Mental Health Collaborative Care and its Role in Primary Care Settings

VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Road, Bldg 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA.
Current Psychiatry Reports (Impact Factor: 3.24). 08/2013; 15(8):383. DOI: 10.1007/s11920-013-0383-2
Source: PubMed


Collaborative care models (CCMs) provide a pragmatic strategy to deliver integrated mental health and medical care for persons with mental health conditions served in primary care settings. CCMs are team-based intervention to enact system-level redesign by improving patient care through organizational leadership support, provider decision support, and clinical information systems, as well as engaging patients in their care through self-management support and linkages to community resources. The model is also a cost-efficient strategy for primary care practices to improve outcomes for a range of mental health conditions across populations and settings. CCMs can help achieve integrated care aims underhealth care reform yet organizational and financial issues may affect adoption into routine primary care. Notably, successful implementation of CCMs in routine care will require alignment of financial incentives to support systems redesign investments, reimbursements for mental health providers, and adaptation across different practice settings and infrastructure to offer all CCM components.

Download full-text


Available from: David E Goodrich,
  • Source
    • "Integrated, colocated, and collaborative models of care involving or integrating mental health in primary care or specialty clinics are currently rare but may soon become increasingly widespread [16]. Collaborative care models consist of team-oriented, multidisciplinary interventions to deliver care by systematically improving care coordination via organizational leadership support, evidence-based provider decision-making, and clinical information systems [17]. Collaborative care models have been associated with significant improvement in both depression and anxiety outcomes compared with usual care [18]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rationale: Patients with epilepsy (PWEs) and patients with nonepileptic seizures (PWNESs) constitute particularly vulnerable patient populations and have high rates of psychiatric comorbidities. This potentially decreases quality of life and increases health-care utilization and expenditures. However, lack of access to care or concern of stigma may preclude referral to outpatient psychiatric clinics. Furthermore, the optimal treatment for NESs includes longitudinal psychiatric management. No published literature has assessed the impact of colocated psychiatric services within outpatient epilepsy clinics. We, therefore, evaluated the colocation of psychiatric services within a level 4 epilepsy center. Methods: From July 2013 to June 2014, we piloted an intervention to colocate a psychiatrist in the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Epilepsy Center outpatient clinic one afternoon a week (0.1 FTE) to provide medication management and time-limited structural psychotherapeutic interventions to all patients who scored greater than 15 on the Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) and who agreed to referral. Psychiatric symptom severity was assessed at baseline and follow-up visits using validated scales including NDDI-E, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and cognitive subscale items from Quality of Life in Epilepsy-31 (QOLIE-31) scores. Results: Forty-three patients (18 males; 25 females) were referred to the clinic over a one-year interval; 27 (64.3%) were seen in follow-up with a median of 3 follow-up visits (range: 1 to 7). Thirty-seven percent of the patients had NESs exclusive of epilepsy, and 11% of the patients had dual diagnosis of epilepsy and NESs. Psychiatric symptom severity decreased in 84% of the patients, with PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores improving significantly from baseline (4.6±0.4 SD improvement in PHQ-9 and 4.0±0.4 SD improvement in GAD-7, p-values<0.001). Cognitive subitem scores for NDDI-E and QOLIE-31 at their most recent visit were significantly improved compared with nadir scores (3.3±0.6 SD improvement in NDDI-E and 1.5±0.2 SD improvement in QOLIE-31, p-values<0.001). These results are, moreover, clinically significant-defined as improvement by 4-5 points on PHQ-9 and GAD-7 instruments-and are correlated with overall improvement as measured by NDDI-E and cognitive subscale QOLIE-31 items. Conclusion: A colocated psychiatrist demonstrated reduction in psychiatric symptoms of PWEs and PWNESs, improving psychiatric access and streamlining their care. Epileptologists were able to dedicate more time to managing epilepsy as opposed to psychiatric comorbidities. As integrated models of collaborative and colocated care are becoming more widespread, mental health-care providers located in outpatient neurology clinics may benefit both patients and providers.
    Epilepsy & Behavior 07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.07.015 · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Continuity and coordination of care for vulnerable health populations with chronic conditions such as SMI are key components of the Chronic Care Model [7,8]. The Chronic Care Model is a population- and measurement-based approach that calls for healthcare organizations to use electronic registries to monitor vulnerable populations and to adjust treatment according to patient response. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Persons with serious mental illness are disproportionately burdened by premature mortality. This disparity is exacerbated by poor continuity of care with the health system. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) developed Re-Engage, an effective population-based outreach program to identify veterans with SMI lost to care and to reconnect them with VA services. However, such programs often encounter barriers getting implemented into routine care. Adaptive designs are needed when the implementation intervention requires augmentation within sites that do not initially respond to an initial implementation intervention. This protocol describes the methods used in an adaptive implementation design study that aims to compare the effectiveness of a standard implementation strategy (Replicating Effective Programs, or REP) with REP enhanced with External Facilitation (enhanced REP) to promote the uptake of Re-Engage.Methods/design: This study employs a four-phase, two-arm, longitudinal, clustered randomized trial design. VA sites (n = 158) across the United States with a designated Re-Engage provider, at least one Veteran with SMI lost to care, and who received standard REP during a six-month run-in phase. Subsequently, 88 sites with inadequate uptake were stratified at the cluster level by geographic region (n = 4) and VA regional service network (n = 20) and randomized to REP (n = 49) vs. enhanced REP (n = 39) in phase two. The primary outcome was the percentage of veterans on each facility outreach list documented on an electronic web registry. The intervention was at the site and network level and consisted of standard REP versus REP enhanced by external phone facilitation consults. At 12 months, enhanced REP sites returned to standard REP and 36 sites with inadequate participation received enhanced REP for six months in phase three. Secondary implementation outcomes included the percentage of veterans contacted directly by site providers and the percentage re-engaged in VA health services. Adaptive implementation designs consisting of a sequence of decision rules that are tailored based on a site's uptake of an effective program may produce more relevant, rapid, and generalizable results by more quickly validating or rejecting new implementation strategies, thus enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of implementation research and potentially leading to the rollout of more cost-efficient implementation strategies.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21059161.
    Implementation Science 11/2013; 8(1):136. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-136 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adolescent parenthood is associated with a range of adverse outcomes for young mothers, including mental health problems such as depression, substance abuse, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Teen mothers are also more likely to be impoverished and reside in communities and families that are socially and economically disadvantaged. These circumstances can adversely affect maternal mental health, parenting, and behavior outcomes for their children. In this report, we provide an overview of the mental health challenges associated with teen parenthood, barriers that often prevent teen mothers from seeking mental health services, and interventions for this vulnerable population that can be integrated into primary care services. Pediatricians in the primary care setting are in a unique position to address the mental health needs of adolescent parents because teens often turn to them first for assistance with emotional and behavioral concerns. Consequently, pediatricians can play a pivotal role in facilitating and encouraging teen parents' engagement in mental health treatment.
    PEDIATRICS 12/2013; 133(1). DOI:10.1542/peds.2013-0927 · 5.47 Impact Factor
Show more