Dataset Information

How do care providers evaluate collaboration? - qualitative process evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of collaborative and stepped care for patients with mental disorders.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collaborative and stepped care (CSC) models are recommended for mental disorders. Their successful implementation depends on effective collaboration between involved care providers from primary and specialist care. To gain insights into the collaboration experiences of care providers in CSC against the backdrop of usual mental health care, a qualitative process evaluation was realized as part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (COMET) of a collaborative and stepped care model in Hamburg (Germany).

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with N = 24 care providers from primary and specialist care (outpatient psychotherapists and psychiatrists, inpatient/ day clinic mental health providers) within and outside of COMET at the trial's beginning and 12 months later. Interviews were analyzed applying a qualitative structuring content analysis approach, combining deductive and inductive category development.

Results

Usual mental health care was considered deficient in resources, with collaboration being scarce and mainly taking place in small informal networks. Within the COMET trial, quicker referral paths were welcomed, as were quarterly COMET network meetings which provided room for exchange and fostered mutual understanding. Yet, also in COMET, collaboration remained difficult due to communication problems, the unfavorable regional distribution of the COMET care providers and interprofessional discrepancies regarding each profession's role, competencies and mutual esteem. Ideas for improvement included more localized networks, the inclusion of further professions and the overall amelioration of mental health care regarding resources and remuneration, especially for collaborative activities.

Conclusions

The process evaluation of the COMET trial revealed the benefits of creating room for interprofessional encounter to foster collaborative care. Despite the benefits of faster patient referrals, the COMET network did not fulfill all care providers' prior expectations. A focus should be set on interprofessional competencies, mutual perception and role clarification, as these have been revealed as significant barriers to collaboration within CSC models such as COMET.

Trial registration

The COMET trial (Collaborative and Stepped Care in Mental Health by Overcoming Treatment Sector Barriers) has been registered on July 24, 2017 under the trial registration number NCT03226743 .

SUBMITTER: Maehder K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8184353 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpioid use disorders (OUD), co-occurring with either depression and/or PTSD, are prevalent, burdensome, and often receive little or low-quality care. Collaborative care is a service delivery intervention that uses a team-based model to improve treatment access, quality, and outcomes in primary care patients, but has not been evaluated for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. To address this treatment and quality gap, we adapted collaborative care for co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders.MethodsOur adapted model is called Collaboration Leading to Addiction Treatment and Recovery from Other Stresses (CLARO). We used the five-step Map of Adaptation Process (McKleroy in AIDS Educ Prev 18:59-73, 2006) to develop the model. For each step, our stakeholder team of research and clinical experts, primary care partners, and patients provided input into adaptation processes (e.g., adaptation team meetings, clinic partner feedback, patient interviews and beta-testing). To document each adaptation and our decision-making process, we used the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (Wiltsey Stirman in Implement Sci 14:1-10, 2019).ResultsWe documented 12 planned fidelity-consistent adaptations to collaborative care, including a mix of content, context, and training/evaluation modifications intended to improve fit with the patient population (co-occurring disorders) or the New Mexico setting (low-resource clinics in health professional shortage areas). Examples of documented adaptations include use of community health workers as care coordinators; an expanded consultant team to support task-shifting to community health workers; modified training protocols for Problem-Solving Therapy and Written Exposure Therapy to incorporate examples of treating patients for depression or PTSD with co-occurring OUD; and having care coordinators screen for patients' social needs.ConclusionsWe completed the first three steps of the Map of Adaptation Process, resulting in a variety of adaptations that we believe will make collaborative care more acceptable and feasible in treating co-occurring OUD and mental health disorders. Future steps include evaluating the effectiveness of CLARO and documenting reactive and/or planned adaptations to the model that occur during its implementation and delivery. Trial registration NCT04559893, NCT04634279. Registered 08 September 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04559893.

Project description:Background and objectiveCommon mental disorders (CMD) are a leading global burden of disease. Up to 30% of primary care attenders suffer from these disorders but most do not receive evidence-based drug or psychological treatments. There are no trials of interventions which attempt to integrate these treatments into routine primary care in developing countries. The aims of this trial (the MANAS Project) are to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped-care intervention for the treatment of CMD in India.Study designA cluster randomized controlled trial will be implemented in the state of Goa, on the west coast of India. Twenty-four primary care facilities, 12 from the government sector and 12 from the private sector, will be enrolled in two consecutive phases. For each sector, facilities will be randomly allocated within strata defined by urban/rural location, population size and presence of a visiting psychiatrist. Facilities will be randomly allocated to receive the collaborative stepped care intervention or the enhanced usual care control intervention. Both arms share two components of the intervention, viz., routine screening, and in the government clinics provision of antidepressants. In addition, the collaborative stepped care arm also provides a range of psychosocial treatments delivered by a specially trained Health Counselor, and supervision by a visiting Psychiatrist. A total of 3600 primary care attenders who are detected to suffer from a CMD based on a validated screening questionnaire will be recruited. The primary outcome is the proportion of subjects who recover from an ICD10 defined CMD at baseline by 6 months. Additional endpoints at 2 and 12 months will assess the speed and sustainability of achieving the primary outcomes. Other outcomes will include recovery from ICD10 defined depression and incidence of ICD-10 among individuals who were sub-threshold cases at baseline. Economic and disability outcomes will be assessed to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ImplicationsThis will be the first trial of the effectiveness of a complex intervention aiming to integrate efficacious treatments for CMD into routine primary care in a developing country. If effective, its findings will have relevance to policy makers who wish to scale up treatments for CMD in primary care across the world, but mostly in those countries where specialist mental health services are few.Study registrationThe MANAS project is registered through the National Institutes of Health sponsored clinical trials registry and has been assigned the identifier: NCT00446407.

Project description:BackgroundIn-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients.MethodsTen face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach.ResultsThe need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication.ConclusionPrimary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.

Project description:IntroductionSurvival after critical illness has noticeably improved over the last decades due to advances in critical care medicine. Besides, there is an increasing number of elderly patients with chronic diseases being treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). More than half of the survivors of critical illness suffer from medium-term or long-term cognitive, psychological and/or physical impairments after ICU discharge, which is recognised as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). There are evidence-based and consensus-based quality indicators (QIs) in intensive care medicine, which have a positive influence on patients' long-term outcomes if adhered to.Methods and analysisThe protocol of a multicentre, pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled, quality improvement trial is presented. During 3 predefined steps, 12 academic hospitals in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, are randomly selected to move in a one-way crossover from the control to the intervention condition. After a multifactorial training programme on QIs and clinical outcomes for site personnel, ICUs will receive an adapted, interprofessional protocol for a complex telehealth intervention comprising of daily telemedical rounds at ICU. The targeted sample size is 1431 patients. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention on the adherence to eight QIs daily measured during the patient's ICU stay, compared with standard of care. Furthermore, the impact on long-term recovery such as PICS-related, patient-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, mental health, clinical assessments of cognition and physical function, all-cause mortality and cost-effectiveness 3 and 6 months after ICU discharge will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany (EA1/006/18). The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at international conferences. Study findings will also be disseminated via the website (www.eric-projekt.net).Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03671447).

Project description:BackgroundDepression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.MethodsThis prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.ResultsWe found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).ConclusionsWe found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.Trial registrationNCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical pharmaceutical care has long played an important role in the improvement of healthcare safety. Pharmaceutical care is a collaborative care approach, implicating all the actors of the medication circuit in order to prevent and correct drug-related problems that can lead to adverse drug events. The collaborative pharmaceutical care performed during patients' hospitalization requires two mutually reinforcing activities: medication reconciliation and medication review. Until now, the impact of the association of these two activities has not been clearly studied. METHODS:This is a multicentric stepped wedge randomized study involving six care units from six French University Hospitals (each unit corresponding to a cluster) over seven consecutive 14-day periods. Each hospital unit will start with a control period and switch to an experimental period after a randomized number of 14-day periods. Patients aged at least 65 years hospitalized in one of the participating care units and having given their consent to be called for a 30-day and 90-day follow-up can be enrolled. For each 14-day period, 15 patients will be recruited in each care unit to obtain a total of 630 patients enrolled in all centers. Patients with a hospital stay of more than 21 days will be excluded. During the control period, there will be no clinical pharmacist in the care unit, whereas during the experimental period a clinical pharmacist will perform medication reconciliation and review with the healthcare team. The primary outcome will assess the impact of collaborative pharmaceutical care on preventable medication error rate. The secondary outcomes will evaluate the clinical impact of the strategy, the acceptance rate of pharmaceutical interventions, the induced and avoided costs of the strategy (cost-consequence analysis), and the healthcare team's satisfaction. DISCUSSION:This study will assess the impact of collaborative pharmaceutical care associating medication reconciliation and review at patient admission to hospital in terms of preventable medication error rate and costs. This activity will prevent and correct medication errors arising earlier in the hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02598115 . Registered on 4 November 2015.