Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: Americans experiencing substance use disorder (SUD) carry a significant chronic disease burden, yet only half use primary care. Patients in treatment for SUD who are connected with primary care typically have better overall health outcomes. LOCAL PROBLEM: The identified intensive outpatient program (IOP) had no protocol in place to engage patients with primary care. METHODS: This project piloted the development and implementation of an original, evidence-based primary care integration program. It consisted of a psychoeducation group, a referral by case management, and establishment of an internal referral process to affiliated primary care providers (PCPs). INTERVENTIONS: Following the psychoeducation group, pre and posttests of patient-reported knowledge and attitudes regarding primary care were compared. Participants were contacted to collect further data after IOP discharge. An education and feedback session was held with affiliated PCPs, and an internal referral process was devised by leadership. RESULTS: Mean scores measuring patient knowledge and attitudes regarding primary care increased after participation in the structured psychoeducation group. By time of IOP discharge, 100% (n = 12) of participants had either a referral or scheduled appointment with a PCP in place. At time of follow-up, 90% (n = 9) reported that they had attended or planned to attend their scheduled PCP appointment. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive integration program in the IOP setting can improve patient engagement with primary care. Quality improvement implementation will require consideration of challenges faced during the pilot involving scheduling, staff buy-in, changes in patient acuity, the electronic medical record, and insurance.

The changing healthcare environment and movement toward team-based care are contemporary challenges confronting health professional education. The primary care workforce must be prepared with recent national interprofessional competencies to practice and lead in this changing environment. From 2012 to 2014, the weekly Beth Israel Deaconess Crimson Care Collaborative Student-Faculty Practice collaborated with Northeastern University to develop, implement and evaluate an innovative model that incorporated interprofessional education into primary care practice with the goal of improving student understanding of, and ability to deliver quality, team-based care. In the monthly interprofessional clinic, an educational curriculum empowered students with evidence-based, team-based care principles. Integration of nursing, pharmacy, medicine, and masters of public health students and faculty into direct patient care, provided the opportunity to practice skills. The TeamSTEPPS(R) Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire was administered pre- and post-intervention to assess its perceived impact. Seventeen students completed the post-intervention survey. Survey data indicated very positive attitudes towards team-based care at baseline. Significant improvements were reported in attitudes towards situation monitoring, limiting personal conflict, administration support and communication. However, small, but statistically significant declines were seen on one team structure and two communication items. Our program provides further evidence for the use of interprofessional training in primary care.

Amid enthusiasm about accountable care organizations (ACOs) in Medicaid, little is known about the primary care practices engaging in them. We leverage a survey of administrators within a random sample (stratified by ACO) of 225 practices joining Massachusetts Medicaid ACOs (64% response rate; 225 responses). We measure the integration of processes with distinct entities: consulting clinicians, eye specialists for diabetes care, mental/behavioral care providers, and long-term and social services agencies. Using multivariable regression, we examine organizational correlates of integration and assess integration's relationships with care quality improvement, health equity, and satisfaction with the ACO. Integration varied across practices. Clinical integration was positively associated with perceived care quality improvement; social service integration was positively associated with addressing equity; and mental/behavioral and long-term service integration were positively associated with ACO satisfaction (all p < .05). Understanding differences in integration at the practice level is vital for sharpening policy, setting expectations, and supporting improvement in Medicaid ACOs.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated. DESIGN AND SETTING: The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model. PARTICIPANTS: People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services. LIMITATIONS: There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model. CONCLUSIONS: Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.; Health problems are common among single people who are homeless, but there is little evidence of the best ways to deliver primary health care to them. This study evaluated four types of services (models) that are in existence: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres); (2) Mobile Teams that provide health care in hostels and day centres; (3) Specialist GPs that have some services exclusively for patients who are homeless; and (4) Usual Care GPs providing health care to all patients, with no special services for people who are homeless. The study concentrated on single people (not homeless families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation and on the streets. Overall, 363 patients at these practices who had been homeless in the previous 12 months participated, and information was collected from them over a 12-month period. We examined the extent to which screening for different health conditions was undertaken, and to which treatment and follow-up care were provided for participants with chronic respiratory problems, depression, alcohol problems and drug problems. Information was gathered from their medical records about use of health and social care services over 12 months. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were more favourable. They had staff working specifically with patients who were homeless; provided flexible ‘drop-in’ services instead of requiring patients to book appointments; and worked closely with mental health, alcohol and drug services, and with hostels, day centres and street outreach teams. Participants were also more satisfied with the health care they received from the specialist models, and were more likely to say that they had confidence and trust in doctors and nurses at these sites. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.; eng

The incidence of mental illness continues to increase since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mental Health America, 2022). Demand for mental health services has grown, and providers report being "unable to meet the demand" or having an increase in wait times for access to care (American Psychological Association, 2022, para. 1). Due to this increase in demand, more patients are seeking mental health care from their primary care providers. Over the past decade, integrative models of care have been expanding into mental health care (Lake, 2017). Integrative Nursing is a strategy for improving the quality of care provided to patients seeking care for mental health diagnoses, as well as those with a goal of increasing mental health and wellbeing. This article proposes that Integrative Nursing can serve as a framework for providing whole-person mental health care.