The Description and Evaluation of the Implementation of an Integrated Healthcare Model
VA Center for Integrated Healthcare, Syracuse, NY, USA. Families Systems & Health
(Impact Factor: 1.13).
06/2010; 28(2):146-60. DOI: 10.1037/a0020223
Two studies were conducted to examine the practical implementation of an integrated health care model in five primary care clinics in the Upstate New York Veterans Affairs (VA) system. The aims of the studies were: (a) to describe the basic clinical elements of the integrated health care service offered by behavioral health providers (BHPs) in the primary care setting, and (b) to evaluate the perceptions of providers and patients regarding integrated health care practices in their primary care clinics. In Study 1, we reviewed 180 electronic medical records of patients who met with a BHP in primary care. In Study 2, we used semistructured interviews and self-report questionnaires to collect information from 46 primary care providers, 12 BHPs, and 140 patients regarding their perceptions of integrated health care in their primary care clinics. Both studies illustrate a useful method for evaluating the practical implementation of integrated health care models.
Available from: David A. Ervin
- "More fully integrated care includes having both the mental health provider and physician in the same room with the client at the same time, a co-visitation model. The efficacy of this approach is well-documented (25, 26). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction: While there has been impressive progress in creating and improving community healthcare delivery systems that support people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), there is much more that can and should be done.
Methods: This paper offers a review of healthcare delivery concepts on which new models are being developed, while also establishing an historical context. We review the need for creating fully integrated models of healthcare, and at the same time offer practical considerations that range from specific healthcare delivery system components to the need to expand our approach to training healthcare providers. The models and delivery systems, and the areas of needed focus in their development are reviewed to set a starting point for more and greater work going forward.
Conclusion: Today, we celebrate longer life spans of people with IDD, increased attention to the benefits of healthcare that is responsive to their needs, and the development of important healthcare delivery systems that are customized to their needs. We also know that the growing body of research on health status offers incentive to continue developing healthcare structures for people with IDD by training healthcare providers about the needs of people with IDD, by establishing systems of care that integrate acute healthcare with long-term services and support, by developing IDD medicine as a specialty, and by building health promotion and wellness resources to provide people with IDD a set of preventative health supports.
Frontiers in Public Health 07/2014; 2:83. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00083
Available from: Gregory Beehler
- "BHPs frequently expressed the pressure to balance shorter appointment length and fewer visits with the provision of evidence-based interventions and measurement-based care. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that patients visit a PC-MHI provider, on average, 2–3 times
[14,16,18]. Currently, the only robust evidence base for treatment with such limited number of appointments is for the brief treatment of Alcohol Use Disorders
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Co-located, collaborative care (CCC) is one component of VA’s model of Integrated Primary Care that embeds behavioral health providers (BHPs) into primary care clinics to treat commonly occurring mental health concerns among Veterans. Key features of the CCC model include time-limited, brief treatments (up to 6 encounters of 30 minutes each) and emphasis on multi-dimensional functional assessment. Although CCC is a mandated model of care, the barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach as identified from the perspective of BHPs have not been previously identified.
This secondary data analysis used interview data captured as part of a quality improvement project in 2008. Fourteen BHPs (48% of providers in a regional VA network) agreed to participate in a 30-minute, semi-structured phone interview. The interview included questions about their perceived role as a CCC provider, depiction of usual practice styles and behaviors, and perceptions of typical barriers and facilitators to providing behavioral healthcare to Veterans in CCC. Interviews were transcribed verbatim into a text database and analyzed using grounded theory.
Six main categories emerged from the analysis: (a) Working in the VA Context, (b) Managing Access to Care on the Front Line, (c) Assessing a Care Trajectory, (d) Developing a Local Integrated Model, (e) Working in Collaborative Teams, and (f) Being a Behavioral Health Generalist. These categories pointed to system, clinic, and provider level factors that impacted BHP’s role and ability to implement CCC. Across categories, participants identified ways in which they provided Veteran-centered care within variable environments.
This study provided a contextualized account of the experiences of BHP’s in CCC. Results suggest that these providers play a multifaceted role in delivering clinical services to Veterans while also acting as an interdependent component of the larger VA behavioral health and primary care systems. Based on the inherent challenges of enacting this role, BHPs in CCC may benefit from additional implementation support in their effort to promote health care integration and to increase access to patient-centered care in their local clinics.
BMC Health Services Research 09/2012; 12(1):337. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-337 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Available from: James F Burgess
- "For example, recent studies have explored the challenges faced by providers and clinics (within and outside VA) in transitioning to a PC/MHI model. These challenges include clarifying the responsibilities of PC/MHI versus specialty mental health clinics , balancing the availability of different types of appointments within PC/MHI , adjusting the timing and length of PC/MHI sessions , and establishing guidelines for smooth coordination between providers . In addition, others have investigated factors that are important to consider when implementing large-scale changes across networks of VA medical centers . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
. There is limited theory regarding the real-world implementation of mental health care in the primary care setting: a type of organizational coordination intervention. The purpose of this study was to develop a theory to conceptualize the potential causes of barriers and facilitators to how local sites responded to this mandated intervention to achieve coordinated mental health care.
. Data from 65 primary care and mental health staff interviews across 16 sites were analyzed to identify how coordination was perceived one year after an organizational mandate to provide integrated mental health care in the primary care setting.
. Standardized referral procedures and communication practices between primary care and mental health were influenced by the organizational factors of resources, training, and work design, as well as provider-experienced organizational boundaries between primary care and mental health, time pressures, and staff participation. Organizational factors and provider experiences were in turn influenced by leadership.
. Our emergent theory describes how leadership, organizational factors, and provider experiences affect the implementation of a mandated mental health coordination intervention. This framework provides a nuanced understanding of the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing interventions designed to improve coordination between professional groups.
Depression research and treatment 07/2012; 2012(173):597157. DOI:10.1155/2012/597157
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.