Although 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. To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare’s CoCM codes. Fifteen 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. A 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. Successful 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. With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.

/pdf/early-health-system-experiences-with-collaborative-care-cocm-379heou52s.pdf

Early Health System Experiences with Collaborative Care (CoCM) Billing Codes: a Qualitative Study of Leadership and Support Staff

Background: Depression is common in the primary care setting and tobacco use is more prevalent among individuals with depression. Recent research has linked smoking to poorer outcomes of depression treatment. We hypothesized that in adult primary care patients with the diagnosis of depression, current smoking would have a negative impact on clinical outcomes, regardless of treatment type (usual primary care [UC] vs collaborative care management [CCM]). Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 5155 adult primary care patients with depression in a primary care practice in southeast Minnesota was completed. Variables obtained included age, gender, marital status, race, smoking status, initial Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and 6-month PHQ-9. Clinical remission (CR) was defined as 6-month PHQ-9 <5. Persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) were defined as PHQ-9 ≥10 at 6 months. Treatment in both CCM and UC were compared. Results: Using intention to treat analysis, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 4.60 times as likely (95% CI 3.24-6.52, P < .001) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.25, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. After a 6-month follow-up, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 1.75 times as likely (95% CI 1.18-2.59, P = .006) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS (AOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. Conclusions: CCM significantly improved depression outcomes for smokers at 6 months compared with UC. However, in the UC group, smoking outcomes were not statistically different at 6 months for either remission or PDS. Also, nonsmokers in CCM had the best clinical outcomes at 6 months in both achieving clinical remission and reduction of PDS when compared with smokers in UC as the reference group.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2150132719861265

Depression Outcomes in Smokers and Nonsmokers: Comparison of Collaborative Care Management Versus Usual Care.

Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with 'Complex Emotional Needs' (CEN-our preferred working term for services for people with a "personality disorder" diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN.We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020.We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people's lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services.Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group. 

/pdf/current-state-of-the-evidence-on-community-treatments-for-v3wlght5.pdf

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review

Update the evidence regarding how co-occurring personality disorders influence treatment outcomes for major depressive disorder and update the evidence regarding treatment options for personality disorders that are co-occurring with major depressive disorder. There is evidence that personality disorders can be effectively treated through a variety of psychotherapeutic modalities. Given the substantial evidence that co-occurring personality disorders impede the recovery from major depressive disorder, comprehensively addressing any co-occurring personality disorders is an essential part of an effective treatment plan for patients with major depressive disorder. Personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder, which is commonly co-occurring with major depressive disorder, have several validated treatment options. Since publication of past reviews on the topic, there have been multiple additional studies published to advance the discussion of the impact of personality disorders on treatment outcomes in major depression. There is now substantial evidence that personality disorders can negatively affect treatment outcomes in the setting of major depression, which is consistent with the clinical observation that co-occurring personality disorders need to be comprehensively addressed to achieve optimal outcomes for the individual. There also now exists substantial evidence that personality disorders can be effectively treated using several validated psychotherapeutic modalities. It is recommended that a comprehensive assessment, including assessment for co-occurring personality disorders, is implemented in all cases of major depressive disorder that have not been successfully treated. In those cases where a co-occurring personality disorder is identified, specific treatment for the personality disorder should be recommended.

Prognostic Significance of Personality Disorders in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder


The prevalence of dementia is increasing annually and there is an ongoing, increasing, and evolving demand for enhanced care for dementia patients in Canada. 
CADTH facilitated a 5-member clinician panel to garner the perspectives of individuals who are currently providing care to Canadian patients with dementia and/or participating in dementia-related health research. 
The panel highlighted several themes pertaining to the current portrait of dementia care in Canada and health system readiness for future burdens of disease, including: 
 
improved patient diagnosis 
development of standardized and collaborative health care 
increasing patient access to specialist and treatment resources 
preparing for new and effective therapies. 
 
 


Understanding the Portrait of Dementia Care in Canada: A CADTH Panel of Experts

Background: The use of a collaborative care management (CCM) model can dramatically improve short- and long-term treatment outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients with ...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2150132718773266

Kelsey R. Nylander

Papers

Collaborative Care Management Associated With Improved Depression Outcomes in Patients With Personality Disorders, Compared to Usual Primary Care.