Benjamin F. Miller

Competencies for psychology practice in primary care.

This article reports on the outcome of a presidential initiative of 2012 American Psychological Association President Suzanne Bennett Johnson to delineate competencies for primary care (PC) psychology in six broad domains: science, systems, professionalism, relationships, application, and education. Essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes are described for each PC psychology competency. Two behavioral examples are provided to illustrate each competency. Clinical vignettes demonstrate the competencies in action. Delineation of these competencies is intended to inform education, practice, and research in PC psychology and efforts to further develop team-based competencies in PC.

Integrating Behavioral and Physical Health Care in the Real World: Early Lessons from Advancing Care Together

Background: More than 20 years ago the Institute of Medicine advocated for integration of physical and behavioral health care. Today, practices are integrating care in response to recent policy initiatives. However, few studies describe how integration is accomplished in real-world practices without the financial or research support available for most randomized controlled trials. Methods: To study how practices integrate care, we are conducting a cross-case comparative, mixed-methods study of 11 practices participating in Advancing Care Together (ACT). Using a grounded theory approach, we analyzed multiple sources of data (eg, documents, practice surveys, field notes from observation visits, semistructured interviews, online diaries) collected from each ACT innovator. Results: Integration requires making changes in organization and interpersonal relationships. During early integration efforts, challenges related to workflow and access, leadership and culture change, and tracking and using data to evaluate patient- and practice-level improvement emerged for ACT innovators. We describe the strategies innovators are developing to address these challenges. Conclusion: Integrating care is a fundamental and difficult change for practices and health care professionals. Research identifying common challenges that manifest in early efforts can help others attempting integration and inform state, local, and federal policies aimed at achieving wide-spread implementation.

Comprehensiveness and Continuity of Care and the Inseparability of Mental and Behavioral Health From the Patient-Centered Medical Home

Comprehensiveness and continuity of care are key elements of primary care system redesign. Comprehensiveness encompasses evaluating the whole person and dealing with the full range of physical, mental, and behavioral healthcare issues; and continuity is based on building healing relationships over time. This article suggests that a focus on comprehensiveness and continuity implies that responding to mental health, behavioral health, and substance use must be core elements of the patient-centered medical home. A list of necessary next steps toward achieving comprehensive and integrated care is recommended.

Understanding Care Integration from the Ground Up: Five Organizing Constructs that Shape Integrated Practices

Purpose: To provide empirical evidence on key organizing constructs shaping practical, real-world integration of behavior health and primary care to comprehensively address patients medical, emotional, and behavioral health needs. Methods: In a comparative case study using an immersion-crystallization approach, a multidisciplinary team analyzed data from observations of practice operations, interviews, and surveys of practice members, and implementation diaries. Practices were drawn from 2 studies of practices attempting to integrate behavioral health and primary care: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado, and the Integration Workforce Study, a study of 8 practices across the United States. Results: We identified 5 key organizing constructs influencing integration of primary care and behavioral health: 1) Integration REACH (the extent to which the integration program was delivered to the identified target population), 2) establishment of continuum of care pathways addressing the location of care across the range of patients severity of illness, 3) approach to patient transitions: referrals or warm handoffs, 4) location of the integration workforce, and 5) participants mental model for integration. These constructs intertwine within an organizations historic and social context to produce locally adapted approaches to integrating care. Contextual factors, particularly practice type, influenced whether specialty mental health and substance use services were colocated within an organization. Conclusion: Interaction among 5 organizing constructs and practice context produces diverse expressions of integrated care. These constructs provide a framework for understanding how primary care and behavioral health services can be integrated in routine practice.

Preparing the Workforce for Behavioral Health and Primary Care Integration

Purpose: To identify how organizations prepare clinicians to work together to integrate behavioral health and primary care. Methods: Observational cross-case comparison study of 19 U.S. practices, 11 participating in Advancing Care Together, and 8 from the Integration Workforce Study. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and experience delivering integrated care. Multidisciplinary teams collected data (field notes from direct practice observations, semistructured interviews, and online diaries as reported by practice leaders) and then analyzed the data using a grounded theory approach. Results: Organizations had difficulty finding clinicians possessing the skills and experience necessary for working in an integrated practice. Practices newer to integration underestimated the time and resources needed to train and organizationally socialize (onboard) new clinicians. Through trial and error, practices learned that clinicians needed relevant training to work effectively as integrated care teams. Training efforts exclusively targeting behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) and new employees were incomplete if primary care clinicians (PCCs) and others in the practice also lacked experience working with BHCs and delivering integrated care. Organizations methods for addressing employees need for additional preparation included hiring a consultant to provide training, sending employees to external training programs, hosting residency or practicum training programs, or creating their own internal training program. Onboarding new employees through the development of training manuals; extensive shadowing processes; and protecting time for ongoing education, mentoring, and support opportunities for new and established clinicians and staff were featured in these internal training programs. Conclusion: Insufficient training capacity and practical experience opportunities continue to be major barriers to supplying the workforce needed for effective behavioral health and primary care integration. Until the training capacity grows to meet the demand, practices must put forth considerable effort and resources to train their own employees.

Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Health Behavior Services in Patient-Centered Medical Homes

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to understand mental health, substance use, and health behavior activities within primary care practices recognized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance as patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). Methods: We identified 447 practices with all levels of National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH recognition as of March 1, 2010. We selected the largest practice from multisite groups, and 238 practices were contacted. We received 123 responses, for a 52% response rate. A 40-item web-based survey was collected. Results: Of PCMH practices, 42% have a behavioral health clinician on site; social workers were the most frequent category of provider delivering behavioral services. There are also were care managers—distinct from behavioral health clinician—at 62% of practices. Surveyed practices were less likely to have procedures for referrals, communication, and patient scheduling for responding to mental health and substance use services than for other medical subspecialties (50% compared with 73% for cardiology and 69% for endocrinology). More than half of practices (62%) reported using electronic, standardized depression screening and monitoring; practices were less likely to screen for substance use than mental health. Among the practices, 54% used evidence-based health behavior protocols for mental health and substance use conditions. Practices reported that lack of reimbursement, time, and sufficient knowledge were obstacles. Practices serving a higher proportion of low-income patients performed more mental health organizational and clinical activities. Conclusions: In PCMHs, practice organization and response to behavioral issues seem to be less well developed than other types of medical care. These results support further efforts to develop whole-person care in the PCMH, with greater emphasis on access to and coordination of mental health, substance abuse, and health behavior services. Focusing primary care practices on this aspect of whole-person care will benefit from program sponsors support and rewarding better integration with behavioral health.

The agency for healthcare research and quality multiple chronic conditions research network: Overview of research contributions and future priorities

Background:By 2030, 171 million Americans are expected to have more than one chronic condition. The cohort of individuals with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is growing and two thirds of healthcare costs for the US population are currently spent on the 20% of people who have MCC. Objectives:Recognizing the need for increased investment in MCC programs and research, Health and Human Services (HHS) developed the HHS Strategic Framework on MCC. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) contributed to the goals of the framework by funding the MCC Research Network, comprising 45 diverse grants and representing one of the largest federal investment in MCC studies to date. Results:The initial body of research emerging from the AHRQ MCC Research Network included: comanagement of commonly co-occurring conditions (including by caregivers); care for patients with low-prevalence combinations of MCC; the effect of MCC patients on provider performance metrics; guidelines for preventive services; medication management in individuals with MCC; as well as MCC-specific methodological and analytical techniques. Conclusions:The authors describe a subset of research contributions made in each topic area and make 3 recommendations for future MCC research: (1) include person-centered and person-driven measures and outcomes, (2) consider the person in the context of their relationships and community, and (3) include mental healthcare as an essential part of overall healthcare.

Mental Health Treatment in the Primary Care Setting: Patterns and Pathways

The redesign of primary care through the patient-centered medical home offers an opportunity to assess the role of primary care in treating mental health relative to the rest of the health care system. Better understanding the patterns of care between primary care and mental health providers helps guide necessary policy changes. This article reports the findings from 109,593 respondents to the 2002-2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS). We examined the extent to which persons with poor mental health visited primary care providers, and distinguished among 4 patterns of care: (a) mental health only, (b) primary care only, (c) dual care (both mental health and primary care) and (d) other provider combinations. Our findings indicate that poor mental health and specific mental health conditions remain prevalent in primary care. An increased focus on patient-centered care requires greater integration of primary and mental health care to reduce fragmentation of care and disparities in health outcomes.

Proximity of providers: Colocating behavioral health and primary care and the prospects for an integrated workforce.

Integrated behavioral health and primary care is emerging as a superior means by which to address the needs of the whole person, but we know neither the extent nor the distribution of integration. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) Downloadable File, this study reports where colocation exists for (a) primary care providers and any behavioral health provider and (b) primary care providers and psychologists specifically. The NPPES database offers new insights into where opportunities are limited for integration due to workforce shortages or nonproximity of providers and where possibilities exist for colocation, a prerequisite for integration.

Behavioral health integration: an essential element of population-based healthcare redesign

ABSTRACTThe fundamental aim of healthcare reform is twofold: to provide health insurance coverage for most of the citizens currently uninsured, thereby granting them access to healthcare; and to redesign the overall healthcare system to provide better care and achieve the triple aim (better health for the population, better healthcare for individuals, and at less cost). The foundation for this improved system will rest on a redesigned (i.e., sufficiently comprehensive and integrated) system of primary care, with which all other providers, services, and sites of care are associated. The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and its congeners are the best current examples of the kind of primary care that can achieve the triple aim, if they can become sufficiently comprehensive and can adequately integrate services. This means fully integrating behavioral healthcare into the PCMH, a difficult task under the most favorable circumstances. Creating functioning accountable care organizations is an even more daunting task: this requires new principles of collaborating and financing and the current prototypes have generally failed to incorporate behavioral healthcare sufficient to meet even the basic needs of the target population. This paper will discuss (1) the case for and the difficulties associated with integrating behavioral healthcare into primary care at three levels: the practice, the state, and the nation; and (2) how this looks clinically, operationally, and financially.