Dataset Information

Delivering collaborative mental health care within supportive housing: implementation evaluation of a community-hospital partnership.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approaches to address unmet mental health care needs in supportive housing settings are needed. Collaborative approaches to delivering psychiatric care have robust evidence in multiple settings, however such approaches have not been adequately studied in housing settings. This study evaluates the implementation of a shifted outpatient collaborative care initiative in which a psychiatrist was added to existing housing, community mental health, and primary care supports in a women-centered supportive housing complex in Toronto, Canada.

Methods

The initiative was designed and implemented by stakeholders from an academic hospital and from community housing and mental health agencies. Program activities comprised multidisciplinary support for tenants (e.g. multidisciplinary care teams, case conferences), tenant engagement (psychoeducation sessions), and staff capacity-building (e.g. formal trainings, informal ad hoc questions). This mixed methods implementation evaluation sought to understand (1) program activity delivery including satisfaction with these activities, (2) consistency with team-based tenant-centered care and with pre-specified shared lenses (trauma-informed, culturally safe, harm reduction), and (3) facilitators and barriers to implementation over a one-year period. Quantitative data included reporting of program activity delivery (weekly and monthly), staff surveys, and tenant surveys (post-group surveys following tenant psychoeducation groups and an all-tenant survey). Qualitative data included focus groups with staff and stakeholders, program documents, and free-text survey responses.

Results

All three program activity domains (multidisciplinary supports, tenant engagement, staff capacity-building) were successfully implemented. Main program activities were multidisciplinary case conferences, direct psychiatric consultation, tenant psychoeducation sessions, formal staff training, and informal staff support. Psychoeducation for tenants and informal/formal staff support were particularly valued. Most activities were team-based. Of the shared lenses, trauma-informed care was the most consistently implemented. Facilitators to implementation were shared lenses, psychiatrist characteristics, shared time/space, balance between structure and flexibility, building trust, logistical support, and the embedded evaluation. Barriers were that the initial model was driven by leadership, confusion in initial processes, different workflows across organizations, and staff turnover; where possible, iterative changes were implemented to address barriers.

Conclusions

This evaluation highlights the process of successfully implementing a shifted outpatient collaborative mental health care initiative in supportive housing. Further work is warranted to evaluate whether collaborative care adaptations in supportive housing settings lead to improvements in tenant- and program-level outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Barker LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8756167 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMental health specialists (MHS, or 68X) play a central role in meeting the growing demand for combat stress care among Service Members. Partnering with civilian institutions may enhance the MHS training experience beyond Advanced Individual Training (AIT).MethodsWe describe a novel military-civilian collaboration to train U.S. Army Reserve MHS's in the psychiatric emergency service (PES) of a public, safety-net hospital. Details of implementation are described. The training rotation was evaluated after 1 year through a comprehensive chart abstraction of patients seen as well as surveys of MHS's and civilian partners.ResultsThe roles of MHS and physician officers in this rotation are described. Over 9 days in the PES, the MHS team evaluated 26 patients. MHS's described a high-quality training environment (83% rated very good or excellent) in which they frequently saw high-risk patients relevant to military practice. Experience with a certain patient presentation was correlated with comfort assessing and managing that presentation (p < 0.01). Many civilian staff (40%) felt the PES operated better with the presence of the Army team and 50% of civilians agreed their impression of the U.S. Army Reserve improved as a result of the partnership. Hundred percent of specialists and 80% of civilians reported very good to excellent rapport between military and civilian staff. Two civilian respondents (11%) expressed concern that the military team's presence impeded patient care.ConclusionThis is the first military-civilian training collaboration for behavioral health specialists, who have already completed AIT. This program provided well-received and mission-relevant training for MHS's without notable adverse effects on patient care or team functioning in a civilian environment. Our findings are based on a small sample size, and no other such programs exist against which to compare these results. We propose that such educational partnerships, which have long been effective for other clinical specialists, may benefit the military, civilian communities, and the country.

Project description:ContextPoor physical and mental health and substance use disorder can be causes and consequences of homelessness. Approximately 2.1 million persons per year in the United States experience homelessness. People experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency department use, hospitalization, substance use treatment, social services use, arrest, and incarceration.ObjectivesA standard approach to treating homeless persons with a disability is called Treatment First, requiring clients be "housing ready"-that is, in psychiatric treatment and substance-free-before and while receiving permanent housing. A more recent approach, Housing First, provides permanent housing and health, mental health, and other supportive services without requiring clients to be housing ready. To determine the relative effectiveness of these approaches, this systematic review compared the effects of both approaches on housing stability, health outcomes, and health care utilization among persons with disabilities experiencing homelessness.DesignA systematic search (database inception to February 2018) was conducted using 8 databases with terms such as "housing first," "treatment first," and "supportive housing." Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Study design and threats to validity were assessed using Community Guide methods. Medians were calculated when appropriate.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they assessed Housing First programs in high-income nations, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, and were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports.Main outcome measuresHousing stability, physical and mental health outcomes, and health care utilization.ResultsTwenty-six studies in the United States and Canada met inclusion criteria. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%. For clients living with HIV infection, Housing First programs reduced homelessness by 37%, viral load by 22%, depression by 13%, emergency departments use by 41%, hospitalization by 36%, and mortality by 37%.ConclusionsHousing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First programs. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Health care systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services.

Project description:BackgroundA growing body of literature supports the efficacy of the health-social approach for the implementation of complex interventions to enhance self-care health management among community-dwelling older adults. However, there is little research on how interventions with this approach are implemented and disseminated in a real community setting.MethodsThis pilot study adopted an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design to 1) evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based Health-Social Partnership Program (HSPP) and 2) explore the reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the HSPP in the community. Potential participants were recruited if they were aged 60 or above, owned a smartphone, and were cognitively competent. The participants received nurse-led case management with support from a social service team. Factors that hindered or facilitated the program delivery were examined to determine the implementation outcomes and sustained effects of the program. Data were collected at pre-intervention (T1), immediately post-intervention (T2), and 3 months post-intervention (T3).ResultsNinety-two older adults joined and completed the program. The recruitment rate was 76.7%. A significant interaction effect was found for the mean self-efficacy scores from T1 to T2 (Wald χ2 = 12.28, p ≤ .001). Barriers to widespread program implementation included manpower shortage, lack of experienced staff, and unpredictable environment, whereas facilitators, as suggested by the older adults, providers, and community staff members, included regular communication between the research and service teams, recruitment of participants through community centers with the support of the research team, and seamless partnership among the health-social partnership team members. Strong implementation fidelity was achieved with zero attrition rate.ConclusionMost conventional randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of community-based programs have tended to control the contextual factors rather than incorporate the program in a real setting. This pilot study was the first to use a hybrid model to test the effectiveness and outcomes of HSPP implementation. The results imply that the program has a high potential sustainability in the real-life context.Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04442867; date of first registration 23/06/2020).