Prioritizing quality measure concepts at the interface of behavioral and physical healthcare

Development and implementation of a standardized process for identifying ambulatory pharmacy clinical outcomes measures

PURPOSE

There is minimal available guidance on the process for selection of clinical outcomes measures to demonstrate the impact of clinic-based pharmacists (CBPs) despite an increased need and desire for outcomes data. The overall aims of this project were to (1) develop a standardized process for identifying clinical outcomes measures impacted by CBPs and (2) identify and prioritize potential clinical outcomes measures to track for CBPs within 4 specialty clinic pilot sites.

METHODS

To develop a standardized process for identification and prioritization of measures, 4 consecutive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were performed with 4 different specialty clinics serving as pilot sites. Following each pilot cycle, rapid cycle improvements were implemented. A modified Delphi methodology served as the framework for measure selection and included gathering expert stakeholder insights regarding importance, feasibility, and validity of potential measures. Measures were identified via environmental scan of existing validated quality metrics, clinical guidelines, and other relevant literature.

RESULTS

The primary outcome for this project was the development and refinement of a standardized process for measure identification and prioritization. The secondary outcome was narrowed and ranked lists of stakeholder-prioritized measures for 4 CBP-embedded pilot specialty clinics. These lists included 12 cardiothoracic transplant, 6 breast oncology, 9 neurology, and 7 gynecologic oncology measures.

CONCLUSION

The measure identification and prioritization process developed was successfully utilized to identify and prioritize outcomes measures to track for 4 CBP-embedded specialty clinics. Due to the successful use of the process in a variety of specialty clinics, the standardized process has significant potential for expansion.

Surveying the Landscape of Quality-of-Care Measures for Mental and Substance Use Disorders

OBJECTIVE

Quality measures that are used to evaluate health care services have a central role in monitoring and incentivizing quality improvement and the provision of evidence-based treatment. This systematic scan aimed to catalog quality-of-care measures for mental and substance use disorders and assess gaps and redundancies to inform efforts to develop and retire measures.

METHODS

Quality measure inventories were analyzed from six organizations that evaluate health care quality in the United States. Measures were included if they were defined via symptoms or diagnoses of mental and substance use disorders or specialty treatments or treatment settings for adults.

RESULTS

Of 4,420 measures analyzed, 635 (14%) met inclusion criteria, and 376 unique quality-of-care measure constructs were cataloged and characterized. Symptoms or diagnoses of disorders were most commonly used to define measures (46%, N=172). Few measures were available for certain disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders), evidence-based treatments (e.g., psychotherapy), and quality domains (e.g., equity). Only one in four measures was endorsed by the National Quality Forum, which independently and critically evaluates quality measures. Among measures that were actively in use for national quality improvement initiatives (N=319), process measures (57%) were most common, followed by outcome measures (30%), the latter of which focused most often on experience of care.

CONCLUSIONS

A vast landscape of mental and substance use disorder quality-of-care measures currently exists, and continued efforts to harmonize duplicative measures and to develop measures for underrepresented evidence-based treatments and quality domains are warranted. The authors recommend reinvesting in a national, centralized system for measure curation, with a stakeholder-centered process for independent measure review and endorsement.

Structural Components of Integrated Behavioral Health Care: A Comparison of National Programs

Initiatives that support and incentivize the integration of behavioral health and general medical care have become a focus of government strategies to achieve the triple aim of improved health, better patient experience, and reduced costs. The authors describe the components of four large-scale national initiatives aimed at integrating care for a wide range of behavioral health needs. Commonalities across these national initiatives highlight health care and social services needs that must be addressed to improve care for people with co-occurring behavioral health and general medical conditions. These findings can inform how to design, test, select, and align the most promising strategies for integrated care in a variety of settings.

Access to Mental Healthcare in the 21st Century: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis

BACKGROUND

One of the most important aspects of receiving medical care is access to that care. For people with mental illness who have greater healthcare needs and are at risk for poor health outcomes, reduced access to care constitutes a crisis. While the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic continues to affect the United States, specifying what it means to have access to mental healthcare is more critical than ever.

AIMS

The aims of this concept analysis are to review definitions and descriptions of access to mental healthcare in the literature and to synthesize the relevance of these findings to inform future research, theory development, policy, and practice.

METHODS

The concept of access to mental healthcare was analyzed using Rodgers's evolutionary concept analysis method. CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were queried for peer-reviewed articles about access to mental healthcare published from January 2010 to April 2020 (n = 72). Data were reviewed for concept antecedents, attributes, consequences, surrogate, and related terms.

RESULTS

Five models of access to mental healthcare were identified, with several antecedents and consequences: utilization, economic loss/gain, incarceration, and patient/provider satisfaction. Cross-sectional and predictive studies highlighted three interrelated attributes: clinical management, healthcare delivery, and connectedness.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of access to mental healthcare is often used stagnantly across disciplines to create health policies, yet the concept is transformative. Future research requires up-to-date operational definitions of access to mental healthcare to target interdisciplinary approaches.

Improving Physical Health Among People With Serious Mental Illness: The Role of the Specialty Mental Health Sector

People with serious mental illness die 10-20 years earlier, compared with the overall population, and the excess mortality is driven by undertreated physical health conditions. In the United States, there is growing interest in models integrating physical health care delivery, management, or coordination into specialty mental health programs, sometimes called "reverse integration." In November 2019, the Johns Hopkins ALACRITY Center for Health and Longevity in Mental Illness convened a forum of 25 experts to discuss the current state of the evidence on integrated care models based in the specialty mental health system and to identify priorities for future research, policy, and practice. This article summarizes the group's conclusions. Key research priorities include identifying the active ingredients in multicomponent integrated care models and developing and validating integration performance metrics. Key policy and practice recommendations include developing new financing mechanisms and implementing strategies to build workforce and data capacity. Forum participants also highlighted an overarching need to address socioeconomic risks contributing to excess mortality among adults with serious mental illness.

Depression in primary care: part 2-management

Depression is a common and heterogeneous condition with a chronic and recurrent natural course that is frequently seen in the primary care setting. Primary care providers play a central role in managing depression and concurrent physical comorbidities, and they face challenges in diagnosing and treating the condition. In this two part series, we review the evidence available to help to guide primary care providers and practices to recognize and manage depression. The first review outlined an approach to screening and diagnosing depression in primary care. This second review presents an evidence based approach to the treatment of depression in primary care, detailing the recommended lifestyle, drug, and psychological interventions at the individual level. It also highlights strategies that are being adopted at an organizational level to manage depression more effectively in primary care.

Evolving Models of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mental and physical disorders commonly co-occur leading to higher morbidity and mortality in people with mental and substance use disorders (collectively called behavioral health disorders). Models to integrate primary and behavioral health care for this population have not yet been implemented widely across health systems, leading to efforts to adapt models for specific subpopulations and mechanisms to facilitate more widespread adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Using examples from the UK and USA, we describe recent advances to integrate behavioral and primary care for new target populations including people with serious mental illness, people at the extremes of life, and for people with substance use disorders. We summarize mechanisms to incentivize integration efforts and to stimulate new integration between health and social services in primary care. We then present an outline of recent enablers for integration, concentrating on changes to funding mechanisms, developments in quality outcome measurements to promote collaborative working, and pragmatic guidance aimed at primary care providers wishing to enhance provision of behavioral care. Integrating care between primary care and behavioral health services is a complex process. Established models of integrated care are now being tailored to target specific patient populations and policy initiatives developed to encourage adoption in particular settings. Wholly novel approaches to integrate care are significantly less common. Future efforts to integrate care should allow for flexibility and innovation around implementation, payment models that support delivery of high value care, and the development of outcome measures that incentivize collaborative working practices.

The Case for Severe Mental Illness as a Disparities Category

Extensive evidence documents that people with severe mental illness have higher rates of morbidity and mortality compared with the general population and receive lower-quality and higher-cost health care. These trends, at least in part, stem from discrimination, exclusion, widespread stigma, and criminalization of individuals with mental illness. As such, severe mental illness should receive formal, national recognition as a disparities category. Such a designation would have multiple important implications in health policy, services and quality research, and advocacy.