Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of Collaborative Care on rural Native American and Alaska Native (AI/AN) patients. Methods Collaborative Care was implemented in three AI/AN serving clinics. Clinic staff participated in training and coaching designed to facilitate practice change. We followed clinics for 2 years to observe improvements in depression treatment and to examine treatment outcomes for enrolled patients. Collaborative Care elements included universal screening for depression, evidence-based treatment to target, use of behavioral health care managers to deliver the intervention, use of psychiatric consultants to provide caseload consultation, and quality improvement tracking to improve and maintain outcomes. We used t-tests to evaluate the main effects of Collaborative Care and used multiple linear regression to better understand the predictors of success. We also collected qualitative data from members of the Collaborative Care clinical team about their experience. Results The clinics participated in training and practice coaching to implement Collaborative Care for depressed patients. Depression response (50% or greater reduction in depression symptoms as measured by the PHQ-9) and remission (PHQ-9 score less than 5) rates were equivalent in AI/AN patients as compared with White patients in the same clinics. Significant predictors of positive treatment outcome include only one depression treatment episodes during the study and more follow-up visits per patient. Clinicians were overall positive about their experience and the effect on patient care in their clinic. Conclusions This project showed that it is possible to deliver Collaborative Care to AI/AN patients via primary care settings in rural areas.

BackgroundAlthough collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability.ObjectiveTo investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare’s CoCM codes.Design and ParticipantsFifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff.ApproachA semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team.Key ResultsSuccessful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes.ConclusionsWith deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.

Opinion statement Purpose of review Collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based model for the treatment of common mental health conditions in the primary care setting. Its workflow encourages systematic communication among clinicians outside of face-to-face patient encounters, which has posed financial challenges in traditional fee-for-service reimbursement environments. Recent findings Organizations have employed various financing strategies to promote CoCM sustainability, including external grants, alternate payment model contracts with specific payers, and the use of billing codes for individual components of CoCM. In recent years, Medicare approved fee-for-service, time-based billing codes for CoCM that allow for the reimbursement of patient care performed outside of face-to-face encounters. A growing number of Medicaid and commercial payers have followed suit, either recognizing the fee-for-service codes or contracting to reimburse in alternate payment models. Summary Although significant challenges remain, novel methods for payment and cooperative efforts among insurers have helped move CoCM closer to financial sustainability.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine population-based screening for drug use, yet screening for opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care occurs rarely, and little is known about barriers primary care teams face. As part of a multisite randomized trial to provide OUD and behavioral health treatment using the Collaborative Care Model, we supported 10 primary care clinics in implementing routine OUD screening and conducted formative evaluation to characterize early implementation experiences. Qualitative formative evaluation. Formative evaluation included taking detailed observation notes at implementation meetings with individual clinics and debriefings with external facilitators. Observation notes were analyzed weekly using a Rapid Assessment Process guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with iterative feedback from the study team. After clinics launched OUD screening, we conducted structured fidelity assessments via group interviews with each site to evaluate clinic experiences with routine OUD screening. Data from observation and structured fidelity assessments were combined into a matrix to compare across clinics and identify cross-cutting barriers and promising implementation strategies. While all clinics had the goal of implementing population-based OUD screening, barriers were experienced across intervention, individual, and clinic setting domains, with compounding effects for telehealth visits. Seven themes emerged characterizing barriers, including (1) challenges identifying who to screen, (2) complexity of the screening tool, (3) staff discomfort and/or hesitancies, (4) workflow barriers that decreased screening follow-up, (5) staffing shortages and turnover, (6) discouragement from low screening yield, and (7) stigma. Promising implementation strategies included utilizing a more universal screening approach, health information technology (HIT), audit and feedback, and repeated staff trainings. Integrating population-based OUD screening in primary care is challenging but may be made feasible via implementation strategies and tailored practice facilitation that standardize workflows via HIT, decrease stigma, and increase staff confidence regarding OUD.

We systematically assessed the presence and distribution of state-level policies, specifically statutes and regulations that were in effect as of July 1, 2022, related to training any occupational groups in suicide prevention. Utilizing legal epidemiology methods, we conducted a cross-sectional assessment of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We identified 824 policies in our initial search and retained 477 in our final policy database. Policies were distributed across 5 occupational settings: educational (n = 142), behavioral health (n = 130), carceral (n = 111), primary and specialty care (n = 60), and other (n = 58). Fourteen policies pertained to multiple settings. On average, each state had 9.4 policies and covered 3 occupational settings. All states had at least 1 policy (minimum: 1; maximum: 42). Training occupational groups in suicide prevention is a widespread strategy, but significant variation exists across states, occupational settings, and specific occupational groups. Further research is necessary to determine whether this is an effective suicide prevention strategy at the population level. ( Am J Public Health. 2025;115(10):1742–1752. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2025.308193 )

Opioid use disorder (OUD) care engagement rates in primary care (PC) settings are often low. Little is known about PC team experiences when delivering OUD treatment and potential factors that influence their capacity to engage patients in treatment. Exploring PC team experiences may inform needed supports that can optimize OUD care delivery and improve outcomes for patients with OUD. We explored multidisciplinary PC team perspectives on barriers and facilitators to engaging patients in OUD treatment. Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. Primary care clinical teams. We conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 35) with PC team members involved in OUD care delivery, recruited using a combination of criterion and maximal variation sampling. Data collection and analysis were informed by existing theoretical literature about patient engagement, specifically that patient engagement is influenced by factors across individual (patient, provider), interpersonal (patient-provider), and health system domains. Interviews were professionally transcribed and doubled-coded using a coding schema based on the interview guide while allowing for emergent codes. Coding was iteratively reviewed using a constant comparison approach to identify themes and verified with participants and the full study team. Analysis identified five themes that impact PC team ability to engage patients effectively, including limited patient contact (e.g., phone, text) in between visits, varying levels of provider confidence to navigate OUD treatment discussions, structural factors (e.g., schedules, productivity goals) that limited provider time, the role of team-based approaches in lessening discouragement and feelings of burnout, and lack of shared organizational vision for reducing harms from OUD. While the capacity of PC teams to engage patients in OUD care is influenced across multiple levels, some of the most promising opportunities may involve addressing system-level factors that limit PC team time and collaboration and promoting organizational alignment on goals for OUD treatment.

Effective treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is available, but patient engagement is central to achieving care outcomes. We conducted a scoping review to describe patient and provider-reported strategies that may contribute to patient engagement in outpatient OUD care delivery. We searched PubMed and Scopus for articles reporting patient and/or provider experiences with outpatient OUD care delivery. Analysis included: (1) describing specific engagement strategies, (2) mapping strategies to patient-centered care domains, and (3) identifying themes that characterize the relationship between engagement and patient-centered care. Of 3,222 articles screened, 30 articles met inclusion criteria. Analysis identified 14 actionable strategies that facilitate patient engagement and map to all patient-centered care domains. Seven themes emerged that characterize interpersonal approaches to OUD care engagement. Interpersonal interactions between patients and providers play a pivotal role in encouraging engagement throughout OUD treatment. Future research is needed to further evaluate promising engagement strategies.

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (eg, buprenorphine and naltrexone) can be offered in primary care, but barriers to implementation exist. To evaluate an implementation intervention over 2 years to explore experiences and perspectives of multidisciplinary primary care (PC) teams initiating or expanding MOUD. This survey-based and ethnographic qualitative study was conducted at 12 geographically and structurally diverse primary care clinics that enrolled in a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study from July 2020 to July 2022 and included PC teams (prescribing clinicians, nonprescribing behavioral health care managers, and consulting psychiatrists). Survey data analysis was conducted from February to April 2022. Implementation intervention (external practice facilitation) to integrate OUD treatment alongside existing collaborative care for mental health services. Data included (1) quantitative surveys of primary care teams that were analyzed descriptively and triangulated with qualitative results and (2) qualitative field notes from ethnographic observation of clinic implementation meetings analyzed using rapid assessment methods. Sixty-two primary care team members completed the survey (41 female individuals [66%]; 1 [2%] American Indian or Alaskan Native, 4 [7%] Asian, 5 [8%] Black or African American, 5 [8%] Hispanic or Latino, 1 [2%] Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 46 [4%] White individuals), of whom 37 (60%) were between age 25 and 44 years. An analysis of implementation meetings (n = 362) and survey data identified 4 themes describing multilevel factors associated with PC team provision of MOUD during implementation, with variation in their experience across clinics. Themes characterized challenges with clinical administrative logistics that limited the capacity to provide rapid access to care and patient engagement as well as clinician confidence to discuss aspects of MOUD care with patients. These challenges were associated with conflicting attitudes among PC teams toward expanding MOUD care. The results of this survey and qualitative study of PC team perspectives suggest that PC teams need flexibility in appointment scheduling and the capacity to effectively engage patients with OUD as well as ongoing training to maintain clinician confidence in the face of evolving opioid-related clinical issues. Future work should address structural challenges associated with workload burden and limited schedule flexibility that hinder MOUD expansion in PC settings.

An integrated, collaborative model for more comprehensive patient care Creating Effective Mental and Primary Health Care Teams provides the practical information, skills, and clinical approaches needed to implement an integrated collaborative care program and support the members of the care team as they learn this new, evidence-based, legislatively mandated care delivery system. Unique in presenting information specifically designed to be used in an integrated, collaborative care workflow, this book provides specific guidance for each member of the team. Care managers, consulting psychiatrists, primary care providers, and administrators alike can finally get on the same page in regard to patient care by referring to the same resource and employing a common framework. Written by recognized experts with broad research, clinical, implementation, and training experience, this book provides a complete solution to the problem of fragmented care. Escalating costs and federal legislation expanding access to healthcare are forcing the industry to transition to a new model of health care delivery. This book provides guidance on navigating the changes as a team to provide the best possible patient care. * Integrate physical and behavioral care * Use evidence-based treatments for both * Exploit leading-edge technology for patient management * Support each member of the collaborative care team Strong evidence has demonstrated the efficacy of a collaborative care approach for delivering mental health care to patients in a primary care setting. The field is rapidly growing, but few resources are available and working models are limited. This book provides a roadmap for transitioning from traditional methods of health care to the new integrated model. Providers ready to move to the next level of care will find Creating Effective Mental and Primary Health Care Teams an invaluable resource.

With significant unmet population health needs for mental health care and a continued shortage of psychiatric providers, future psychiatrists will increasingly need education in new care delivery approaches that address these problems, especially for individual patient care delivery such as tele-behavioral health and integrated care. Other innovative approaches to care delivery involve using the psychiatrist to support a team to deliver integrated mental health services in primary medical settings, such as the collaborative care model (CoCM) in which psychiatrists work with primary care providers and behavioral health care managers to deliver mental health care in a primary care setting. Learning objectives for practicing as a collaborative care psychiatrist may include describing the evidence-base for CoCM for common mental health disorders, listing the principles of CoCM, understanding the roles for each team member of a CoCM, developing skills in indirect assessment during case review with a behavioral health care manager, applying measurement-based treatment to target approach, and using a clinical registry as part of a psychiatric practice. Learning about CoCM can also introduce the concept of the quadruple aim [16] of health care system optimization since studies have demonstrated that this model improves patient satisfaction [17], improves patient outcomes [18–20], provides cost effective of care [21], and improves provider experience [22, 23].