A Statewide Effort to Implement Collaborative Care for Depression: Reach and Impact for All Patients With Depression

Healing the Whole: An International Review of the Collaborative Care Model between Primary Care and Psychiatry

The collaborative care model (CCM) was created to improve the delivery of mental health care and is reported to improve access, enhance treatment outcomes, and reduce healthcare costs. To understand the impacts of the CCM on symptom management, diverse populations, and sustainability in healthcare systems, a systematic review was conducted. Several databases were searched for articles assessing the CCM. The inclusion criteria limited the studies to those (1) published between January 2008 and January 2024; (2) written in the English language; (3) analyzing adult patients; (4) analyzing symptom improvement in major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder; and (5) fitting the given definition of a CCM. We identified 9743 articles. Due to missing information or duplication, 4702 were excluded. The remaining articles were screened, yielding 468 articles for full-text analysis, of which 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these articles, five primarily focused on individual patient outcomes, five focused on specific populations, and six reviewed system impacts; eleven articles studied US populations and five studied international populations. An analysis revealed that in 12 of the final articles, the CCM led to a statistically significant improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms with viable implementation and sustainability strategies. The CCM is an effective method for improving patient symptoms and can be potentially affordable in healthcare systems.

Protocol for the implementation evaluation of an integrated paediatric and primary care model: Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C)

INTRODUCTION

Implementation evaluations provide insight into how interventions are delivered across varying contexts and why interventions work in some contexts and not in others. This manuscript outlines a detailed protocol of an implementation evaluation embedded in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial of a model of care, Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C), that integrates paediatric care in general practice. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe the pragmatic methods that will be used to capture implementation evaluation process and outcome data within this trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our implementation evaluation will use a mixed methods design, with data collected in the intervention arm of the SC4C trial guided by a logic model developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Proctor and colleague's taxonomy of implementation outcomes. Data collection will be via questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners, paediatricians, general practice administrative staff and children and families. Each of the 21 general practices recruited into the study will be described in terms of staffing, patient throughput and location, in addition to the nuanced inner and outer contexts, use of the intervention and its acceptability. We will quantify implementation effectiveness in each general practice clinic using the CFIR validated scoring system. Importantly, we have embedded data collection post intervention to enable assessment of the sustainable adoption of the intervention. An inductive approach to the analysis of qualitative data will identify additional emerging themes that may not be covered by the formal frameworks underpinning our analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by the Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (HREC: 65955). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998 on 1 December 2020.

Integrating Mental Health in Safety-net Primary Care: A Five-year Observational Study on Visits in a County Health System

BACKGROUND

Beginning in 2010, Los Angeles County Departments of Health Services and Mental Health collaborated to increase access to effective mental health care. The Mental Health Integration Program (MHIP) embedded behavioral health specialists in primary care clinics to deliver brief, problem-focused treatments, and psychiatric consultation support for primary care-prescribed psychotropic medications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare primary care visits associated with psychiatric diagnoses before and after MHIP implementation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study (2009-2014) examined 62,945 patients from 8 safety-net clinics that implemented MHIP in a staggered manner in Los Angeles. Patients' primary care visits (n=695,354) were either associated or not with a previously identified or "new" (defined as having no diagnosis within the prior year) psychiatric diagnosis. Multilevel regression models used MHIP implementation to predict odds of visits being associated with psychiatric diagnoses, controlling for time, clinic, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

9.4% of visits were associated with psychiatric diagnoses (6.4% depression, 3.1% anxiety, <1% alcohol, and substance use disorders). Odds of visits being associated with psychiatric diagnoses were 9% higher [95% confidence interval (CI)=1.05-1.13; P<0.0001], and 10% higher for diagnoses that were new (CI=1.04-1.16; P=0.002), after MHIP implementation than before. This appeared to be fueled by increased visits for depression post-MHIP (odds ratio=1.11; CI=1.06-1.15; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MHIP implementation was associated with more psychiatric diagnoses coded in safety-net primary care visits. Scaling up this effort will require greater attention to the notable differences across patient populations and languages, as well as the markedly low coding of alcohol and substance use services in primary care.

Implementing the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in Mental Health Clinics: Achieving and Sustaining Clinical Effects

OBJECTIVE

Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) were established with implementation support in nine mental health clinics. This study sought to determine whether their clinical impact was maintained after implementation support ceased.

METHODS

Posttrial data were analyzed from a randomized stepped-wedge CCM implementation trial in general mental health clinics in nine Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. Sites received 1 year of implementation support, which was associated with reduced mental health hospitalization rates compared with non-CCM clinics in the same medical centers. Hospitalization rates for the year after implementation support were analyzed by using repeated measures logistic regression comparing the same clinics.

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates for the postsupport year did not differ from comparison clinics either in the population that initially showed the difference or the population active in the clinics at the end of the year of implementation support.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical effects of the CCM may wane after cessation of active implementation support.

The Impact of Systematic Depression Screening in Primary Care on Depression Identification and Treatment in a Large Health Care System: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Unless implementation of systematic depression screening is associated with timely treatment, quality measures based on screening are unlikely to improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of integrating systematic depression screening with clinical decision support on depression identification and treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective pre-post study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a primary care visit within a large integrated health system in 2016 were included. Adults diagnosed with depression in 2015 or prior to their initial primary care visit in 2016 were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Initiation of systematic screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) which began in mid-2016.

MAIN MEASURES

Depression diagnosis was based on ICD codes. Treatment was defined as (1) antidepressant prescription, (2) referral, or (3) evaluation by a behavioral health specialist. We used an adjusted linear regression model to identify whether the percentage of visits with a depression diagnosis was different before versus after implementation of systematic screening. An adjusted multilevel regression model was used to evaluate the association between screening and odds of treatment.

KEY RESULTS

Our study population included 259,411 patients. After implementation, 59% of patients underwent screening. Three percent scored as having moderate to severe depression. The rate of depression diagnosis increased by 1.2% immediately after systematic screening (from 1.7 to 2.9%). The percent of patients with diagnosed depression who received treatment within 90 days increased from 64% before to 69% after implementation (p < 0.01) and the adjusted odds of treatment increased by 20% after implementation (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing systematic depression screening within a large health care system led to high rates of screening and increased rates of depression diagnosis and treatment.

Enhancing the scalability of the collaborative care model for depression using mobile technology

The collaborative care model (CoCM) has substantial support for improving behavioral health care in primary care. However, large-scale CoCM adoption relies on addressing operational and financial implementation challenges across health care settings with varying resources. An academic medical center serving socioeconomically and racially diverse patients implemented the CoCM in seven practices. A smartphone application was introduced to facilitate CoCM care management during depression treatment (app-augmented CoCM). App features included secure texting, goal/appointment reminders, symptom monitoring, and health education material. A nonrandomized convenience patient sample (N = 807) was enrolled in app-augmented CoCM and compared with patients in standard CoCM (N = 3,975). Data were collected on clinical contact frequency, engagement, and clinical outcomes. App-augmented CoCM patients received more health care team contacts (7.9 vs. 4.9, p &lt; .001) and shorter time to follow up compared with the standard CoCM sample (mean = 11 vs. 19 days, p &lt; .001). App-augmented CoCM patients had clinical outcomes similar to the standard CoCM group (47% vs. 46% with ≥50% depression improvement or score &lt;10), despite app-augmented patients having more prior depression treatment episodes. Further, the app-augmented group with greater app engagement demonstrated increased behavioral health appointment compliance, including more completed appointments and fewer no shows, and greater depression symptom improvement than those with less app engagement. App-augmented CoCM may improve patient engagement in treatment and provide opportunities to implement key CoCM elements without overburdening practice resources. CoCM sustainability and scalability in primary care may be enhanced by using this technology.

Collaborative Care to Improve Access and Quality in School-Based Behavioral Health

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care (CC) is a well-established approach for the delivery of accessible behavioral health services in integrated health care settings. Substantial evidence supports its effectiveness in improving the quality and outcomes of adult services, and growing research indicates utility with child and adolescent populations.

METHODS

To date, studies examining CC models for youth have focused exclusively on primary-care settings. Nevertheless, as the most common integrated service delivery setting for youth, the education sector is an equally important context for improving access to behavioral health services for children and adolescents.

RESULTS

We provide a narrative review of the literature on CC, describes the relevance of CC to schools, and details its alignment with contemporary movements in education and school-based behavioral health.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential adaptations of the CC model for use in schools are detailed to improve: (1) behavioral health service accessibility, (2) the capacity of schools to provide behavioral health services, and (3) school service effectiveness through use of evidence-based practices. Although little research has explored the applicability of CC in the education sector, the model holds potential promise to improve the quality and efficiency of school-based behavioral health services.

Effectiveness of Implementing a Collaborative Chronic Care Model for Clinician Teams on Patient Outcomes and Health Status in Mental Health: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) have extensive randomized clinical trial evidence for effectiveness in serious mental illnesses, but little evidence exists regarding their feasibility or effect in typical practice conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of implementation facilitation in establishing the CCM in mental health teams and the impact on health outcomes of team-treated individuals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quasi-experimental, randomized stepped-wedge implementation trial was conducted from February 2016 through February 2018, in partnership with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. Nine facilities were enrolled from all VA facilities in the United States to receive CCM implementation support. All veterans (n = 5596) treated by designated outpatient general mental health teams were included for hospitalization analyses, and a randomly selected sample (n = 1050) was identified for health status interviews. Individuals with dementia were excluded. Clinicians (n = 62) at the facilities were surveyed, and site process summaries were rated for concordance with the CCM process. The CCM implementation start time was randomly assigned across 3 waves. Data analysis of this evaluable population was performed from June to September 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Internal-external facilitation, combining a study-funded external facilitator and a facility-funded internal facilitator working with a designated team for 1 year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Facilitation was hypothesized to be associated with improvements in both implementation and intervention outcomes (hybrid type II trial). Implementation outcomes included the clinician Team Development Measure (TDM) and proportion of CCM-concordant team care processes. The study was powered for the primary health outcome, mental component score (MCS). Hospitalization rate was derived from administrative data.

RESULTS

The veteran population (n = 5596) included 881 women (15.7%), and the mean (SD) age was 52.2 (14.5) years. The interviewed sample (n = 1050) was similar but was oversampled for women (n = 210 [20.0%]). Facilitation was associated with improvements in TDM subscales for role clarity (53.4%-68.6%; δ = 15.3; 95% CI, 4.4-26.2; P = .01) and team primacy (50.0%-68.6%; δ = 18.6; 95% CI, 8.3-28.9; P = .001). The percentage of CCM-concordant processes achieved varied, ranging from 44% to 89%. No improvement was seen in veteran self-ratings, including the primary outcome. In post hoc analyses, MCS improved in veterans with 3 or more treated mental health diagnoses compared with others (β = 5.03; 95% CI, 2.24-7.82; P < .001). Mental health hospitalizations demonstrated a robust decrease during facilitation (β = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.07; P < .001); this finding withstood 4 internal validity tests.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Implementation facilitation that engages clinicians under typical practice conditions can enhance evidence-based team processes; its effect on self-reported overall population health status was negligible, although health status improved for individuals with complex conditions and hospitalization rate declined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02543840.

What's known about implementing co-located paediatric integrated care: a scoping review

Several studies have demonstrated clinical benefits of integrated care for a range of child and adolescent mental health outcomes. However, there is a significant gap between the evidence for efficacy of integrated care interventions vs their implementation in practice. While several studies have examined large-scale implementation of co-located integrated care for adults, much less is known for children. The goal of this scoping review was to understand how co-located mental health interventions targeting children and adolescents have been implemented and sustained. The literature was systematically searched for interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health that involved a mental health specialist co-located in a primary care setting. Studies reporting on the following implementation outcomes were included: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability. This search identified 34 unique studies, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and survey/mixed method approaches. Components facilitating implementation of on-site integrated behavioural healthcare included interprofessional communication and collaboration at all stages of implementation; clear protocols to facilitate intervention delivery; and co-employment of integrated care providers by specialty clinics. Some studies found differences in service use by demographic factors, and others reported funding challenges affecting sustainability, warranting further study.

Classes of depression symptom trajectories in patients with major depression receiving a collaborative care intervention

PURPOSE

Collaborative care is effective in improving symptoms of patients with depression. The aims of this study were to characterize symptom trajectories in patients with major depression during one year of collaborative care and to explore associations between baseline characteristics and symptom trajectories.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care. The collaborative care intervention comprised case management and behavioral activation. We used the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess symptom severity as the primary outcome. Statistical analyses comprised latent growth mixture modeling and a hierarchical binary logistic regression model.

RESULTS

We included 74 practices and 626 patients (310 intervention and 316 control recipients) at baseline. Based on a minimum of 12 measurement points for each intervention recipient, we identified two latent trajectories, which we labeled 'fast improvers' (60.5%) and 'slow improvers' (39.5%). At all measurements after baseline, 'fast improvers' presented higher PHQ mean values than 'slow improvers'. At baseline, 'fast improvers' presented fewer physical conditions, higher health-related quality of life, and had made fewer suicide attempts in their history.

CONCLUSIONS

A notable proportion of 39.5% of patients improved only 'slowly' and probably needed more intense treatment. The third follow-up in month two could well be a sensible time to adjust treatment to support 'slow improvers'.