Dataset Information

Time and Organizational Cost for Facilitating Implementation of Primary Care Mental Health Integration.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost.

Objective

To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration.

Design

Descriptive analysis.

Participants

One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics.

Intervention

Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders.

Main measures

We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost.

Key results

The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other.

Conclusions

Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

SUBMITTER: Ritchie MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7174254 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite their high prevalence and significant burden, mental disorders such as depression remain largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. OBJECTIVE:The aim of the Allillanchu Project was to design, develop, and test an intervention to promote early detection, opportune referral, and access to treatment of patients with mental disorders attending public primary health care (PHC) services in Lima, Peru. METHODS:The project had a multiphase design: formative study, development of intervention components, and implementation. The intervention combined three strategies: training of PHC providers (PHCPs), task shifting the detection and referral of mental disorders, and a mobile health (mHealth) component comprising a screening app followed by motivational and reminder short message service (SMS) to identify at-risk patients. The intervention was implemented by 22 PHCPs from five health centers, working in antenatal care, tuberculosis, chronic diseases, and HIV or AIDS services. RESULTS:Over a period of 9 weeks, from September 2015 to November 2015, 733 patients were screened by the 22 PHCPs during routine consultations, and 762 screening were completed in total. The chronic diseases (49.9%, 380/762) and antenatal care services (36.7%, 380/762) had the higher number of screenings. Time constraints and workload were the main barriers to implementing the screening, whereas the use of technology, training, and supervision of the PHCPs by the research team were identified as facilitators. Of the 733 patients, 21.7% (159/733) screened positively and were advised to seek specialized care. Out of the 159 patients with a positive screening result, 127 had a follow-up interview, 72.4% (92/127) reported seeking specialized care, and 55.1% (70/127) stated seeing a specialist. Both patients and PHCPs recognized the utility of the screening and identified some key challenges to its wider implementation. CONCLUSIONS:The use of a screening app supported by training and supervision is feasible and uncovers a high prevalence of unidentified psychological symptoms in primary care. To increase its sustainability and utility, this procedure can be incorporated into the routine practices of existing health care services, following tailoring to the resources and features of each service. The early detection of psychological symptoms by a PHCP within a regular consultation, followed by adequate advice and support, can lead to a significant percentage of patients accessing specialized care and reducing the treatment gap of mental disorders.

Project description:BackgroundDepression management can be challenging for primary care (PC) settings. While several evidence-based models exist for depression care, little is known about the relationships between PC practice characteristics, model characteristics, and the practice's choices regarding model adoption.ObjectiveWe examined three Veterans Affairs (VA)-endorsed depression care models and tested the relationships between theoretically-anchored measures of organizational readiness and implementation of the models in VA PC clinics.Design1) Qualitative assessment of the three VA-endorsed depression care models, 2) Cross-sectional survey of leaders from 225 VA medium-to-large PC practices, both in 2007.Main measuresWe assessed PC readiness factors related to resource adequacy, motivation for change, staff attributes, and organizational climate. As outcomes, we measured implementation of one of the VA-endorsed models: collocation, Translating Initiatives in Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES), and Behavioral Health Lab (BHL). We performed bivariate and, when possible, multivariate analyses of readiness factors for each model.Key resultsCollocation is a relatively simple arrangement with a mental health specialist physically located in PC. TIDES and BHL are more complex; they use standardized assessments and care management based on evidence-based collaborative care principles, but with different organizational requirements. By 2007, 107 (47.5 %) clinics had implemented collocation, 39 (17.3 %) TIDES, and 17 (7.6 %) BHL. Having established quality improvement processes (OR 2.30, [1.36, 3.87], p = 0.002) or a depression clinician champion (OR 2.36, [1.14, 4.88], p = 0.02) was associated with collocation. Being located in a VA regional network that endorsed TIDES (OR 8.42, [3.69, 19.26], p < 0.001) was associated with TIDES implementation. The presence of psychologists or psychiatrists on PC staff, greater financial sufficiency, or greater spatial sufficiency was associated with BHL implementation.ConclusionsBoth readiness factors and characteristics of depression care models influence model adoption. Greater model simplicity may make collocation attractive within local quality improvement efforts. Dissemination through regional networks may be effective for more complex models such as TIDES.

Project description:ImportanceWomen veterans increasingly seek care yet continue to face barriers in the Veterans Health Administration (VA), which predominantly cares for men. Evidence-based collaborative care models can improve patient access to treatment of depression, which is experienced at higher rates by women. While the VA has implemented these care models nationally, it is not known whether access improvements occur equitably across genders in primary care.ObjectiveTo examine whether the VA's national Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) initiative (beginning 2007) expanded realized access to mental health care similarly for men and women.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 5 377 093 million primary care patients assigned to 396 VA clinics that provided integrated mental health services nationally between October 2013 and September 2016. Data analysis occurred between May 2017 and July 2020.ExposuresClinic PC-MHI penetration, calculated as the proportion of clinic patients who saw an integrated specialist per fiscal year.Main outcomes and measuresEstimates of mean VA health care utilization (mental health, primary care, other specialty care, telephone, hospitalizations) and median total costs for men and women. Multilevel models adjusted for year, clinic, patient characteristics, and interactions between patient-defined gender and clinic PC-MHI penetration.ResultsThis study examined 5 377 093 veterans (448 455 [8.3%] women; 3 744 140 [69.6%] White) with a mean (SD) baseline age 62.0 (16.6) years. Each percentage-point increase in the proportion of clinic patients who saw an integrated specialist was associated with 38% fewer mental health visits per year for women (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60-0.65), but 39% more visits for men (IRR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.34-1.44; P < .001). Both men and women had more primary care visits (men: IRR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.36-1.45; women: IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28; P < .001) and total costs (men: β [SE], 2.23 [0.10]; women: β [SE], 1.24 [0.15]; P = .06), but women had 74% fewer hospitalizations than men related to clinics with mental health integration (IRR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.19-0.36 vs IRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.24; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceWhile greater outpatient service use for men was observed in this study, PC-MHI was associated with a decrease in mental health specialty visits (and hospitalizations) for women veterans, potentially signifying a shift of services to primary care. With increasing patient choice for where veterans receive care, the VA must tailor medical care to the needs of rising numbers of women patients. Differences in health care utilization by gender highlight the importance of anticipating policy impacts on and tailoring services for patients in the numerical minority in the VA and other health systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The barriers and facilitating factors for integrating mental health into primary health care have been well documented in the literature, but little is known about the perspectives of primary health care workers (who provide integrated mental health care) on barriers and facilitating factors of the health system for scaling up mental health interventions in low and middle income countries. This study aimed to explore these perspectives of primary health care workers within the health system, and identify possible strategies to optimize the integration of mental health in primary health care. METHODS:The study was conducted in the Chitwan district of Nepal with 55 purposively selected primary health care workers representing prescribers (N?=?35), non-prescribers (N?=?12) and Female Community Health Volunteers (N?=?8). Using a semi-structured interview guide, experienced qualitative researchers collected data between September 2016 and May 2017. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and then translated into English. The transcripts were coded using Nvivo 10 software and themes were generated for the thematic analysis. RESULTS:According to the health workers, the facilitating factors for scaling up mental health services in primary health care setting in Nepal included; (1) availability of guidelines, protocols and awareness raising materials, (2) provision of supervision, (3) referral systems being in place, (4) patient record keeping, (5) community sensitizations and home visits, and (6) provision of psychosocial counseling. The barriers identified included; (1) shortage of psychotropic medicines, (2) lack of private space for counseling, (3) workload and health workers' grievances regarding incentives, and (4) perceived stigma causing dropouts. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest that implementation of mental health services through primary health care workers in resource-poor setting is possible when health system level barriers are addressed and facilitating factors are strengthened. In order to address these barriers the health workers suggested a few strategies which included; ensuring dedicated staff available at health facility, allocating dedicated and confidential space for counseling, improving on incentives and motivational benefits to existing health staff, organizing policy level advocacy for mental health, improving medicine supply chain management and strengthening systems for supervision, referral and mental health information management.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the review was to synthesize evidence of barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into PHC from existing literature. The structure of the review was guided by the SPIDER framework which involves the following: Sample or population of interest-primary care providers (PCPs); Phenomenon of Interest-integration of mental health services into primary health care (PHC); Design-influenced robustness and analysis of the study; Evaluation-outcomes included subjective outcomes (views and attitudes); and Research type-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.MethodsStudies that described mental health integration in PHC settings, involved primary care providers, and presented barriers/facilitators of mental health integration into PHC were included in the review. The sources of information included PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, the WHO website, and OpenGrey. Assessment of bias and quality was done using two separate tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3353 search results. The most frequently reported barriers to integration of mental health services into PHC were (i) attitudes regarding program acceptability, appropriateness, and credibility; (ii) knowledge and skills; (iii) motivation to change; (iv) management and/or leadership; and (v) financial resources. In order to come up with an actionable approach to addressing the barriers, these factors were further analyzed along a behavior change theory.DiscussionWe have shown that the integration of mental health services into PHC has been carried out by various countries. The analysis from this review provides evidence to inform policy on the existing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the mental health integration policy option. Not all databases may have been exhausted.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2016 (Registration Number: CRD42016052000 ) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews August 2017.

Project description:IntroductionTo address the know-do gap in the integration of mental health care into primary care in resource-limited settings, a multi-faceted implementation program initially designed to integrate HIV/AIDS care into primary care was adapted for severe mental disorders and epilepsy in Burera District, Rwanda. The Mentoring and Enhanced Supervision at Health Centers (MESH MH) program supported primary care-delivered mental health service delivery scale-up from 6 to 19 government-run health centers over two years. This quasi-experimental study assessed implementation reach, fidelity, and clinical outcomes at health centers supported by MESH MH during the scale up period.MethodsMESH MH consisted of four strategies to ensure the delivery of the priority care packages at health centers: training; supervision and mentorship; audit and feedback; and systems-based quality improvement (QI). Implementation reach (service use) across the 19 health centers supported by MESH MH during the two year scale-up period was described using routine service data. Implementation fidelity was measured at four select health centers by comparing total clinical supervisory visits and checklists to target goals, and by tracking clinical observation checklist item completion rates over a nine month period. A prospective before and after evaluation measured clinical outcomes in consecutive adults presenting to four select health centers over a nine month period. Primary outcome assessments at baseline, 2 and 6 months included symptoms and functioning, measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale (WHO-DAS Brief), respectively. Secondary outcome assessments included engagement in income generating work and caregiver burden using a quantitative scale adapted to context.ResultsA total of 2239 mental health service users completed 15,744 visits during the scale up period. MESH MH facilitated 70% and 76% of supervisory visit and clinical checklist utilization target goals, respectively. Checklist item completion rates significantly improved overall, and for three of five checklist item subgroups examined. 121 of 146 consecutive service users completed outcome measurements six months after entry into care. Scores improved significantly over six months on both the GHQ-12, with median score improving from 26 to 10 (mean within-person change 12.5 [95% CI: 10.9-14.0] p< 0.0001), and the WHO-DAS Brief, with median score improving from 26.5 to 7 (mean within-person change 16.9 [95% CI: 14.9-18.8] p< 0.0001). Over the same period, the percentage of surveyed service users reporting an inability to work decreased significantly (51% to 6% (p < 0.001)), and the proportion of households reporting that a caregiver had left income-generating work decreased significantly (41% to 4% (p < 0.001)).ConclusionMESH MH was associated with high service use, improvements in mental health care delivery by primary care nurses, and significant improvements in clinical symptoms and functional disability of service users receiving care at health centers supported by the program. Multifaceted implementation programs such as MESH MH can reduce the evidence to practice gap for mental health care delivery by nonspecialists in resource-limited settings. The primary limitation of this study is the lack of a control condition, consistent with the implementation science approach of the study.Study registrationISRCTN #37231.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmacogenetic testing (PGx) has the potential to improve the quality of psychiatric prescribing by considering patients' genetic profile. However, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its efficacy or guiding its implementation. The Precision Medicine in Mental Health (PRIME) Care study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a specific commercially-available pharmacogenetic (PGx) test to inform antidepressant prescribing at 22 sites across the U.S. Simultaneous implementation science methods using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) are integrated throughout the trial to identify contextual factors likely to be important in future implementation of PGx. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions of PGx for antidepressant prescribing and implications for future implementation. METHODS:Qualitative focus groups (n?=?10) were conducted at the beginning of the trial with Primary Care and Mental Health providers (n?=?31) from six PRIME Care sites. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed using rapid analytic procedures organized by CFIR domains. RESULTS:Analysis revealed themes in the CFIR Intervention Characteristics domain constructs of Evidence, Relative Advantage, Adaptability, Trialability, Complexity, and Design that are important for understanding providers' perceptions of PGx testing. Results indicate: 1) providers had limited experience and knowledge of PGx testing and its evidence base, particularly for psychiatric medications; 2) providers were hopeful that PGx could increase their precision in depression prescribing and improve patient engagement, but were uncertain about how results would influence treatment; 3) providers were concerned about potential misinterpretation of PGx results and how to incorporate testing into their workflow; 4) primary care providers were less familiar and comfortable with application of PGx testing to antidepressant prescribing than psychiatric providers. CONCLUSIONS:Provider perceptions may serve as facilitators or barriers to implementation of PGx for psychiatric prescribing. Incorporating implementation science into the conduct of the RCT adds value by uncovering factors to be addressed in preparing for future implementation, should the practice prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03170362 ; Registered 31 May 2017.