Mancini Anthony D, Moser Lorna L, Whitley Rob, McHugo Gregory J, Bond Gary R, Finnerty Molly T, Burns Barbara J
Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 W. 120th St., Box 102, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2009 Feb;60(2):189-95. doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.2.189.
This study identified barriers and facilitators to the high-fidelity implementation of assertive community treatment.
As part of a multistate implementation project for evidence-based practices, training and consultation were provided to 13 newly implemented assertive community treatment teams in two states. Model fidelity was assessed at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months. Key informant interviews, surveys, and monthly on-site visits were used to monitor implementation processes related to barriers and facilitators.
Licensing processes of the state mental health authority provided critical structural supports for implementation. These supports included a dedicated Medicaid billing structure, start-up funds, ongoing fidelity monitoring, training in the model, and technical assistance. Higher-fidelity sites had effective administrative and program leadership, low staff turnover, sound personnel practices, and skilled staff, and they allocated sufficient resources in terms of staffing, office space, and cars. Lower-fidelity sites were associated with insufficient resources, prioritization of fiscal concerns in implementation, lack of change culture, poor morale, conflict among staff, and high staff turnover. In cross-state comparisons, the specific nature of fiscal policies, licensing processes, and technical assistance appeared to influence implementation.
State mental health authorities can play a critical role in assertive community treatment implementation but should carefully design billing mechanisms, promote technical assistance centers, link program requirements to fidelity models, and limit bureaucratic requirements. Successful implementation at the organizational level requires committed leadership, allocation of sufficient resources, and careful hiring procedures.
本研究确定了积极社区治疗高保真实施的障碍和促进因素。
作为一项多州循证实践实施项目的一部分,为两个州的13个新实施的积极社区治疗团队提供了培训和咨询。在基线以及6个月、12个月、18个月和24个月时评估模式保真度。通过关键 informant 访谈、调查和每月现场访问来监测与障碍和促进因素相关的实施过程。
州精神卫生当局的许可程序为实施提供了关键的结构支持。这些支持包括专门的医疗补助计费结构、启动资金、持续的保真度监测、模式培训和技术援助。高保真度的场所拥有有效的行政和项目领导、低员工流动率、良好的人事实践和熟练的员工,并且在人员配备、办公空间和车辆方面分配了足够的资源。低保真度的场所与资源不足、实施过程中对财政问题的优先考虑、缺乏变革文化、士气低落、员工之间的冲突以及高员工流动率相关。在跨州比较中,财政政策、许可程序和技术援助的具体性质似乎会影响实施。
州精神卫生当局在积极社区治疗的实施中可以发挥关键作用,但应精心设计计费机制、推广技术援助中心、将项目要求与保真度模式联系起来并限制官僚主义要求。在组织层面的成功实施需要坚定的领导、充足资源的分配和谨慎的招聘程序。