Literature Collection

Objective: Explore general practitioners' (GPs') views on and experiences of working with care managers for patients treated for depression in primary care settings. Care managers are specially trained health care professionals, often specialist nurses, who coordinate care for patients with chronic diseases. Design: Qualitative content analysis of five focus-group discussions. Setting: Primary health care centers in the Region of Vastra Gotaland and Dalarna County, Sweden. Subjects: 29 GPs. Main outcome measures: GPs' views and experiences of care managers for patients with depression. Results: GPs expressed a broad variety of views and experiences. Care managers could ensure care quality while freeing GPs from case management by providing support for patients and security and relief for GPs and by coordinating patient care. GPs could also express concern about role overlap; specifically, that GPs are already care managers, that too many caregivers disrupt patient contact, and that the roles of care managers and psychotherapists seem to compete. GPs thought care managers should be assigned to patients who need them the most (e.g. patients with life difficulties or severe mental health problems). They also found that transition to a chronic care model required change, including alterations in the way GPs worked and changes that made depression treatment more like treatment for other chronic diseases. Conclusion: GPs have varied experiences of care managers. As a complementary part of the primary health care team, care managers can be useful for patients with depression, but team members' roles must be clear. KEY POINTS A growing number of primary health care centers are introducing care managers for patients with depression, but knowledge about GPs' experiences of this kind of collaborative care is limited. GPs find that care managers provide support for patients and security and relief for GPs. GPs are concerned about potential role overlap and desire greater latitude in deciding which patients can be assigned a care manager. GPs think depression can be treated using a chronic care model that includes care managers but that adjusting to the new way of working will take time.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) play an increasingly important role in interdisciplinary care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). However, CPPs' scope of practice varies substantially across clinics and settings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe CPP practices and activities within an interdisciplinary, team-based primary care clinic dedicated to treat Veterans with histories of substance use disorders, experience of homelessness, high medical complexity, and other vulnerabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CPP activities using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data in 2019. RESULTS: CPPs provided care for 228 patients, including 766 in-clinic visits, 341 telephone visits, and 626 chart reviews, with an average of 2.5 hours spent per patient per year. Patients seen by CPPs frequently experience mental health conditions and SUDs, including depression (66%), post-traumatic stress disorder (52%), opioid use disorder (OUD) (45%), and alcohol use disorder (44%). CPPs managed buprenorphine medications for OUD or chronic pain in 76 patients (33%). Most CPP interventions (3330 total) were for SUDs (33%), mental health conditions (24%), and pain management (24%), with SUD interventions including medication initiation, dose changes, discontinuations and monitoring. As part of opioid risk mitigation efforts, CPPs queried the state's prescription drug monitoring program 769 times and ordered 59 naloxone kits and 661 lab panels for empaneled patients. CONCLUSION: CPPs managed a high volume of vulnerable patients and provided complex care within an interdisciplinary primary care team. Similar CPP roles could be implemented in other primary care settings to increase access to SUD treatment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) play an increasingly important role in interdisciplinary care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). However, CPPs' scope of practice varies substantially across clinics and settings. OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe CPP practices and activities within an interdisciplinary, team-based primary care clinic dedicated to treat Veterans with histories of substance use disorders, experience of homelessness, high medical complexity, and other vulnerabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CPP activities using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data in 2019. RESULTS: CPPs provided care for 228 patients, including 766 in-clinic visits, 341 telephone visits, and 626 chart reviews, with an average of 2.5 hours spent per patient per year. Patients seen by CPPs frequently experience mental health conditions and SUDs, including depression (66%), post-traumatic stress disorder (52%), opioid use disorder (OUD) (45%), and alcohol use disorder (44%). CPPs managed buprenorphine medications for OUD or chronic pain in 76 patients (33%). Most CPP interventions (3330 total) were for SUDs (33%), mental health conditions (24%), and pain management (24%), with SUD interventions including medication initiation, dose changes, discontinuations and monitoring. As part of opioid risk mitigation efforts, CPPs queried the state's prescription drug monitoring program 769 times and ordered 59 naloxone kits and 661 lab panels for empaneled patients. CONCLUSION: CPPs managed a high volume of vulnerable patients and provided complex care within an interdisciplinary primary care team. Similar CPP roles could be implemented in other primary care settings to increase access to SUD treatment.

BACKGROUND, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to understand potential barriers and facilitators in transitioning patients from specialty to primary care settings, to inform the implementation of an intervention to promote active consideration of psychiatrically stable patients for transition from the specialty mental health setting back to primary care. METHODS: Guided by Levac and colleagues' six-stage methodological framework for conducting scoping studies, we systematically searched electronic article databases for peer-reviewed literature from January 2000 to May 2016. We included identified articles that discuss findings related to potential barriers and facilitators in transitioning patients from specialty to primary care settings. We performed descriptive and thematic analyses of results to generate emergent codes and their categorizations. RESULTS: Our database search yielded 906 unique articles, 23 of which we included in our scoping review. All but one of the included studies were conducted in North America. Identified potential barriers and facilitators spanned eight emergent themes-(i) primary care accessibility, especially in terms of timely availability of appointments, (ii) clarity in respective roles of specialty care and primary care in managing a patient, (iii) timely exchange of information, (iv) transition process management, (v) perceived ability of primary care providers to manage specialty conditions, (vi) perceived ability of patients to self-manage, (vii) leadership support and (viii) support for implementing initiatives to promote transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this scoping review enable an increased understanding of current practices and considerations regarding care transitions from specialty to primary care settings. The importance of role clarification, shared clinical information systems, confidence in care competency, and adequate organizational support to promote appropriate transitions were themes most widely reported across the reviewed studies. Few studies specifically examined the transition from specialty mental health to primary care. Future studies should account for mental health-specific symptomatic patterns and recovery trajectories, such as prevalent chronicity and frequency of relapse, in planning and conducting transitions from specialty mental health back to primary care.

Provider groups taking on risk for the overall costs of care in accountable care organizations are developing care management programs to improve care and thereby control costs. Many such programs target “high-need, high-cost” patients: those with multiple or complex conditions, often combined with behavioral health problems or socioeconomic challenges. In this study we compared the operational approaches of 18 successful complex care management programs in order to offer guidance to providers, payers, and policymakers on best practices for complex care management. We found that effective programs customize their approach to their local contexts and caseloads; use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify patients; consider care coordination one of their key roles; focus on building trusting relationships with patients as well as their primary care providers; match team composition and interventions to patient needs; offer specialized training for team members; and use technology to bolster their efforts.