Innovations for integrated care: The Association of Medicine and Psychiatry recognizes new models

Intention to Use Behavioral Health Data From a Health Information Exchange: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with co-occurring behavioral health and chronic medical conditions frequently overuse inpatient hospital services. This pattern of overuse contributes to inefficient health care spending. These patients require coordinated care to achieve optimal health outcomes. However, the poor exchange of health-related information between various clinicians renders the delivery of coordinated care challenging. Health information exchanges (HIEs) facilitate health-related information sharing and have been shown to be effective in chronic disease management; however, their effectiveness in the delivery of integrated care is less clear. It is prudent to consider new approaches to sharing both general medical and behavioral health information.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and describe factors influencing the intention to use behavioral health information that is shared through HIEs.

METHODS

We used a mixed methods design consisting of two sequential phases. A validated survey instrument was emailed to clinical and nonclinical staff in Alabama and Oklahoma. The survey captured information about the impact of predictors on the intention to use behavioral health data in clinical decision making. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants to elaborate on the survey results. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to analyze survey data. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the interviews.

RESULTS

A total of 62 participants completed the survey. In total, 63% (n=39) of the participants were clinicians. Performance expectancy (β=.382; P=.01) and trust (β=.539; P<.001) predicted intention to use behavioral health information shared via HIEs. The interviewees (n=5) expressed that behavioral health information could be useful in clinical decision making. However, privacy and confidentiality concerns discourage sharing this information, which is generally missing from patient records altogether. The interviewees also stated that training for HIE use was not mandatory; the training that was provided did not focus specifically on the exchange of behavioral health information.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite barriers, individuals are willing to use behavioral health information from HIEs if they believe that it will enhance job performance and if the information being transmitted is trustworthy. The findings contribute to our understanding of the role HIEs can play in delivering integrated care, particularly to vulnerable patients.

Collaborative care for mental health: a qualitative study of the experiences of patients and health professionals

BACKGROUND

Health policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.