Dataset Information

Costs of using evidence-based implementation strategies for behavioral health integration in a large primary care system.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the cost of using evidence-based implementation strategies for sustained behavioral health integration (BHI) involving population-based screening, assessment, and identification at 25 primary care sites of Kaiser Permanente Washington (2015-2018).

Data sources/study setting

Project records, surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics compensation data.

Study design

Labor and nonlabor costs incurred by three implementation strategies: practice coaching, electronic health records clinical decision support, and performance feedback.

Data collection/extraction methods

Personnel time spent on these strategies was estimated for five broad roles: (a) project leaders and administrative support, (b) practice coaches, (c) clinical decision support programmers, (d) performance metric programmers, and (e) primary care local implementation team members.

Principal finding

Implementation involved 286 persons, 18 131 person-hours, costing $1 587 139 or $5 per primary care visit with screening or $38 per primary care visit identifying depression, suicidal thoughts and/or alcohol or substance use disorders, in a single year. The majority of person-hours was devoted to project leadership (35%) and practice coaches (34%), and 36% of costs were for the first three sites.

Conclusions

When spread across patients screened in a single year, BHI implementation costs were well within the range for commonly used diagnostic assessments in primary care (eg, laboratory tests). This suggests that implementation costs alone should not be a substantial barrier to population-based BHI.

SUBMITTER: Yeung K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704468 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThe EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care was designed to assist primary care practices in the US in implementing evidence-based practices in cardiovascular care and building capacity for quality improvement. EvidenceNOW, NCT03054090, was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017. The goals of this study were to gain a comprehensive understanding of perspectives from research participants and research team members on the value of implementation strategies and factors that influenced the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia.MethodsIn 2018, we conducted 25 focus groups with clinicians and staff at participating practices, including 80 physicians, advanced practice clinicians, practice managers and other practice staff. We also conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with 22 research team members, including lead investigators, practice facilitators, physician expert consultants, and evaluators. We used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework in our qualitative data analysis and organization of themes.ResultsImplementation strategies valued by both practice representatives and research team members included the kick-off event, on-site practice facilitation, and interaction with physician expert consultants. Remote practice facilitation and web-based tools were used less frequently. Contextual factors that influence quality improvement efforts include leadership support, access to resources, previous quality improvement experience, and practice ownership type (independent compared to health system owned). Many clinicians and staff were overwhelmed by day-to-day activities and experience initiative fatigue, which hindered their ability to fully participate in the EvidenceNOW initiative.ConclusionsThis study provides details on how the practice environment plays an essential role in the implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices should consider the context and environment of individual practices, with targeted implementation strategies to meet the needs of independent and health system owned practices. Future efforts to improve quality in primary care practices require strategies to address initiative fatigue among clinicians and practice staff. External support for building capacity for quality improvement could help primary care practices implement and sustain evidence-based practices and improve quality of care.Trial registrationThis project was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 15/02/2017 and the identifier is NCT03054090.

Project description:BackgroundThe adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) is promoted because it is widely recognized for improving the quality and safety of health care for patients, and reducing avoidable costs. Providers of primary care face numerous challenges to ensuring the effectiveness of their daily practices. Primary health care is defined as: the entry level into a health care services system, providing a first point of contact for all new needs and problems; patient-focused (not disease-oriented) care over time; care for all but the most uncommon or unusual conditions; and coordination or integration of care, regardless of where or by whom that care is delivered. Primary health care is the principal means by which to approach the main goal of any health care services system: optimization of health status.ObjectiveThis review aims to scope publications examining beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration of EBPs among primary health care providers (HCPs).MethodsWe will conduct a systematic scoping review of published articles in the following electronic databases, from their start dates until March 31, 2017: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) via PubMed (from 1946), Embase (from 1947), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; from 1937), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; from 1992), PsycINFO (from 1806), Web of Science (from 1900), Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) database (from 1998), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; from 1996), Trip medical database (from 1997), and relevant professional scientific journals (from their start dates). We will use the predefined search terms of, "evidence-based practice" and, "primary health care" combined with other terms, such as, "beliefs", "knowledge", "implementation", and "integration". We will also conduct a hand search of the bibliographies of all relevant articles and a search for unpublished studies using Google Scholar, ProQuest, Mednar, and WorldCat. We will consider publications in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese.ResultsThe electronic database searches were completed in April 2017. Retrieved articles are currently being screened, and the entire study is expected to be completed by November 2017.ConclusionsThis systematic scoping review will provide a greater understanding of the beliefs, knowledge, implementation, and integration of EBPs among primary HCPs. The findings will inform clinical practice and help to draw a global picture of the EBP research topics that are relevant to primary care providers.

Project description:BackgroundIntegrating 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.ObjectiveTo examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration.DesignDescriptive analysis.ParticipantsOne 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.InterventionImplementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders.Main measuresWe 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 resultsThe 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The rapid advancements in health care can make it difficult for general physicians and specialists alike to keep their knowledge up to date. In medicine today, there are deficiencies in the application of knowledge translation (KT) in clinical practice. Some medical procedures are not required, and therefore, no value is added to the patient's care. These unnecessary procedures increase pressures on the health care system's resources, reduce the quality of care, and expose the patients to stress and to other potential risks. KT tools and better access to medical recommendations can lead to improvements in physicians' decision-making processes depending on the patient's specific clinical situation. These tools can provide the physicians with the available options and promote an efficient professional practice. Software for the Evolution of Knowledge in MEDicine (SEKMED) is a technological solution providing access to high-quality evidence, based on just-in-time principles, in the application of medical recommendations for clinical decision-making processes recognized by community members, accreditation bodies, the recommendations from medical specialty societies made available through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, and different standards or accreditive bodies. OBJECTIVE:The main objective of this protocol is to assess the usefulness of the SEKMED platform used within a real working clinical practice, specifically the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux de l'Outaouais in Quebec, Canada. To achieve our main objective, 20 emergency physicians from the Hull and Gatineau Hospitals participate in the project as well as 20 patient care unit physicians from the Hull Hospital. In addition, 10 external students or residents studying family medicine from McGill University will also participate in our study. METHODS:The project is divided into 4 phases: (1) orientation; (2) data synthesis; (3) develop and validate the recommendations; and (4) implement, monitor, and update the recommendations. These phases will enable us to meet our 6 specific research objectives that aim to measure the integration of recommendations in clinical practices, the before and after improvements in practices, the value attributed by physicians to recommendations, the user's platform experience, the educational benefits according to medical students, and the organizational benefits according to stakeholders. The knowledge gained during each phase will be applied on an iterative and continuous basis to all other phases over a period of 2 years. RESULTS:This project was funded in April 2018 by the Fonds de soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux for 24 months. Ethics approval has been attained, the study began in June 2018, the data collection will be complete at the end of December 2019, and the data analysis will start in winter 2020. Both major city hospitals in the Outaouais region, Quebec, Canada, have agreed to participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:If results show preliminary efficacy and usability of the system, a large-scale implementation will be conducted. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/11754.

Project description:Primary Health Care (PHC), based on the Alma Ata declaration, calls for the movement of responsibility, resources, and control away from medical systems and curative measures toward health promotion. However, PHC implementation in practice appears to be heavily influenced by medical systems with its own attendant effects on the attainment of PHC goals. This study therefore examines the extent and effects of medical systems influence on PHC implementation in Ghana. The study uses the thematic framework approach to qualitative data analysis to analyze data collected from PHC managers through interviews. Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research. Findings suggest that PHC in practice is tied to the apron-strings of medical systems. While this has catalyzed successes in disease control programs and other medicine-based interventions, it has swayed PHC from its intended shift toward health promotion. Community ownership, participation, and empowerment in PHC is therefore lost in the maze of medical systems which reserves power over PHC decision making and implementation to medical professionals while focusing attention on treatment and curative services. Ultimately, PHC has gradually metamorphosed into mini-clinics instead of the revolutionary community-driven promotive services espoused by Alma Ata with concomitant effects on the attainment of Universal Health Coverage. Further, findings show how gradually, the primary in PHC is being used as a descriptor of the first or basic level of hospital-based care instead of a first point of addressing existing health problems using preventive, promotive, and other community driven approaches. Without a reorientation of health systems, significant efforts and resources are channeled toward empowering health workers instead of local communities with significant effects on the long term sustainability of health efforts and the attainment of UHC. The study recommends further studies toward practical means of reducing the influence of medical systems.