Showing papers by "Roger G. Kathol published in 2022"

Specialty Psychiatric Services in US Emergency Departments and General Hospitals: Results From a Nationwide Survey.

Abstract: To explore the handling of psychiatric patients in medical hospitals and emergency departments (EDs) as well as hospital characteristics associated with the availability of psychiatric services in these settings.From October 1, 2017, to April 1, 2018, a telephone survey regarding the presence and nature of psychiatric services was attempted among all US registered Medicare hospitals.Of the included 4812 US hospitals, 2394 (50%) were surveyed. Of these hospitals, 1108 (46%) have some psychiatric services available, either in medical EDs or through psychiatric consultation on general medical inpatient wards. If medical ED patients with active psychiatric issues need admission, 59% of hospitals transfer the patient to a different hospital and 28% admit the patient to a medical ward. Exploration by logistic regression analysis of the association of selected variables and available psychiatric expertise suggested that larger hospitals, nonprofit services, or hospitals in urban settings were more likely to have psychiatrists on staff or available for consultation.Despite the growing number of psychiatric patients seeking help in medical EDs and general hospitals, more than 50% of the EDs and general hospitals lack psychiatric services. These results suggest that accessibility to psychiatric care in medical settings requires improvement.

Value-Based Integrated Case Management at Payor Level: Implementation and Impact.

Abstract: PURPOSE OF STUDY Case management is an ideal service for patients with health complexity. However, most case management models do not integrate medical and behavioral health training and interventions, and there are little data evaluating these models in privately insured populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate impact of an integrated case management (ICM) service at the payor level. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING Health care insurance company. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE A multimethod observational study was conducted at a health care insurance company in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. We conducted focus groups of case managers, leaders, and administrators and statistical analyses of outcomes data. Measures included care quality data (discharge follow-up appointment, cost per case, depression and anxiety measures, customer experience and satisfaction, and audit scores) of members receiving ICM services and employee focus group data (acceptability, adoption, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, and sustainability) related to the practice of ICM. RESULTS Care quality data suggest ICM reduces mental health symptoms and increases discharge follow-up appointments for members. Implementation challenges include new employee orientation to ICM model, traditional views of case management, performance evaluation, documentation, and information technology. Facilitators of implementation include training, autonomy, and leadership support. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE Organizations should be aware both of the benefits and challenges related to implementing ICM. Open communication between case managers and leadership and an improvement-focused culture appear to be important elements of implementation success. Future research should examine the perspective of members receiving ICM services and the implementation of ICM into health care delivery systems.

Value-Based Integrated Case Management at Payor Level

Abstract: Purpose of Study: Case management is an ideal service for patients with health complexity. However, most case management models do not integrate medical and behavioral health training and interventions, and there are little data evaluating these models in privately insured populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate impact of an integrated case management (ICM) service at the payor level. Primary Practice Setting: Health care insurance company. Methodology and Sample: A multimethod observational study was conducted at a health care insurance company in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. We conducted focus groups of case managers, leaders, and administrators and statistical analyses of outcomes data. Measures included care quality data (discharge follow-up appointment, cost per case, depression and anxiety measures, customer experience and satisfaction, and audit scores) of members receiving ICM services and employee focus group data (acceptability, adoption, feasibility, appropriateness, fidelity, and sustainability) related to the practice of ICM. Results: Care quality data suggest ICM reduces mental health symptoms and increases discharge follow-up appointments for members. Implementation challenges include new employee orientation to ICM model, traditional views of case management, performance evaluation, documentation, and information technology. Facilitators of implementation include training, autonomy, and leadership support. Implications for Case Management Practice: Organizations should be aware both of the benefits and challenges related to implementing ICM. Open communication between case managers and leadership and an improvement-focused culture appear to be important elements of implementation success. Future research should examine the perspective of members receiving ICM services and the implementation of ICM into health care delivery systems.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Abstract: Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.