How mental health providers spend their time: a survey of 10 Veterans Health Administration mental health services.

South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics (Impact Factor: 0.97). 07/2003; 6(2):89-97.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Allocation of provider time across clinical, administrative, educational, and research activities may influence job satisfaction, productivity, and quality of care, yet we know little about what determines time allocation.
To investigate factors associated with time allocation, we surveyed all mental health providers in one Veterans Health Administration (VHA) network. We hypothesized that both facility characteristics (academic affiliation, type of organization of services, serving as a hub for treatment of severely mentally ill, facility size) and individual provider characteristics (discipline, length of time in job, having an academic appointment) would influence time allocation.
Eligible providers were psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, registered or licensed practical nurses or other providers (psychology technicians, addiction therapists, nursing assistants, rehabilitation, recreational, occupational therapists) who were providing care in mental health services. A brief self-report survey was collected from all eligible providers at ten VHA facilities in late 1998 (N = 997). Data regarding facility characteristics were obtained by site visits and interviews with managers. Multilevel modeling was used to examine factors associated with three dependent variables: (i) total time allocation by activity (clinical, administrative, educational, research); (ii) clinical time allocation by treatment setting (inpatient vs. outpatient); and (iii) clinical time allocation by type of care (mental vs. physical). Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were used as the reference group for all analyses because LPNs were expected to spend the majority of their time on clinical activities.
Overall, providers spent most of their time on clinical activities (77%), followed by administrative (11%), and educational (10%). Surprisingly, research activities accounted for only 2% of their time. Multilevel analysis indicated none of the facility-level variables were significant in explaining facility variance in time allocation, but individual characteristics were associated with time allocation. The model for predicting time allocation by inpatient or outpatient settings explained 16-18% of the variance in the dependent variable. In all models, provider discipline and length of time in job played an important role. Having an academic appointment was important only in the model examining total time allocation by activity type.
These simple models explained only a small amount of variance in the three dependent variables which were intended to capture issues related to time allocation; and the low number of facilities limited our power to examine effects of facility-level factors. Our models performed better in predicting allocation of clinical time to treatment setting and type of treatment than in predicting overall time allocation. Discipline and length of time in job were significant across all models. In contrast, having an academic appointment was associated with allocating significantly less time to clinical activities and more time to administrative activities but not to any significant difference in time spent in either research or education.
While a gold standard of optimal time allocation does not exist, it is striking that research, a stated mission of the VHA, accounted for so little of providers' time. The lack of involvement of clinicians in research has implications for recruitment and retention of high-quality mental health providers in this network and for the education of future providers. Without involvement of clinicians, research conducted in the network by nonclinicians may be less relevant to "real-world" clinical issues. Reductions of funds available to mental health, coupled with increased clinical demands, may have prompted this pattern of time allocation, and these findings attest to the challenges faced by large institutions that are charged with balancing many often seemingly competing missions.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medications to treat depression, anxiety, sleep problems; and smoking cessation are often prescribed to people with heart disease by their primary care physicians or cardiologists. These categories of medication are commonly encountered by therapists working with a cardiac population arid are thus the focus of this chapter. The relative advantages of pharmacotherapy combined with psychotherapy have been demonstrated in many clinical trials (I. W. Miller & Keitner; 1996). A basic working knowledge of psychotropic medications commonly used in cardiac patients can be helpful to therapists. Patients often have a difficult time discriminating between somatic symptoms that may be caused by psychological distress, heart problems, a side effect bf medication, of some combination of these factors. Pharmacological treatment for psychological problems in people with heart disease is complex and requires attention to the effect that the medication will have on cardiac function, potential to improve psychological well-being, severity of the psychological problem, and the patient's history of compliance with other medical regimens. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this Graduate Management Project is to gain an understanding of the relationship between provider productivity, coding accuracy, and coder characteristics at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl Germany. Results of correlation analysis indicate that formal training and duty position play a role in determining a provider's productivity level. Statistical analysis of the data revealed that higher relative value units (RVUs) were associated with trained coders (r(underscored)sub pb = .351, p < 0.001), and with Noncommissioned Officers (r(underscored)sub pb = -.351, p < 0.001) serving as timekeepers. The results suggest that the RVU should not be used as the sole indicator of provider productivity in all military treatment facilities: organizational decisions informed by RVU analysis must be tempered by the effects that other contextual variables nave on productivity. The results of this study suggest that providers at LRMC may not receive RVU credit for as much as 70% of their patient visits and that additional research is needed to fully address the issue of provider productivity in the Military Health System. The author believes this study will raise questions concerning the reliability of the RVU as a management tool for measuring provider productivity at LRMC.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 included a Congressional mandate to develop a patient-level case mix prospective payment system (PPS) for all Medicare beneficiaries treated in PPS-exempt psychiatric facilities. Payment levels by case mix category have been proposed by the government based on claims and facility cost reports. Because of claims data limitations, these levels do not account for patient-specific staffing costs within a facility's routine units, nor are certain key patient characteristics considered for higher payment. This study uses novel primary data to quantify heretofore unmeasured differences in daily staffing intensity on routine units among Medicare patients. The data are used to test for compression (or narrowing) in case mix payment weights that would result from using only Medicare claims and facility cost reports to quantify daily routine costliness. Primary data on patient and staff times in over 20 activities were collected from 40 psychiatric facilities and 66 psychiatric units, nation-wide. Patient times were reported on all inpatients on each shift over a 7-day study period. A resource intensity measure (in Registered Nurse (RN)-equivalent minutes) was constructed on a daily basis for 4,149 Medicare and 4,667 non-Medicare patient days. The routine measure is converted into daily cost using cost report per diems and ancillary costs added using submitted claims. Descriptive tables isolate key cost drivers for Medicare patients. Classification and Regression Trees (CART) clustering identifies 16 potential case mix groups. Multivariate regression is used to compare case mix, day-of-stay, and facility effects using 4 alternative measures of daily routine and ancillary costs. Patient daily routine intensity of care is found to vary by a factor of 3 or more between the top and bottom 10% of days. Medicare patient days were 12.5% more staff intensive than non-Medicare days, which may have been due to age and other differences. Older dementia and "residual diagnosis" patients are more intensive while schizophrenia and substance-related patients are less intensive. Age, psychiatric and medical severity, deficits in Activities in Daily Living (ADLs), dangerous behaviors, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) also contribute substantially to higher staffing intensity. Other patient characteristics were insignificant within broad diagnostic groups. Routine costs based on a single facility per diem produced narrower case mix cost differences--often by a factor of 2 or more--for 10 of 12 groups with significantly higher costs. Adding patient-specific ancillary to uniform per diem costs only marginally decompressed costs. Day of-stay costs were similarly compressed when using only cost reports. Claims-based costing using Medicare cost reports unduly compresses (narrows) estimates of inter-group case mix cost differences. Also, by not capturing ADL deficits and dangerous behaviors, administrative data sets fail to identify small, but very resource intensive, patient groups. ECT treatment regimens, although rare, significantly increase costs on a daily basis. Medicare's recently proposed prospective payment system for psychiatric inpatients uses claims-based costing methods based on widely available administrative data. Consequently, fewer high cost groups are identified due to non-reported patient characteristics such as ADL deficits. Moreover, inter-group relative cost differences are likely understated. It is also possible that any standardized dollar amount applied to group relative weights is understated because Medicare patients appear more intensive per day on routine units. Larger primary samples of special psychiatric units (e.g., med-psych, child/adolescent) could improve estimates of daily routine costliness. Larger samples could also support stronger tests of case mix and cost differences by facility type and teaching status. Medical records information on non-Medicare patients could quantify any systematic differences in average daily costs holding case mix constant. Similar primary studies of psychiatric patients treated outside PPS-exempt units in acute general hospitals could result in a fully integrated payment system for all mentally ill Medicare patients, thereby avoiding payment inefficiencies and inequities.
    The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 04/2005; 8(1):15-28. · 0.97 Impact Factor
Show more