Integrating Behavioral Health & Primary Care in New Hampshire: A Path Forward to Sustainable Practice & Payment Transformation

New Hampshire residents face challenges with behavioral and physical health conditions and the interplay between them. National studies show the costs and the burden of illness from behavioral health conditions and co-occurring chronic health conditions that are not adequately treated in either primary care or behavioral health settings. Bringing primary health and behavioral health care together in integrated care settings can improve outcomes for both behavioral and physical health conditions. Primary care integrated behavioral health works in conjunction with specialty behavioral health providers, expanding capacity, improving access, and jointly managing the care of patients with higher levels of acuity In its work to improve the health of NH residents and create effective and cost-effective systems of care, the NH Citizens Health Initiative (Initiative) created the NH Behavioral Health Integration Learning Collaborative (BHI Learning Collaborative) in November of 2015, as a project of its Accountable Care Learning Network (NHACLN). Bringing together more than 60 organizations, including providers of all types and sizes, all of the state’s community mental health centers, all of the major private and public insurers, and government and other stakeholders, the BHI Learning Collaborative built on earlier work of a NHACLN Workgroup focused on improving care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness. The BHI Learning Collaborative design is based on the core NHACLN philosophy of “shared data and shared learning” and the importance of transparency and open conversation across all stakeholder groups. The first year of the BHI Learning Collaborative programming included shared learning on evidence-based practice for integrated behavioral health in primary care, shared data from the NH Comprehensive Healthcare Information System (NHCHIS), and work to develop sustainable payment models to replace inadequate Fee-for-Service (FFS) revenues. Provider members joined either a Project Implementation Track working on quality improvement projects to improve their levels of integration or a Listen and Learn Track for those just learning about Behavioral Health Integration (BHI). Providers in the Project Implementation Track completed a self-assessment of levels of BHI in their practice settings and committed to submit EHR-based clinical process and outcomes data to track performance on specified measures. All providers received access to unblinded NHACLN Primary Care and Behavioral Health attributed claims data from the NHCHIS for provider organizations in the NH BHI Learning Collaborative. Following up on prior work focused on developing a sustainable model for integrating care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness in primary care settings, the BHI Learning Collaborative engaged consulting experts and participants in understanding challenges in Health Information Technology and Exchange (HIT/HIE), privacy and confidentiality, and workforce adequacy. The BHI Learning Collaborative identified a sustainable payment model for integrated care of depression in primary care. In the process of vetting the payment model, the BHI Learning Collaborative also identified and explored challenges in payment for Substance Use Disorder Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). New Hampshire’s residents will benefit from a health care system where primary care and behavioral health are integrated to support the care of the whole person. New Hampshire’s current opiate epidemic accentuates the need for better screening for behavioral health issues, prevention, and treatment referral integrated into primary care. New Hampshire providers and payers are poised to move towards greater integration of behavioral health and primary care and the Initiative looks forward to continuing to support progress in supporting a path to sustainable integrated behavioral and primary care

Design and introduction of a quality of life assessment and practice support system: perspectives from palliative care settings

Background: Quality of life (QOL) assessment instruments, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), are increasingly promoted as a means of enabling clinicians to enhance person-centered care. However, integration of these instruments into palliative care clinical practice has been inconsistent. This study focused on the design of an electronic Quality of Life and Practice Support System (QPSS) prototype and its initial use in palliative inpatient and home care settings. Our objectives were to ascertain desired features of a QPSS prototype and the experiences of clinicians, patients, and family caregivers in regard to the initial introduction of a QPSS in palliative care, interpreting them in context. Methods: We applied an integrated knowledge translation approach in two stages by engaging a total of 71 clinicians, 18 patients, and 17 family caregivers in palliative inpatient and home care settings. Data for Stage I were collected via 12 focus groups with clinicians to ascertain desirable features of a QPSS. Stage II involved 5 focus groups and 24 interviews with clinicians and 35 interviews with patients or family caregivers during initial implementation of a QPSS. The focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative methodology of interpretive description. Results: Desirable features focused on hardware (lightweight, durable, and easy to disinfect), software (simple, user-friendly interface, multi-linguistic, integration with e-health systems), and choice of assessment instruments that would facilitate a holistic assessment. Although patient and family caregiver participants were predominantly enthusiastic, clinicians expressed a mixture of enthusiasm, receptivity, and concern regarding the use of a QPSS. The analyses revealed important contextual considerations, including: (a) logistical, technical, and aesthetic considerations regarding the QPSS as a technology, (b) diversity in knowledge, skills, and attitudes of clinicians, patients, and family caregivers regarding the integration of electronic QOL assessments in care, and (c) the need to understand organizational context and priorities in using QOL assessment data. Conclusion: The process of designing and integrating a QPSS in palliative care for patients with life-limiting conditions and their family caregivers is complex and requires extensive consultation with clinicians, administrators, patients, and family caregivers to inform successful implementation

Supporting the clinical trial recruitment process through the grid

Patient recruitment for clinical trials and studies is a large-scale task. To test a given drug for example, it is desirable that as large a pool of suitable candidates is used as possible to support reliable assessment of often moderate effects of the drugs. To make such a recruitment campaign successful, it is necessary to efficiently target the petitioning of these potential subjects. Because of the necessarily large numbers involved in such campaigns, this is a problem that naturally lends itself to the paradigm of Grid technology. However the accumulation and linkage of data sets across clinical domain boundaries poses challenges due to the sensitivity of the data involved that are atypical of other Grid domains. This includes handling the privacy and integrity of data, and importantly the process by which data can be collected and used, and ensuring for example that patient involvement and consent is dealt with appropriately throughout the clinical trials process. This paper describes a Grid infrastructure developed as part of the MRC funded VOTES project (Virtual Organisations for Trials and Epidemiological Studies) at the National e-Science Centre in Glasgow that supports these processes and the different security requirements specific to this domain

Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: a mixed methods study

Objective A mixed methods study exploring the UK general public's willingness to donate human biosamples (HBSs) for biomedical research.<p></p> Setting Cross-sectional focus groups followed by an online survey.<p></p> Participants Twelve focus groups (81 participants) selectively sampled to reflect a range of demographic groups; 1110 survey responders recruited through a stratified sampling method with quotas set on sex, age, geographical location, socioeconomic group and ethnicity.<p></p> Main outcome measures (1) Identify participants’ willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research, (2) explore acceptability towards donating different types of HBSs in various settings and (3) explore preferences regarding use and access to HBSs.<p></p> Results 87% of survey participants thought donation of HBSs was important and 75% wanted to be asked to donate in general. Responders who self-reported having some or good knowledge of the medical research process were significantly more likely to want to donate (p<0.001). Reasons why focus group participants saw donation as important included: it was a good way of reciprocating for the medical treatment received; it was an important way of developing drugs and treatments; residual tissue would otherwise go to waste and they or their family members might benefit. The most controversial types of HBSs to donate included: brain post mortem (29% would donate), eyes post mortem (35%), embryos (44%), spare eggs (48%) and sperm (58%). Regarding the use of samples, there were concerns over animal research (34%), research conducted outside the UK (35%), and research conducted by pharmaceutical companies (56%), although education and discussion were found to alleviate such concerns.<p></p> Conclusions There is a high level of public support and willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research. Underlying concerns exist regarding the use of certain types of HBSs and conditions under which they are used. Improved education and more controlled forms of consent for sensitive samples may mitigate such concerns.<p></p&gt

Evaluation of patient perception towards dynamic health data sharing using blockchain based digital consent with the Dovetail digital consent application : a cross sectional exploratory study

Background New patient-centric integrated care models are enabled by the capability to exchange the patient’s data amongst stakeholders, who each specialise in different aspects of the patient’s care. This requires a robust, trusted and flexible mechanism for patients to offer consent to share their data. Furthermore, new IT technologies make it easier to give patients more control over their data, including the right to revoke consent. These characteristics challenge the traditional paper-based, single-organisation-led consent process. The Dovetail digital consent application uses a mobile application and blockchain based infrastructure to offer this capability, as part of a pilot allowing patients to have their data shared amongst digital tools, empowering patients to manage their condition within an integrated care setting. Objective To evaluate patient perceptions towards existing consent processes, and the Dovetail blockchain based digital consent application as a means to manage data sharing in the context of diabetes care. Method Patients with diabetes at a General Practitioner practice were recruited. Data were collected using focus groups and questionnaires. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts and descriptive statistics of the questionnaires was performed. Results There was a lack of understanding of existing consent processes in place, and many patients did not have any recollection of having previously given consent. The digital consent application received favourable feedback, with patients recognising the value of the capability offered by the application. Patients overwhelmingly favoured the digital consent application over existing practice. Conclusions Digital consent was received favourably, with patients recognising that it addresses the main limitations of the current process. Feedback on potential improvements was received. Future work includes confirmation of results in a broader demographic sample and across multiple conditions

Managing the Ethical Dimensions of Brain-Computer Interfaces in eHealth: An SDLC-based Approach

A growing range of brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies is being employed for purposes of therapy and human augmentation. While much thought has been given to the ethical implications of such technologies at the ‘macro’ level of social policy and ‘micro’ level of individual users, little attention has been given to the unique ethical issues that arise during the process of incorporating BCIs into eHealth ecosystems. In this text a conceptual framework is developed that enables the operators of eHealth ecosystems to manage the ethical components of such processes in a more comprehensive and systematic way than has previously been possible. The framework’s first axis defines five ethical dimensions that must be successfully addressed by eHealth ecosystems: 1) beneficence; 2) consent; 3) privacy; 4) equity; and 5) liability. The second axis describes five stages of the systems development life cycle (SDLC) process whereby new technology is incorporated into an eHealth ecosystem: 1) analysis and planning; 2) design, development, and acquisition; 3) integration and activation; 4) operation and maintenance; and 5) disposal. Known ethical issues relating to the deployment of BCIs are mapped onto this matrix in order to demonstrate how it can be employed by the managers of eHealth ecosystems as a tool for fulfilling ethical requirements established by regulatory standards or stakeholders’ expectations. Beyond its immediate application in the case of BCIs, we suggest that this framework may also be utilized beneficially when incorporating other innovative forms of information and communications technology (ICT) into eHealth ecosystems

Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public’s preferences

OBJECTIVE: A mixed-methods study exploring the UK general public's views towards consent for the use of biosamples for biomedical research.<p></p> SETTING: Cross-sectional population-based focus groups followed by an online survey.<p></p> PARTICIPANTS: 12 focus groups (81 participants) selectively sampled to reflect a range of demographic groups; 1110 survey responders recruited through a stratified sampling method with quotas set on sex, age, geographical location, socioeconomic group and ethnicity.<p></p> MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Views on the importance of consent when donating residual biosamples for medical research; (2) preferences for opt-in or opt-out consent approaches and (3) preferences for different consent models.<p></p> RESULTS: Participants believed obtaining consent for use of residual biosamples was important as it was 'morally correct' to ask, and enabled people to make an active choice and retain control over their biosamples. Survey responders preferred opt-in consent (55%); the strongest predictor was being from a low socioeconomic group (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.57, p=0.001) and having a religious affiliation (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.81, p=0.04). Focus group participants had a slight preference for opt-out consent because by using this approach more biosamples would be available and facilitate research. Concerning preferred models of consent for research use of biosamples, survey responders preferred specific consent with recontact for each study for which their biosamples are eligible. Focus group participants preferred generic consent as it provided 'flexibility for researchers' and reduced the likelihood that biosamples would be wasted. The strongest predictor for preferring specific consent was preferring opt-in consent (OR 4.58, 95% CI 3.30 to 6.35, p=0.015) followed by non-'White' ethnicity (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.14, p<0.001).<p></p> CONCLUSIONS: There is a preference among the UK public for ongoing choice and control over donated biosamples; however, increased knowledge and opportunity for discussion is associated with acceptance of less restrictive consent models for some people.<p></p&gt

Initial experiences in developing e-health solutions across Scotland

The MRC funded Virtual Organisations for Trials and Epidemiological Studies (VOTES) project is a collaborative effort between e-Science, clinical and ethical research centres across the UK including the universities of Oxford, Glasgow, Imperial, Nottingham and Leicester. The project started in September 2005 and is due to run for 3 years. The primary goal of VOTES is to develop a reusable Grid framework through which a multitude of clinical trials and epidemiological studies can be supported. The National e-Science Centre (NeSC) at the University of Glasgow are looking at developing the Scottish components of this framework. This paper presents the initial experiences in developing this framework and in accessing and using existing data sets, services and software across the NHS in Scotland

Integration of substance use disorder services with primary care: health center surveys and qualitative interviews.

BackgroundEach year, nearly 20 million Americans with alcohol or illicit drug dependence do not receive treatment. The Affordable Care Act and parity laws are expected to result in increased access to treatment through integration of substance use disorder (SUD) services with primary care. However, relatively little research exists on the integration of SUD services into primary care settings. Our goal was to assess SUD service integration in California primary care settings and to identify the practice and policy facilitators and barriers encountered by providers who have attempted to integrate these services.MethodsPrimary survey and qualitative interview data were collected from the population of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in five California counties known to be engaged in SUD integration efforts was surveyed. From among the organizations that responded to the survey (78% response rate), four were purposively sampled based on their level of integration. Interviews were conducted with management, staff, and patients (n=18) from these organizations to collect further qualitative information on the barriers and facilitators of integration.ResultsCompared to mental health services, there was a trend for SUD services to be less integrated with primary care, and SUD services were rated significantly less effective. The perceived difference in effectiveness appeared to be due to provider training. Policy suggestions included expanding the SUD workforce that can bill Medicaid, allowing same-day billing of two services, facilitating easier reimbursement for medications, developing the workforce, and increasing community SUD specialty care capacity.ConclusionsEfforts to integrate SUD services with primary care face significant barriers, many of which arise at the policy level and are addressable