Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Community Care Program, which was the amalgamation of three outreach services-post-acute care, Residential In-Reach, and the Hospital Admission Risk Program-into a single integrated care model. Specifically, we assessed its effects on unplanned hospital readmissions and emergency department re-presentations at 30-, 60- and 90-days post-enrolment. METHODS: A pragmatic, real-world, population-based observational study was conducted using an interrupted time series analysis. The study included 4708 adult patients across two periods: pre-amalgamation (November 2014-October 2016), and post-amalgamation (May 2017-October 2018). Data were sourced from the National Centre for Healthy Ageing Data Platform, with statistical analyses conducted using Generalised Least Squares models to account for autocorrelation. RESULTS: The study observed a significant increase in quarterly program enrolments post-amalgamation, from 578 to 1011 per quarter. The 30-day readmission rate decreased from 11.8% to 8.52% post-amalgamation. However, interrupted time series analysis revealed no statistically significant changes in the slopes of readmission and emergency department re-presentation rates after the program's amalgamation. The program did not result in significant changes in 60- or 90-day outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The amalgamation of post-acute care, Residential In-Reach, and the Hospital Admission Risk Program into the Community Care Program led to increased service utilisation without a significant impact on reducing unplanned hospital readmissions or emergency department re-presentations. Although the program amalgamation demonstrated improved accessibility, its longer-term impact remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for continuous refinement and further evaluation to optimise system efficiency. No patient or public contribution occurred in this study. REPORTING METHOD: This study adhered to the STROBE guidelines for observational research.

Integration of behavioral health care into primary care can improve health and economic outcomes. This study adapted the Behavioral Health Integration in Medical Care (BHIMC) index to the Colombian context and assessed the baseline level of behavioral health integration in a sample of primary care organizations. The BHIMC was able to detect the capacity to provide integrated behavioral care in Colombian settings. Results indicate a minimal to partial integration level across all sites, and that it is possible to measure the degree of integrated care capacity and identify improvement areas for better behavioral health care provision.

Integration of behavioral health care into primary care can improve health and economic outcomes. This study adapted the Behavioral Health Integration in Medical Care (BHIMC) index to the Colombian context and assessed the baseline level of behavioral health integration in a sample of primary care organizations. The BHIMC was able to detect the capacity to provide integrated behavioral care in Colombian settings. Results indicate a minimal to partial integration level across all sites, and that it is possible to measure the degree of integrated care capacity and identify improvement areas for better behavioral health care provision.

Behavioral health integration (BHI) is increasingly implemented to expand capacity to address behavioral health conditions within primary care. Survey and claims data from the evaluation of the Public Hospital Redesign and Incentives in Medi-Cal program were used to examine the relationship between BHI and alcohol-related outcomes among Medicaid patients within 17 public hospitals in California. Key informant survey data measured hospital-level BHI at 3 levels (overall composite, infrastructure, and process domains, 10 themes). Multilevel logistic regression models estimated the relationship between BHI and outcomes indicating receipt of appropriate alcohol-related care (any primary care visit, any detoxification, timely initiation, timely engagement) and acute care (any emergency department [ED] visit or hospitalization, classified as alcohol-related or all-cause) in the year following an alcohol-related index encounter. Of 6196 patients, some had an alcohol-related primary care visit (33%), detoxification (16%), timely initiation (14%), or engagement in treatment (7%). ED visits resulting in discharge were more common (40% alcohol-related, 64% all-cause) than hospitalizations (15% alcohol-related, 26% all-cause). Controlling for patient-level characteristics, no significant relationships between overall BHI and these outcomes were observed. However, greater BHI infrastructure was associated with alcohol-related (odds ratio [OR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-3.05) and all-cause hospitalization (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55). Associations emerged between BHI themes (eg, related to support of providers) and greater likelihood of alcohol-related detoxification, primary care visit, timely initiation, and acute care utilization. Findings suggest that implementing specific BHI components may improve receipt of alcohol-related treatment, and warrant future research into these relationships.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid and other substance use disorders (OUD/SUDs) have been and continue to be significant public health issues. The standard of care for OUD is the use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in conjunction with counseling or behavioral therapies, yet research has indicated that barriers exist for patients accessing MOUD as well as for physicians prescribing MOUD due to requirements associated with the DATA 2000 waiver. METHODS: A pilot cross-sectional survey was conducted among Kentucky physicians in order to reassess common barriers as well as to explore barriers that non-waivered providers face to becoming waivered. Barriers were compared by waiver status (waiver vs. non-waivered) as well as geographic location (rural vs. non-rural). RESULTS: Compared to waivered physicians, non-waivered physicians were significantly less likely to report positive personal beliefs related to the use of MOUD for OUD and reported significantly more barriers to treating OUD patients in the areas of physicians' practice and culture, auditing, and institutional support and resources (p < .05). The majority (69%) of all physicians indicated they would benefit from a tool kit with evidence-based clinical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers and beliefs identified in this pilot study indicate the need for policy action at the federal level to reduce barriers and incentivize more physicians to obtain waivers to treat OUD. Further, the development of brief educational resources tailored to physicians to treat OUD patients including pregnant patients with OUD is recommended.