Literature Collection

Health policy-makers are faced with a demand for health care that exceeds supply, driven in part by an ageing population and an increased prevalence of chronic disease. An integrated 'people-centred' model of care across primary, secondary and tertiary health care can strengthen the health system by streamlining services to improve the patient journey and outcomes. Integrated care offers an opportunity to reduce admissions and re-admissions to hospitals, reduce presentations to emergency departments and improve the capacity of outpatient clinics while delivering better outcomes to patients. Queensland's $35 million Integrated Care Innovation Fund (ICIF) has provided seed funding to 24 projects covering a wide spectrum of chronic disease management and complex disease. Programs such as the ICIF offer an opportunity to provide a new approach to caring for vulnerable populations such as the frail and elderly; children with behavioural and developmental issues; children in out-of-home care; rural and remote populations; and people with mental health issues, whose care runs the risk of 'falling through the cracks' with conventional healthcare approaches.

BACKGROUND: Community disaster resilience is comprised of a multitude of factors, including the capacity of citizens to psychologically recover. There is growing recognition of the need for public health departments to prioritize a communitywide mental health response strategy to facilitate access to behavioral health services and reduce potential psychological impacts. Due to the US Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) extensive experience providing trauma-informed behavioral healthcare to its Veterans, and the fact that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) are located throughout the United States, the VA is well situated to be a key partner in local communities' response plans. In this study we examined the role the VA can play in a community's behavioral health response using case studies from three disasters. METHODS: This study investigated experiences of VA employees in critical emergency response positions (N = 17) in communities where disasters occurred between 2017 and 2019. All respondents were interviewed March-July 2019. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews exploring participants' experiences and knowledge about VA activities provided to communities following the regional disasters. Data were analyzed using thematic and grounded theory coding methods. RESULTS: Respondents underscored VA's primary mission after a disaster was to maintain continuity of care to Veterans. The majority also described the VA supporting community recovery. Specifically, three recent events provided key examples of VA's involvement in disaster behavioral health response. Each event showed VA's integration into local response structures was facilitated by pre-existing emergency management and clinical relationships as well as prioritization from VA leadership to engage in humanitarian missions. The behavioral health interventions were provided by behavioral health teams integrated into disaster assistance centers and non-VA hospitals, VA mobile units deployed into the community, and VA telehealth services. CONCLUSIONS: Recent disasters have revealed that coordinated efforts between multidisciplinary agencies can strengthen communities' capacity to respond to mental health needs, thereby fostering resilience. Building relationships with local VAMCs can help expedite how VA can be incorporated into emergency management strategies. In considering the strengths community partners can bring to bear, a coordinated disaster mental health response would benefit from involving VA as a partner during planning.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health services into primary care settings is complex and challenging. Although facilitation strategies have successfully supported implementation of primary care mental health integration and other complex innovations, we know little about the time required or its cost. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time and organizational cost of facilitating implementation of primary care mental health integration. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One expert external facilitator and two internal regional facilitators who helped healthcare system stakeholders, e.g., leaders, managers, clinicians, and non-clinical staff, implement primary care mental health integration at eight clinics. INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation tailored to the needs and resources of the setting and its stakeholders. MAIN MEASURES: We documented facilitators' and stakeholders' time and types of activities using a structured spreadsheet collected from facilitators on a weekly basis. We obtained travel costs and salary information. We conducted descriptive analysis of time data and estimated organizational cost. KEY RESULTS: The external facilitator devoted 263 h (0.09 FTE), including travel, across all 8 clinics over 28 months. Internal facilitator time varied across networks (1792 h versus 1169 h), as well as clinics. Stakeholder participation time was similar across networks (1280.6 versus 1363.4 person hours) but the number of stakeholders varied (133 versus 199 stakeholders). The organizational cost of providing implementation facilitation also varied across networks ($263,490 versus $258,127). Stakeholder participation accounted for 35% of the cost of facilitation activities in one network and 47% of the cost in the other. CONCLUSIONS: Although facilitation can improve implementation of primary care mental health integration, it requires substantial organizational investments that may vary by site and implementation effort. Furthermore, the cost of using an external expert to transfer facilitation skills and build capacity for implementation efforts appears to be minimal.

Part 1: An introduction to medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder. The approach to OUD care -- Overview of medications for OUD -- Duration of treatment with OUD medication -- Treatment settings -- Challenges to expanding access to OUD medication -- Resources -- Notes -- Part 2: Addressing opioid use disorder in general medical settings. Scope of the Problem -- Screening -- Assessment -- Treatment planning or referral -- Resources -- Appendix -- Notes -- Part 3: Pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder. Pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder -- Overview of pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder. Methadone -- Naltrexone -- Buprenorphine -- Medical management strategies for patients taking OUD medications in office-based settings -- Medical management of patients taking OUD medications in hospital settings -- PART 4: Partnering addiction treatment counselors with clients and healthcare professionals. Overview and context -- Quick guide to medications -- Counselor-prescriber communications -- Creation of a supportive counseling experience -- Other common counseling concerns -- Notes -- Part 5: Resources related to medications for opioid use disorder. General Resources -- Resources for counselors and peer providers -- Resources for clients and families -- Provider tools and sample forms -- Glossary of TIP terminology -- Notes