1 / 44

Gregory P. Beehler, Ph.D., M.A.,

Session #E5a Saturday, October 12, 2013. Anything Goes? Developing a New Measure of Fidelity for Behavioral Health Providers in Integrated Primary Care. Gregory P. Beehler, Ph.D., M.A., Clinical Research Psychologist, VA Center for Integrated Healthcare Jennifer S. Funderburk, Ph.D.,

decker
Télécharger la présentation

Gregory P. Beehler, Ph.D., M.A.,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session #E5a Saturday, October 12, 2013 Anything Goes? Developing a New Measure of Fidelity for Behavioral Health Providers in Integrated Primary Care Gregory P. Beehler, Ph.D., M.A., Clinical Research Psychologist, VA Center for Integrated Healthcare Jennifer S. Funderburk, Ph.D., Clinical Research Psychologist, VA Center for Integrated Healthcare Katherine M. Dollar, Ph.D., Technical Assistance Specialist, VA Office of Mental Health Operations Collaborative Family Healthcare Association 15th Annual Conference October 10-12, 2013 Broomfield, Colorado U.S.A.

  2. Faculty Disclosure We have not had any relevant financial relationships during the past 12 months.

  3. Objectives • Define fidelity of implementation as applied to behavioral health providers in Integrated Primary Care • Identify potential sources of low and high fidelity among behavioral health provider behaviors in primary care • Describe the psychometric properties and intended use of a new measure of fidelity for behavioral health provider behaviors in primary care • Describe VA behavioral health provider reactions to a field test of a new measure of fidelity

  4. Presentation Overview • Background: IPC and fidelity • Study 1: Developing a measure of protocol adherence • Study 2: Psychometric validation of the PPAQ • QI Project: The PPAQ Minikit • Implications and Future Directions

  5. Background • The role of Behavioral Health Providers (BHPs) in Integrated Primary Care (IPC) is complex • The competencies of BHPs are broad1,2 • BHPs may have limited background and training related to integrated care • BHPs face a number of practice barriers that can lead to variability in how IPC is enacted locally3 • Despite the growing popularity of IPC, the evidence base remains limited, but growing4-6 1. Pomerantz et al, 2009; 2. APA Workgroup, 2013; 3. Beehler & Wray, 2012; 4. Cigrang, et al., 2009; 5. Bryan, et al, 2009; 6. Ray-Sannerud, et al, 2012.

  6. Assessing Provider Behavior • How well is IPC being implemented by BHPs? How do we describe, measure, and monitor their behavior? • Fidelity is the most commonly reported measure of implementation outcomes1 • Fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended • Also referred to as treatment integrity or quality of implementation • It is a construct that appears in many evaluation frameworks, such as RE-AIM2 1. Proctor, et al., 2011 ; 2. Glasgow, et al., 1999

  7. Measuring Provider Fidelity • Fidelity can be assessed at several levels • molar(program-level) • molecular (provider-level, or protocol adherence) • Protocol adherence isthe degree to which a provider utilizes certain procedures and engages in specific tasks and activities1 • Are patients receiving the intervention’s active ingredients from the provider? • The “bottom line” of implementation fidelity2 1. Perepletchikova & Kazdin, 2005; 2. Carroll et al, 2007.

  8. Conceptual Model: Fidelity of Implementation Patient, Provider, Clinic, and System Barriers and Facilitators Protocol Adherence Patient Outcomes: Distress, Coping, Adherence, etc. Integrated Primary Care • Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth B, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science. 2007; 2: 40. Potential Moderators: .Comprehensiveness of policy .Strategies to facilitate implementation .Quality of Delivery .Participant Responsiveness Adherence: Details of content Coverage Frequency Duration Outcomes Intervention Evaluation of Implementation Fidelity Evaluation Component analysis to identify “essential” components

  9. Why Invest in Fidelity Assessment? • Develop IPC measures: • Currently, there are very few validated measures of provider behaviors • Advance IPC research: • Linking provider behaviors to patient outcomes • What formulation of IPC do we use? • Training and Implementation: • Can a protocol adherence measure assist BHPs in understanding what specific behaviors constitute high quality practices?

  10. Study 1:Developing a measure of protocol adherence

  11. Delphi Study Approach • Goal: Build consensus on critical BHP behaviors that should be included in a measure of protocol adherence • Design: Modified Delphi study • Structured, iterative process of collecting and summarizing opinions from content experts • Often used to address problems of clinical practice when there is incomplete knowledge • Improves content validity for instrument development Beehler, G. P., Funderburk, J. S., Possemato, K., & Vair, C. (2013). Developing a measure of provider adherence to improve the implementation of behavioral health services in primary care: A Delphi study. Implementation Science, 8, 19.

  12. Delphi Study Approach • A preliminary set of 56 items were developed by the research team over six months • Items represented critical provider behaviorsrelated to clinical services or collaboration • Items based on a qualitative review of empirical and theoretical works • Each item was classified by the team based on relevance for IPC: • Essential(consistent with the IPC model; required for good practice) • Prohibited(inconsistent with the IPC model; should be avoided) • Compatible (neither essential nor prohibited)

  13. Delphi Study Participants • Delphi panel sizes vary considerably • We aimed for complete participation from 20 experts • 33 IPC experts from VA, Department of Defense, and academic health centers were invited to participate • Purposefully sampled based on clinical, administrative, or research experience • 25 experts (76% response rate) participated in three rounds of emailed surveys

  14. Selected Participant Characteristics *n=24 due to missing data.

  15. Delphi Process Results • Participants provided qualitative feedback on all items and also suggested new items • Participants were asked to classify each item as essential, prohibited, or compatible • Items that reached ≥80% consensus were considered complete • 19 items met consensus in Round 1 • 26 additional items met consensus in Round 2 • 9 additional items met consensus in Round 3 • Final results at the end of Round 3: • 38 essential, 10 prohibited, and 6 compatible behaviors

  16. Delphi Process Example

  17. PPAQ Item Examples • The resulting 54-item instrument was named the Primary Care Behavioral Health Provider Adherence Questionnaire (PPAQ) • Item 11 (essential) My progress notes in the shared medical record include focused recommendations for the Primary Care Provider and/or primary care team • Item 44 (prohibited) I typically see patients for 10 or more appointments per episode of care • Item 31 (compatible) I conduct follow-up appointments via telephone when appropriate

  18. Summary • A modified Delphi study was used to reach consensus on 54 critical provider behaviors related to the delivery of IPC • 93% of original items developed by the research team were included in the final instrument representing several IPC domains: • Clinical scope and interventions • Practice and session management • Referral management and care continuity • Consultation, collaboration, and interprofessional communication • The expert panel ensured content validity, but reliability and construct validity required testing with frontline providers

  19. Study 2: Psychometric validation of the Primary Care Behavioral Health Provider Adherence Questionnaire (PPAQ)

  20. PPAQ Study Objectives Goal: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the PPAQ using a sample of behavioral health providers (BHPs) working in VA primary care settings Hypotheses: • BHPs working solely in the CCC (co-located, collaborative care) role would have higher fidelity compared to those working in either care management-only, or CCC and care management combined roles • BHPs working in CCC settings at VA Medical Centers would evidence higher fidelity scores than BHPs working in CCC settings at VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinics

  21. PPAQ Study Objectives Hypotheses (continued) • BHPs with a longer history of providing CCC services would have higher fidelity ratings due to mastery over CCC-specific roles compared to those BHPs with a shorter history of CCC work • BHPs who self-reported higher levels of knowledge/skills related to CCC would show higher levels of fidelity • BHPs who self-reported greater access to material and resources to deliver CCC would show greater fidelity • BHPs who endorse a CBT orientation over other forms of psychotherapy would demonstrate higher fidelity • Look at PPAQ scores with scores from the Level of Integration Measure (LIM) (a self-report measure)

  22. PPAQ Study Design • Email invitation to online survey consisting of consent information, background information, and questionnaires • BHP Background Questionnaire • Relevant professional background characteristics • Knowledge and access to resources consistent with CCC • PPAQ • 54-item, 5-point Likert-like scale of BHP protocol adherence to the CCC model • 3 subscales: PPAQ-E (38 essential items), PPAQ-C (6 compatible items), PPAQ-P (10 prohibited items) • LIM • 35-item, 5-point Likert-like scale reflecting level of behavioral and physical health integration in primary care • 6 subscales addressing aspects of integration Beehler, G. P., Funderburk, J. S., Possemato, K., & Dollar, K.M. (2013). Psychometric assessment of the Primary Care Behavioral Health Provider Adherence Questionnaire (PPAQ). Translational Behavioral Medicine, 1, 13.

  23. PPAQ Study Participants • Potential participants identified by previous participation in PC-MHI-related research or who attended PC-MHI educational trainings from 2009-2011 • 580 BHPs who provided clinical services in primary care for at least 25 % of their duties, had an active VA email account, and with sufficient time to complete a brief (i.e., <20 min) online survey were invited to participate • 173 BHPs provided complete responses to the survey, yielding a 30 % response rate (on par with other electronic survey studies)

  24. Selected Participant Characteristics *n=173

  25. Participant Characteristics continued • Majority of BHPs endorsed a CBT orientation (60%) • Among those endorsing a CCC role: • 26% felt they lacked resources to provide CCC • 94% agreed that they had the knowledge and skills to provide CCC • Encouraging, but due to limited variability, this variable was not included in subsequent analyses

  26. PPAQ Results • Reliability • PPAQ-E (alpha=0.92) and PPAQ-P (alpha=0.70) had strong internal consistency • Known-groups validity • Among BHPs in CCC-only or combined roles, those who had sufficient resources to enact CCC had higher PPAQ-E scores • Greater adherence to CCC essential behaviors was associated with CBT orientation and greater perceived resources for CCC • Convergent and discriminant validity • Highly significant low to moderate correlations of PPAQ-E and LIM total score (r=0.52, p<0.001)and subscales (ranging from 0.35 to 0.49, p<0.001) suggest good convergent validity • Non-significant correlations between PPAQ-P and LIM total score and subscales suggest good discriminant validity • Lack of correlation between PPAQ-E and PPAQ-P (r=0.10, p=.197) suggest good discriminant validity

  27. Limitations • Relied on self-report for the nature of the professional role (CCC, care manager, or both) • Based sampling on previous participation in CCC-related trainings or research, thus the participants may report increased knowledge or familiarity with CCC practice • May also have social desirability bias • Validation in non-VA samples is needed • Methodology did not allow investigation of multiple forms of construct validity • No well-accepted “gold standard” measures of CCC adherence with which to compare

  28. Summary • The PPAQ has emerged as the first reliable self-report instrument of BHP fidelity that has demonstrated strong evidence of criterion validity • Implications: beneficial for provider training (self-assessment), program monitoring, and clinical research • PPAQ has the potential to identify service delivery gaps, but still important to maintain a stance in which fidelity assessment is used to support BHPs’ efforts to improve their capacity to deliver evidence-based, patient-centered care

  29. Quality Improvement Project: The PPAQ Minikit

  30. From Measure to Minikit • The PPAQ is a psychometrically-sound self-report measure that allows BHPs to assess their usual clinical practices in terms of protocol adherence • But what would make the PPAQ more useable for frontline providers? • Goal: Develop a fidelity-focused toolkit for CCC providers based on the PPAQ • Aim 1: Prepare the PPAQ Minikit components • Aim 2: Pilot the PPAQ Minikit with CCC providers to evaluate acceptability and utility of the PPAQ Minikit as a diagnostic assessment that directs future implementation support Beehler, G. P., & Dollar, K.M. (2013). Employing an Evidence-Based Fidelity Tool to Identify Implementation Support Needs and Preferences among Co-located, Collaborative Care Providers. MH QUERI QLP 55-020.

  31. Aim 1: Develop PPAQ Minikit Components • Work completed: • Audio-enabled presentation providing background on the PPAQ and instructions for using the Minikit • PPAQ self-report form • Scoring template and interpretation guide

  32. PPAQ Self-Report Form and Scoring Template and Interpretation Guide

  33. PPAQ Interpretation Guide

  34. Interpreting the PPAQ by Item

  35. Addressing Practice Domains

  36. Moving Forward: A Process for Change • 1. Prioritize areas for change • Identify areas for improvement based on PPAQ item analysis • Rank order areas by feasibility • Start small: Select one or two behaviors to address Complete Scoring Template and Interpretation Guide • 2. Partner with advocates and peers • Reach out to PC-MHI Champion, colleague, or supervisor • Join local/regional peer support networks • Request consultation from CIH or PC-MHI PO Initial PPAQ self-administration Re-administer PPAQ • 3. Access educational and clinical resources • Review PC-MHI PO resources • Review CIH practice tools and educational supports • Consider PC-MHI relevant handbooks and journals • 4. QualityImprovement • Specify attainable practice change goals • Conduct P-D-S-A cycles to reach individual goals • Use a team-based approach for larger clinical goals

  37. Aim 2: Piloting • Methods • Convenience sample of 10 VA BHPs • Pilot the PPAQ Minikit components available via SharePoint • Complete a telephone interview to identify key strengths and weaknesses related to acceptability, quality, and likelihood of practice change • Calculate estimates of acceptability • Identify themes related to knowledge and practice change

  38. Preliminary Results • Strengths: • Overall usability and acceptability of the Minikit as a diagnostic self-assessment was rated highly • Minikit item content was perceived as very reflective of the IPC model • The tone of the Minikit was described as non-punitive and balanced because it identified areas of strength as well as weaknesses • Participants noted that the Minikit would be highly useful for BHPs new to the IPC/CCC role to clarify “do’s and don’ts” • Mature BHPs also found it to be a helpful reminder to avoid drift

  39. Preliminary Results • Weaknesses: • Limited familiarity with Excel was a barrier to usability of Scoring Template and Interpretation Guide • Current form of the Minikit may be seen as a one-time assessment rather than a tool to direct on-going learning • Improving adherence remains challenging in some contexts due to clinic and system barriers (e.g., limited time for QI projects or self-study or unwillingness of primary care providers to fully collaborate)

  40. Summary and Implications • The PPAQ is the first reliable, validated measure of BHP protocol adherence • The PPAQ can be used in future effectiveness research to link provider behaviors to patient outcomes • The PPAQ may be used alone or with other program development activities (e.g., facilitation and coaching) to monitor provider behavior • The PPAQ Minikit has shown early good potential to be a provider-focused, self-assessment and quality improvement package

  41. Audience Q&A:Disrupting Your Status Quo? • Is your status quo “anything goes”? How do you rate on these PPAQ sample items using the following scale? 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, and 5=Always 1. During clinical encounters with patients, I see patients for 30 minutes or less. 26. I provide education to the primary care team on behavioral health issues (e.g., presentations and handouts). 28. I provide family or couples therapy for 10 or more appointments per episode of care.

  42. Q&A How do you rate on these PPAQ sample items using the following scale? 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, and 5=Always 32. During a patient appointment, I provide full length empirically supported treatments, such as Prolonged Exposure or Dialectical Behavior Therapy. 43. I meet with a patient for greater than 50 minutes to gather a full psycho-social history and comprehensive psychiatric interview. 48. I participate in primary care based clinical pathways for common health conditions, such as chronic pain or comorbid depression and cardiovascular disease.

  43. Acknowledgments • PPAQ Team • Kyle Possemato, Ph.D. • Christina Vair, Ph.D. • Margaret Dundon, Ph.D. • Support • VA Center for Integrated Healthcare Pilot Grant Program • VA Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QLP 55-020)

  44. Session Evaluation Please complete and return theevaluation form to the classroom monitor before leaving this session. Thank you!

More Related