BACKGROUND: Mental health specialists and care managers facilitate comprehensive care provision within medical homes. Despite implementation challenges, mental health integration is thought to improve patient-centered primary care. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between primary care patient experience and mental health integration. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys from 168 primary care clinicians (PCPs) (n = 226) matched with assigned patients surveys (n = 1734) in one Veterans Health Administration (VA) region, fiscal years 2012-2013. Multilevel regression models examined patient experience and mental health integration, adjusting for patient and PCP characteristics. MEASURES: Patient experience outcomes were (1) experience with PCP and (2) receipt of comprehensive care, such as talked about stress. Independent variables represented mental health integration- (1) PCP-rated communication with mental health and (2) proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. RESULTS: 50% and 43% of patients rated their PCPs 10/10 and reported receiving comprehensive care, respectively. Neither patient experience or receipt of comprehensive care was significantly associated with PCPs ratings of communication with mental health, nor with proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. Among a subsample of patients who rated their mental health as poor/fair, however, we detected an association between proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists and patient experience (odds ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.09, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: No association was observed between mental health integration and primary care patients reported care experiences, but a significant association existed among patients who reported poor/fair mental health. More research is needed to understand patient experiences with regard to care model implementation.

Primary care telephone access has been associated with patient satisfaction and emergency department utilization even after accounting for objective appointment wait times. However, relatively little is known about how to best structure and manage telephone access in primary care. Assess how primary care telephone access is structured and managed and explore how variation in telephone management may affect primary care teams and patients. We used 2016 administrative and patient survey data to select six Veterans Administration medical centers (VAMCs) with above-average primary care access (time to third next available appointment) but variable patient-reported access, geographic region, and urbanicity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted August -October 2017. Forty-three key stakeholders knowledgeable about primary care, telephone management, and operational priorities nationally and/or within each VAMC. Telephone access was organized and managed differently across sites. Regional call centers were perceived as more efficient but less flexible in tailoring processes to meet local needs. Patient preferences for speaking with their own care teams were cited as a reason to manage telephone access locally rather than regionally, particularly in rural sites. Sites with high patient-rated access described call center functions as well-integrated with primary care team workflow, while those with low patient-rated access perceived telephone management practices as negatively affecting primary care team workload. Call center understaffing was a major barrier to optimal telephone access in all six sites, though rural sites reported greater challenges with provider recruitment and retention. In VA, efforts to improve telephone access have focused on centralizing call center operations but current call center performance metrics do not account for the extent to which call center functions are integrated with primary care workflows or may impact patient experience. Efforts to improve primary care access should carefully consider impact of telephone management practices on providers and patients.

Background

Burnout among primary care clinicians (PCPs) is associated with negative health and productivity consequences. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) embedded mental health specialists and care managers in primary care to manage common psychiatric diseases. While challenging to implement, mental health integration is a team-based care model thought to improve clinician well-being.

Objective

To examine the relationships between PCP-reported burnout (and secondarily, job satisfaction) and mental health integration at provider and clinic levels DESIGN: Analysis of 286 cross-sectional surveys in 2012 (n = 171) and 2013 (n = 115) PARTICIPANTS: 210 PCPs in one VA region MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were PCP-reported burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale), and secondarily, job satisfaction. Two independent variables represented mental health integration: (1) PCP-specialty communication rating and (2) proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. Using multilevel regression models, we examined PCP-reported burnout (and job satisfaction) and mental health integration, adjusting for PCP characteristics (e.g., gender), PCP ratings of team functioning (communication, knowledge/skills, satisfaction), and organizational factors.

Key results

On average, PCPs reported high burnout (29, range = 9-54) across all VA healthcare systems. In total, 46% of PCPs reported "very easy" communication with mental health; 9% of primary clinic patients had seen integrated specialists. Burnout was not significantly associated with mental health communication ratings (β coefficient = - 0.96, standard error [SE] = 1.29, p = 0.46), nor with proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists (β = 0.02, SE = 0.11, p = 0.88). No associations were observed with job satisfaction either. Among study participants, PCPs with poor team functioning, as exhibited by low team communication ratings, reported high burnout (β = - 1.28, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001) and low job satisfaction (β = 0.12, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

As currently implemented, primary care and mental health integration did not appear to impact PCP-reported burnout, nor job satisfaction. More research is needed to explore care model variation among clinics in order to optimize implementation to enhance PCP well-being.

BACKGROUND: Persons who experience homelessness (PEH) have high rates of depression and incur challenges accessing high-quality health care. Some Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities offer homeless-tailored primary care clinics, although such tailoring is not required, within or outside VA. Whether services tailoring enhances care for depression is unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PEH in homeless-tailored primary care settings receive higher quality of depression care, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of depression treatment among a regional cohort of VA primary care patients (2016-2019). PARTICIPANTS: PEH diagnosed or treated for a depressive disorder. MAIN MEASURES: The quality measures were timely follow-up care (3 + completed visits with a primary care or mental health specialist provider, or 3 + psychotherapy sessions) within 84 days of a positive PHQ-2 screen result, timely follow-up care within 180 days, and minimally appropriate treatment (4 + mental health visits, 3 + psychotherapy visits, 60 + days antidepressant) within 365 days. We applied multivariable mixed-effect logistic regressions to model differences in care quality for PEH in homeless-tailored versus usual primary care settings. KEY RESULTS: Thirteen percent of PEH with depressive disorders received homeless-tailored primary care (n = 374), compared to usual VA primary care (n = 2469). Tailored clinics served more PEH who were Black, who were non-married, and who had low income, serious mental illness, and substance use disorders. Among all PEH, 48% received timely follow-up care within 84 days of depression screening, 67% within 180 days, and 83% received minimally appropriate treatment. Quality metric attainment was higher for PEH in homeless-tailored clinics, compared to PEH in usual VA primary care: follow-up within 84 days (63% versus 46%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p = .001), follow-up within 180 days (78% versus 66%; AOR = 1.51, p = .003), and minimally appropriate treatment (89% versus 82%; AOR = 1.58, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Homeless-tailored primary care approaches may improve depression care for PEH.

Health care systems face challenges providing accessible health care across geographically disparate sites. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed regional telemedicine service focusing initially on primary care and mental health services. The objective of this study is to describe the program and progress during the early implementation. In its first year, the Clinical Resource Hub program provided 244 515 encounters to 95 684 Veterans at 475 sites. All 18 regions met or exceeded minimum implementation requirements. The regionally based telehealth contingency staffing hub met early implementation goals. Further evaluation to review sustainability and impact on provider experience and patient outcomes is needed.

Primary care clerical staff may experience burnout if not adequately prepared and supported for patient-facing customer service tasks. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, we use national survey data from 707 primary care clerks at 349 VA clinics (2018; response rate: 12%) to evaluate associations between clerks' perceptions of tasks, work environment, training, and burnout. We found challenges with customer-facing tasks contribute to higher burnout, and supportive work environment was associated with lower burnout. Although perceptions of training were not associated with burnout, our results combined with the JD-R model suggest that customer service training may protect against burnout.

Background

To improve mental health care access, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) in clinics nationally. Primary care clinical leader satisfaction can inform model implementation and may be facilitated by collaborative care managers and technology supporting cross-specialty collaboration.

Objective

(1) To determine primary care clinical leaders' overall satisfaction with care from embedded mental health providers for a range of conditions and (2) to examine the association between overall satisfaction and two program features (care managers, technology).

Design

Cross-sectional organizational survey in one VA region (Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico), 2018.

Participants

Sixty-nine physicians or other designated clinical leaders in each VA primary care clinic (94% response rate).

Main measures

We assessed primary care clinical leader satisfaction with embedded mental health care on four groups of conditions: target, non-target mental health, behavioral health, suicide risk management. They additionally responded about the availability of mental health care managers and the sufficiency of information technology (telemental health, e-consult, instant messaging). We examined relationships between satisfaction and the two program features using χ² tests and multivariable regressions.

Key results

Most primary care clinical leaders were "very satisfied" with care for targeted anxiety (71%) and depression (69%), but not for other common conditions (37% alcohol misuse, 19% pain). Care manager availability was significantly associated with "very satisfied" responses for depression (p = .02) and anxiety care by embedded mental health providers (p = .02). Highly rated sufficiency of communication technology (only 19%) was associated with "very satisfied" responses to suicide risk management (p = .002).

Conclusions

Care from embedded mental health providers for depression and anxiety was highly satisfactory, which may guide improvement among less satisfactory conditions (alcohol misuse, pain). Observed associations between overall satisfaction and collaborative care features may inform clinics on how to optimize staffing and technology based on priority conditions.

Importance

In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force newly recommended universal screening for depression, with the expectation that screening would be associated with appropriate treatment. Few studies have been able to assess the population-based trajectory from screening to receipt of follow-up and treatment for individuals with depression.

Objective

To examine adherence to guidelines for follow-up and treatment among primary care patients who newly screened positive for depression in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study used VA electronic data to identify patients who newly screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire at 82 primary care VA clinics in California, Arizona, and New Mexico between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to August 2021.

Main outcomes and measures

Receipt of guideline-concordant care for screen-positive patients who were determined by clinicians as having depression was assessed. Timely follow-up (within 84 days of screening) was defined as receiving 3 or more mental health specialty visits, 3 or more psychotherapy visits, or 3 or more primary care visits with a depression diagnosis according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Completing at least minimal treatment (within 12 months) was defined as having 60 days or more of antidepressant prescriptions filled, 4 or more mental health specialty visits, or 3 or more psychotherapy visits.

Results

The final cohort included 607 730 veterans (mean [SD] age, 59.4 [18.2] years; 546 516 men [89.9%]; 339 811 non-Hispanic White [55.9%]); 8%, or 82 998 of 997 185 person-years, newly screened positive for depression. Clinicians identified fewer than half with depression (15 155 patients), of whom 32% (5034 of 15 650 person-years) met treatment guidelines for timely follow-up and 77% (12 026 of 15 650 person-years) completed at least minimal treatment. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.990; 95% CI, 0.986-0.993; P < .001), Black race (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, CI 1.05-1.34; P = .01), and having comorbid psychiatric diagnoses were significantly associated with timely follow-up. Individual quality metric components (eg, medication or psychotherapy) were associated differently with overall quality results among patient groups, except for age.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, most patients met the guidelines for completing at least minimal treatment, but only a minority received timely follow-up after screening positive and being identified as having depression. More research is needed to understand whether the discrepancy between patients who screened positive and patients identified as having depression reflects a gap in recognition of needed care.

Background

Primary care teams can facilitate access to care by helping patients to determine whether and when care is needed, and coordinating care across multiple clinicians and settings. Appointment availability metrics may or may not capture these contributions, but patients' own ratings of their access to care provide an important alternative view of access that may be more closely related to these key functions of care teams.

Procedures

We used a 2015 telephone survey of 1,395 women veterans to examine associations between key care team functions and patient-rated access to needed care. The care team functions were care coordination, in-person communication (between patient and care team), and phone communication (timely answers to health questions). We controlled for sociodemographics, health status, care settings, and other experience of care measures.

Key findings

Overall, 74% of participants reported always or usually being able to see a provider for routine care, and 68% for urgent care. In adjusted analyses, phone communication was associated with better ratings of access to routine care (odds ratio [OR], 4.31; 95% CI, 2.65-6.98) and urgent care (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.18). Care coordination was also associated with better ratings of access to routine care (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.01-2.74) and urgent care (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.23-4.18). Associations with in-person communication were not significant.

Conclusions

Access, communication, and care coordination are interrelated. Approaches to improving access may prove counterproductive if they compromise the team's ability to coordinate care, or diminish the team's role as a primary point of contact for patients.

Background

Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed.

Objective

To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).

Design

Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews.

Participants

Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems.

Interventions

This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings.

Approach

We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers.

Key results

PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs.

Conclusion

In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.