Literature Collection
10K+
References
9K+
Articles
1400+
Grey Literature
4500+
Opioids & SU
The Literature Collection contains over 10,000 references for published and grey literature on the integration of behavioral health and primary care. Learn More
Use the Search feature below to find references for your terms across the entire Literature Collection, or limit your searches by Authors, Keywords, or Titles and by Year, Type, or Topic. View your search results as displayed, or use the options to: Show more references per page; Sort references by Title or Date; and Refine your search criteria. Expand an individual reference to View Details. Full-text access to the literature may be available through a link to PubMed, a DOI, or a URL. References may also be exported for use in bibliographic software (e.g., EndNote, RefWorks, Zotero).
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.
![Pubmed](/themes/custom/academy2020/images/pubmed_img.png)
![Pubmed](/themes/custom/academy2020/images/pubmed_img.png)
BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are becoming a common payment and delivery model. Despite widespread interest, little empirical research has examined what efforts or strategies ACOs are using to change care and reduce costs. Knowledge of ACOs' clinical efforts can provide important context for understanding ACO performance, particularly to distinguish arenas where ACOs have and have not attempted care transformation. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to understand ACOs' efforts to change clinical care during the first 18 months of ACO contracts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews between July and December 2013. Our sample includes ACOs that began performance contracts in 2012, including Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer participants, stratified across key factors. In total, we conducted interviews with executives from 30 ACOs. Iterative qualitative analysis identified common patterns and themes. RESULTS: ACOs in the first year of performance contracts are commonly focusing on four areas: first, transforming primary care through increased access and team-based care; second, reducing avoidable emergency department use; third, strengthening practice-based care management; and fourth, developing new boundary spanner roles and activities. ACOs were doing little around transforming specialty care, acute and postacute care, or standardizing care across practices during the first 18 months of ACO performance contracts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest that cost reductions associated with ACOs in the first years of contracts may be related to primary care. Although in the long term many hope ACOs will achieve coordination across a wide array of care settings and providers, in the short term providers under ACO contracts are focused largely on primary care-related strategies. Our work provides a template of the common areas of clinical activity in the first years of ACO contracts, which may be informative to providers considering becoming an ACO. Further research will be needed to understand how these strategies are associated with performance.
![Pubmed](/themes/custom/academy2020/images/pubmed_img.png)
![Pubmed](/themes/custom/academy2020/images/pubmed_img.png)
This grey literature reference is included in the Academy's Literature Collection in keeping with our mission to gather all sources of information on integration. Grey literature is comprised of materials that are not made available through traditional publishing avenues. Often, the information from unpublished resources can be limited and the risk of bias cannot be determined.
![Pubmed](/themes/custom/academy2020/images/pubmed_img.png)
Background: The opioid epidemic continues to erode communities across Pennsylvania (PA). Federal and PA state programs developed grants to establish Hub and Spoke programs for the expansion of medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD). Employing the telementoring platform Project ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes), Penn State Health engaged the other seven grant awardees in a Collaborative Health Systems (CHS) ECHO. We conducted key informant interviews to better understand impact of the CHS ECHO on health systems collaboration and opioid crisis efforts. Methods: For eight one-hour sessions, each awardee presented their unique strategies, challenges, and opportunities. Using REDCap, program characteristics, such as number of waivered prescribers and number of patients served were collected at baseline. After completion of the sessions, key informant interviews were conducted to assess the impact of CHS ECHO on awardee's programs. Results: Analysis of key informant interviews revealed important themes to address opioid crisis efforts, including the need for strategic and proactive program reevaluation and the convenience of collaborative peer learning networks. Participants expressed benefits of the CHS ECHO including allowing space for discussion of challenges and best practices and facilitating conversation on collaborative targeted advocacy and systems-level improvements. Participants further reported bolstered motivation and confidence. Conclusions: Utilizing Project ECHO provided a bidirectional platform of learning and support that created important connections between institutions working to combat the opioid epidemic. CHS ECHO was a unique opportunity for productive and convenient peer learning across external partners. Open dialogue developed during CHS ECHO can continue to direct systems-levels improvements that benefit individual and population outcomes.