Cohen Deborah J, Balasubramanian Bijal A, Davis Melinda, Hall Jennifer, Gunn Rose, Stange Kurt C, Green Larry A, Miller William L, Crabtree Benjamin F, England Mary Jane, Clark Khaya, Miller Benjamin F
From the Departments of Family Medicine and of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (DJC); Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston School of Public Health (BAB); Harold Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (BAB); Oregon, Rural Practice-Based Research Network (MD); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MD, JH, RG, KC); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology and the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (LAG, BFM); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA (WLM); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers-Robert Wood, Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ (BFC); Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public, Health, Boston, MA (MJE)
From the Departments of Family Medicine and of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (DJC); Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston School of Public Health (BAB); Harold Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (BAB); Oregon, Rural Practice-Based Research Network (MD); Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MD, JH, RG, KC); Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Sociology and the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, and Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (KCS); Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (LAG, BFM); Department of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, PA (WLM); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Rutgers-Robert Wood, Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ (BFC); Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public, Health, Boston, MA (MJE).
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 Sep-Oct;28 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S7-20. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150050.
To provide empirical evidence on key organizing constructs shaping practical, real-world integration of behavior health and primary care to comprehensively address patients' medical, emotional, and behavioral health needs.
In a comparative case study using an immersion-crystallization approach, a multidisciplinary team analyzed data from observations of practice operations, interviews, and surveys of practice members, and implementation diaries. Practices were drawn from 2 studies of practices attempting to integrate behavioral health and primary care: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado, and the Integration Workforce Study, a study of 8 practices across the United States.
We identified 5 key organizing constructs influencing integration of primary care and behavioral health: 1) Integration REACH (the extent to which the integration program was delivered to the identified target population), 2) establishment of continuum of care pathways addressing the location of care across the range of patient's severity of illness, 3) approach to patient transitions: referrals or warm handoffs, 4) location of the integration workforce, and 5) participants' mental model for integration. These constructs intertwine within an organization's historic and social context to produce locally adapted approaches to integrating care. Contextual factors, particularly practice type, influenced whether specialty mental health and substance use services were colocated within an organization.
Interaction among 5 organizing constructs and practice context produces diverse expressions of integrated care. These constructs provide a framework for understanding how primary care and behavioral health services can be integrated in routine practice.
提供实证依据,以阐明关键的组织架构如何塑造行为健康与初级保健在实际现实世界中的整合,从而全面满足患者的医疗、情感和行为健康需求。
在一项采用沉浸式结晶法的比较案例研究中,一个多学科团队分析了来自实践操作观察、访谈、实践成员调查以及实施日志的数据。这些实践案例来自两项试图整合行为健康与初级保健的研究:“共同推进医疗”,这是一个位于科罗拉多州的11个实践点的示范项目;以及“整合劳动力研究”,这是一项对美国各地8个实践点的研究。
我们确定了影响初级保健与行为健康整合的5个关键组织架构:1)整合覆盖范围(整合项目覆盖已确定目标人群的程度);2)建立连续护理路径,该路径要考虑到患者疾病严重程度范围内护理的地点;3)患者转诊方式:转诊或热情交接;4)整合工作人员的工作地点;5)参与者对整合的心智模式。这些架构在一个组织的历史和社会背景中相互交织,从而产生适用于当地的护理整合方法。背景因素,尤其是实践类型,影响了专业心理健康和物质使用服务是否在一个组织内同地设置。
5个组织架构与实践背景之间的相互作用产生了整合护理的多种表现形式。这些架构为理解初级保健和行为健康服务如何在常规实践中整合提供了一个框架。