Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: This study has two aims: first, to identify variables associated with interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among a total of 315 Quebec mental health (MH) professionals working in MH primary care teams (PCTs, N = 101) or in specialized service teams (SSTs, N = 214); and second, to compare IPC associated variables in MH-PCTs vs MH-SSTs. METHODS: A large number of variables acknowledged as strongly related to IPC in the literature were tested. Multivariate regression models were performed on MH-PCTs and MH-SSTs respectively. RESULTS: Results showed that knowledge integration, team climate and multifocal identification were independently and positively associated with IPC in both MH-PCTs and MH-SSTs. By contrast, knowledge sharing was positively associated with IPC in MH-PCTs only, and organizational support positively associated with IPC in MH-SSTs. Finally, one variable (age) was significantly and negatively associated with IPC in SSTs. CONCLUSIONS: Improving IPC and making MH teams more successful require the development and implementation of differentiated professional skills in MH-PCTs and MH-SSTs by care managers depending upon the level of care required (primary or specialized). Training is also needed for the promotion of interdisciplinary values and improvement of interprofessional knowledge regarding IPC.

PURPOSE: The population with serious mental illness has high risk for hospitalization or death due to unhealthy behaviors and inadequate medical care, though the level of risk varies substantially. Programs that integrate medical and psychiatric services improve outcomes but are challenging to implement and access is limited. It would be useful to know whether benefits are confined to patients with specific levels of risk. METHODS: In a population with serious mental illness and increased risk for hospitalization or death, a specialized medical home integrated services and improved treatment and outcomes. Treatment quality, chronic illness care, care experience, symptoms, and quality of life were assessed for a median of 385 days. Analyses examine whether improvements varied by baseline level of patient risk. RESULTS: Patients with greater risk were more likely to be older, more cognitively impaired, and have worse mental health. Integrated services increased appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose, but increases did not differ significantly by level of risk. Integrated services also improved chronic illness care, care experience, mental health-related quality of life, and psychotic symptoms. There were also no significant differences by risk level. CONCLUSIONS: There were benefits from integration of primary care and psychiatric care at all levels of increased risk, including those with extremely high risk above the 95th percentile. When developing integrated care programs, patients should be considered at all levels of risk, not only those who are the healthiest.

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that the collaborative care model for depression in primary care is more effective than usual care, but little is known about the effectiveness of this approach in real-world settings. We used patient-reported outcome data from 11,303 patients receiving collaborative care for depression in 135 primary care clinics to examine variations in depression outcomes. The average treatment response across this large sample of clinics was substantially lower than response rates reported in randomized controlled trials, and substantial outcome variation was observed. Patient factors such as initial depression severity, clinic factors such as the number of years of collaborative care practice, and the degree of implementation support received were associated with depression outcomes at follow-up. Our findings suggest that the level of implementation support could be an important influence on the effectiveness of collaborative care model programs.

BACKGROUND: Age-related hearing loss is common and a particularly prevalent disability among Veterans. In response, comprehensive hearing services are available within the Veterans Affairs (VA) integrated healthcare system. Severe hearing loss may pose distinct communication challenges inadequately addressed by hearing aids, but data suggest severe hearing loss is often not treated differently. We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to evidence-based and individualized management of severe hearing loss from the perspectives of VA clinicians and Veterans. METHODS: We used purposeful sampling to conduct remote semi-structured video interviews with 33 current VA clinicians encompassing multiple disciplines and 39 Veterans with severe hearing loss over approximately an 18 month period (May 2022 to December 2023). We analyzed qualitative data using content thematic analysis. Coding categories were summarized within each participant; then across all participants to yield clinician-specific and Veteran themes. RESULTS: In the sample of 33 VA clinicians (20 audiologists, 9 otolaryngologists and 4 primary care clinicians), the overarching theme of qualitative data is that hearing loss is undertreated in the Veteran population. Across clinician groups, the qualitative data revealed multi-level factors (system-, clinician-, and patient-level) that influence the delivery of hearing care and management for Veterans with severe hearing loss. Interviews revealed that efficient access and collaborative care facilitate evidence-based practice. Among Veterans, inadequately managed hearing loss impacts quality of life; lack of knowledge and misconceptions about hearing care options and system-level barriers influence Veterans' perceptions of their hearing care and management. CONCLUSION: Although hearing care is available to Veterans, multi-level factors influence the delivery of hearing care and management for Veterans with severe hearing loss. Greater attention both in primary and specialty care is needed to ensure tailored treatments are available to Veterans with severe hearing loss across the integrated VA health care system.; Key points ○ Severe hearing loss leads to communication challenges requiring distinct rehabilitation strategies. ○ Rehabilitation for severe hearing loss is impacted by patient preferences and provider knowledge both in primary and specialty care. ○ Qualitative research with Veterans and clinicians may help explain current hearing care management and provide actionable steps towards improving care. Why does this paper matter? ○ Rehabilitating age‐related hearing loss has broad implications for healthy aging. ○ Veterans are at particular risk for accelerated hearing loss related to exposures during training and deployment. ○ Severe hearing loss poses particular communication challenges that require distinct treatment paradigms. ○ The Veterans Affairs (VA) network is the nation's largest integrated health care system and prioritizes hearing care and rehabilitation through the provision of millions of hearing aids. ○ This provides a unique lens to explore the management of Veterans with severe hearing loss. ○ While cochlear implants are known to be underutilized globally, one might expect that Veterans with persistent communication challenges would be more likely to receive cochlear implants if recommended. In this paper, we identify and contextualize barriers and facilitators of evidence‐based care for Veterans with severe hearing loss through semi‐structured interviews with a national sample of VA clinicians including audiologists, otolaryngologists, and primary care providers. We also recruited a diverse national sample of Veterans, all with severe hearing loss, to describe their experiences with hearing care in the VA and their preferences for rehabilitation. Understanding the system, clinician, and patient factors that impact care are critical context to developing an intervention that supports evidence‐based hearing rehabilitation.; eng