The Implementation of Measurement-Based Care in the Context of Telemedicine: Qualitative Study.
data visualization
health information technology
measurement-based care
patient-reported outcome measures
telehealth
Journal
JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Nov 2022
24 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
01
08
2022
accepted:
09
11
2022
revised:
21
10
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
25
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Measurement Based Care in Mental Health Initiative launched by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2016 is an example of an evidence-based practice that uses patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve patient outcomes. The acceptance of measurement-based care (MBC) among Veterans Affairs providers is relatively high. However, there are barriers to MBC for telehealth providers. Health information technologies might afford opportunities to address some of the barriers related to the uptake of MBC. This paper reports on an implementation effort to integrate MBC into mental health care telehealth practice using eHealth solutions. Qualitative data were generated from 22 semistructured interviews with psychiatrists (n=4), psychologists (n=3), social workers (n=3), nurses (n=6), a pharmacist (n=1), and administrative staff (n=5) who provide telemental health care through a community-based outpatient clinic in the rural Midwestern United States. The interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of an implementation initiative to increase the adoption of MBC by revising clinic workflows to integrate the use of eHealth technologies. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Time burden and workflow issues were the most common barrier to provider adoption of MBC; sharing and reviewing pencil-and-paper measures and results in the same room was no longer possible in novel telehealth workflows necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers voiced concerns about how long it would take to collect, adequately score, interpret, share, and document the PROMs during the telehealth visit. Concerns about time might also correspond to a gap in providers' familiarity with these assessments, greater comfort in assessing symptoms through clinical interviews, and being accustomed to using the assessments as screening tools more so than longitudinal outcome measures. Capacities associated with eHealth technologies may address workflow concerns and promote providers' understanding and use of the measures as tracking tools. The need to use limited appointment time well was a top priority for telemental health providers. eHealth technologies provided operative supports that protect time in appointments by shifting when and how PROMs are collected. Bolstering providers' familiarity with how to use PROMs in the course of treatment may impact providers' buy-in by encouraging them to reconsider how sharing and acting on PROMs could be time well spent.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Measurement Based Care in Mental Health Initiative launched by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2016 is an example of an evidence-based practice that uses patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve patient outcomes. The acceptance of measurement-based care (MBC) among Veterans Affairs providers is relatively high. However, there are barriers to MBC for telehealth providers. Health information technologies might afford opportunities to address some of the barriers related to the uptake of MBC.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This paper reports on an implementation effort to integrate MBC into mental health care telehealth practice using eHealth solutions.
METHODS
METHODS
Qualitative data were generated from 22 semistructured interviews with psychiatrists (n=4), psychologists (n=3), social workers (n=3), nurses (n=6), a pharmacist (n=1), and administrative staff (n=5) who provide telemental health care through a community-based outpatient clinic in the rural Midwestern United States. The interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of an implementation initiative to increase the adoption of MBC by revising clinic workflows to integrate the use of eHealth technologies. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Time burden and workflow issues were the most common barrier to provider adoption of MBC; sharing and reviewing pencil-and-paper measures and results in the same room was no longer possible in novel telehealth workflows necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers voiced concerns about how long it would take to collect, adequately score, interpret, share, and document the PROMs during the telehealth visit. Concerns about time might also correspond to a gap in providers' familiarity with these assessments, greater comfort in assessing symptoms through clinical interviews, and being accustomed to using the assessments as screening tools more so than longitudinal outcome measures. Capacities associated with eHealth technologies may address workflow concerns and promote providers' understanding and use of the measures as tracking tools.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The need to use limited appointment time well was a top priority for telemental health providers. eHealth technologies provided operative supports that protect time in appointments by shifting when and how PROMs are collected. Bolstering providers' familiarity with how to use PROMs in the course of treatment may impact providers' buy-in by encouraging them to reconsider how sharing and acting on PROMs could be time well spent.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36422884
pii: v9i11e41601
doi: 10.2196/41601
pmc: PMC9732750
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e41601Informations de copyright
©Jen Van Tiem, Elizabeth Wirtz, Natalie Suiter, Amanda Heeren, Lindsey Fuhrmeister, John Fortney, Heather Reisinger, Carolyn Turvey. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 24.11.2022.
Références
Cogn Behav Pract. 2021 Nov;28(4):492-506
pubmed: 34188434
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Oct 9;8(10):e14990
pubmed: 31599736
Psychol Serv. 2020 Aug;17(3):233-237
pubmed: 32881578
Psychol Serv. 2020 Aug;17(3):238-246
pubmed: 31058519
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2019 Dec;42(4):635-647
pubmed: 31672213
BMJ. 2009 Mar 19;338:b663
pubmed: 19299474
Aust Health Rev. 2006 May;30(2):164-73
pubmed: 16646765
Telemed J E Health. 2022 Oct;28(10):1421-1430
pubmed: 35167369
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2020 Oct;29(4):763-773
pubmed: 32891375
Psychol Serv. 2020 Aug;17(3):271-281
pubmed: 31424241
Psychother Res. 2019 Feb;29(2):157-170
pubmed: 28523962
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2018 Dec;55(4):520-537
pubmed: 30335463
Pract Innov (Wash D C). 2020 Jun;5(2):143-149
pubmed: 34888414
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2021 Mar;48(2):250-265
pubmed: 32656631
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2020 Sep - Oct;66:89-95
pubmed: 32750604
Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Mar 1;66(3):224-41
pubmed: 25727110
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Feb 1;70(2):135-138
pubmed: 30373495
Psychol Serv. 2020 Aug;17(3):323-331
pubmed: 31318239
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2010;39(6):885-96
pubmed: 21058134
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018 Aug 28;20(10):81
pubmed: 30155749
Psychother Res. 2015;25(1):6-19
pubmed: 23885809
Psychol Serv. 2022 Feb 24;:
pubmed: 35201811
Psychother Res. 2021 Feb;31(2):211-223
pubmed: 32522100
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Feb 1;68(2):179-188
pubmed: 27582237