communication, process changes, and patient-level descriptive measures were tracked as part of ongoing quality improvement. Results: Telepsychiatry was adapted into the existing behavioral health services using an iterative team meeting process within a stepped care model. Over 35% of the requests for psychiatry services were medication related-and medication changes (type/dose) were the most frequent referral outcome of psychiatric consultation. Forty percent of patients in the service had multiple behavioral health diagnoses, in addition to physical health diagnoses. Discussion: Telehealth will become an increasingly necessary component in building hybrid/blended integrated care teams. Examples of flexible model implementation will support clinics in tailoring effective applications for their unique patient panels. Conclusions: An adapted integrated care model leveraging telepsychiatry is successfully serving the complex deep end of a primary care patient population in Colorado. Lessons learned in implementing this model include the importance of team attitudes.

Outcomes of Integrated Behavioral Health with Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Integrating behavioral health and primary care is beneficial to patients and health systems. However, for integration to be widely adopted, studies demonstrating its benefits in community practices are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate effect of integrated care, adapted to local contexts, on depression severity and patients' experience of care. METHODS: This study used a convergent mixed-methods design, merging findings from a quasi-experimental study with patient interviews conducted as part of Advancing Care Together, a community demonstration project that created an innovation incubator for practices implementing evidence-based integration strategies. The study included 475 patients with a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥10 at baseline, from 5 practices. RESULTS: Statistically significant reductions in mean PHQ-9 scores were observed in all practices, ranging from 2.72 to 6.46 points. Clinically, 50% of patients had a ≥5-point reduction in PHQ-9 score and 32% had a ≥50% reduction. This finding was corroborated by patient interviews that demonstrated positive experiences with behavioral health clinicians and acquiring new skills to cope with adverse situations at work and home. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating behavioral health and primary care, when adapted to fit into community practices, reduced depression severity and enhanced patients' experience of care. Integration is a worthwhile investment; clinical leaders, policymakers, and payers should support integration in their communities.

Development and initial validation of primary care provider mental illness management and team-based care self-efficacy scales.

OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate self-efficacy scales for primary care provider (PCP) mental illness management and team-based care participation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed three self-efficacy scales: team-based care (TBC), mental illness management (MIM), and chronic medical illness (CMI). We developed the scales using Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory as a guide. The survey instrument included items from previously validated scales on team-based care and mental illness management. We administered a mail survey to 900 randomly selected Colorado physicians. We conducted exploratory principal factor analysis with oblique rotation. We constructed self-efficacy scales and calculated standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficients to test internal consistency. We calculated correlation coefficients between the MIM and TBC scales and previously validated measures related to each scale to evaluate convergent validity. We tested correlations between the TBC and the measures expected to correlate with the MIM scale and vice versa to evaluate discriminant validity. RESULTS: PCPs (n=402, response rate=49%) from diverse practice settings completed surveys. Items grouped into factors as expected. Cronbach's alphas were 0.94, 0.88, and 0.83 for TBC, MIM, and CMI scales respectively. In convergent validity testing, the TBC scale was correlated as predicted with scales assessing communications strategies, attitudes toward teams, and other teamwork indicators (r=0.25 to 0.40, all statistically significant). Likewise, the MIM scale was significantly correlated with several items about knowledge and experience managing mental illness (r=0.24 to 41, all statistically significant). As expected in discriminant validity testing, the TBC scale had only very weak correlations with the mental illness knowledge and experience managing mental illness items (r=0.03 to 0.12). Likewise, the MIM scale was only weakly correlated with measures of team-based care (r=0.09 to.17). CONCLUSION: This validation study of MIM and TBC self-efficacy scales showed high internal validity and good construct validity.

Primary care providers' experiences caring for complex patients in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Complex patients are increasingly common in primary care and often have poor clinical outcomes. Healthcare system barriers to effective care for complex patients have been previously described, but less is known about the potential impact and meaning of caring for complex patients on a daily basis for primary care providers (PCPs). Our objective was to describe PCPs' experiences providing care for complex patients, including their experiences of health system barriers and facilitators and their strategies to enhance provision of effective care. METHODS: Using a general inductive approach, our qualitative research study was guided by an interpretive epistemology, or way of knowing. Our method for understanding included semi-structured in-depth interviews with internal medicine PCPs from two university-based and three community health clinics. We developed an interview guide, which included questions on PCPs' experiences, perceived system barriers and facilitators, and strategies to improve their ability to effectively treat complex patients. To focus interviews on real cases, providers were asked to bring de-identified clinical notes from patients they considered complex to the interview. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed to develop categories from the raw data, which were then conceptualized into broad themes after team-based discussion. RESULTS: PCPs (N = 15) described complex patients with multidimensional needs, such as socio-economic, medical, and mental health. A vision of optimal care emerged from the data, which included coordinating care, preventing hospitalizations, and developing patient trust. PCPs relied on professional values and individual care strategies to overcome local and system barriers. Team based approaches were endorsed to improve the management of complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given the barriers to effective care described by PCPs, individual PCP efforts alone are unlikely to meet the needs of complex patients. To fulfill PCP's expressed concepts of optimal care, implementation of effective systemic approaches should be considered.

Clinician Staffing, Scheduling, and Engagement Strategies Among Primary Care Practices Delivering Integrated Care.

PURPOSE: To examine the interrelationship among behavioral health clinician (BHC) staffing, scheduling, and a primary care practice's approach to delivering integrated care. METHODS: Observational cross-case comparative analysis of 17 primary care practices in the United States focused on implementation of integrated care. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and integrated care experience. A multidisciplinary team analyzed documents, practice surveys, field notes from observation visits, implementation diaries, and semistructured interviews using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Across the 17 practices, staffing ratios ranged from 1 BHC covering 0.3 to 36.5 primary care clinicians (PCCs). BHC scheduling varied from 50-minute prescheduled appointments to open, flexible schedules slotted in 15-minute increments. However, staffing and scheduling patterns generally clustered in 2 ways and enabled BHCs to be engaged by referral or warm handoff. Five practices predominantly used warm handoffs to engage BHCs and had higher BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios; multiple BHCs on staff; and shorter, more flexible BHC appointment schedules. Staffing and scheduling structures that enabled warm handoffs supported BHC engagement with patients concurrent with the identification of behavioral health needs. Twelve practices primarily used referrals to engage BHCs and had lower BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios and BHC schedules prefilled with visits. This enabled some BHCs to bill for services, but also made them less accessible to PCCs in when patients presented with behavioral health needs during a clinical encounter. Three of these practices were experimenting with open scheduling and briefer BHC visits to enable real-time access while managing resources. CONCLUSION: Practices' approaches to PCC-BHC staffing, scheduling, and delivery of integrated care mutually influenced each other and were shaped by the local context. Practice leaders, educators, clinicians, funders, researchers, and policy makers must consider these factors as they seek to optimize integrated systems of care.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care: Consulting, Coordinating and Collaborating Among Professionals.

PURPOSE: This paper sought to describe how clinicians from different backgrounds interact to deliver integrated behavioral and primary health care, and the contextual factors that shape such interactions. METHODS: This was a comparative case study in which a multidisciplinary team used an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze data from observations of practice operations, interviews with practice members, and implementation diaries. The observed practices were drawn from 2 studies: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado; and the Integration Workforce Study, consisting of 8 practices located across the United States. RESULTS: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians used 3 interpersonal strategies to work together in integrated settings: consulting, coordinating, and collaborating (3Cs). Consulting occurred when clinicians sought advice, validated care plans, or corroborated perceptions of a patient's needs with another professional. Coordinating involved 2 professionals working in a parallel or in a back-and-forth fashion to achieve a common patient care goal, while delivering care separately. Collaborating involved 2 or more professionals interacting in real time to discuss a patient's presenting symptoms, describe their views on treatment, and jointly develop a care plan. Collaborative behavior emerged when a patient's care or situation was complex or novel. We identified contextual factors shaping use of the 3Cs, including: time to plan patient care, staffing, employing brief therapeutic approaches, proximity of clinical team members, and electronic health record documenting behavior. CONCLUSION: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians, through their interactions, consult, coordinate, and collaborate with each other to solve patients' problems. Organizations can create integrated care environments that support these collaborations and health professions training programs should equip clinicians to execute all 3Cs routinely in practice.