NF residents with poorly treated BH conditions are at elevated risk of negative clinical outcomes, including reduced adherence to treatment for comorbid physical health conditions, worse functioning, greater utilization of healthcare services, and increased risk of rehospitalization and death (1). Two key reasons that NFs have been unable to adequately address the BH needs of residents include the lack of necessary staff training and inadequate access to BH providers (2).
Integrated care models (ICMs) have been developed in response to the need for greater access to BH services. In these models of care, physical health providers, typically primary care providers (PCPs), work together with BH providers to varying degrees, as described below. These models aim to address the needs of the whole person across the lifespan, including chronic pain, common BH conditions (e.g., depression and anxiety), insomnia, health-related behaviors (e.g., treatment non-adherence, physical inactivity, and smoking), social determinants of health (e.g., food insecurity), and substance use disorders. While ICMs emerged from outpatient primary care settings, they can be adapted and tailored to meet the needs of NFs and their residents.
The first ICM is known as coordinated care. In this model, patients are routinely screened for common BH condition(s). Upon a positive screening score, patients are referred for BH services at another treatment facility. In order to be effective, this model requires that each facility identify which BH condition(s) to screen for; identify corresponding BH screening tools; train staff to use these tools; develop workflows to alert PCPs to positive screens; identify referral sources; and then communicate the results of positive screening tools in BH referrals.
In the second model, the collocated care model, a BH provider (e.g., psychiatric nurse practitioner) works in the same facility as the PCP. The goal of the proximity of the BH provider and PCP is to facilitate sign-outs between providers and expedite referrals to BH providers knowledgeable with both the facility and its patient population. Patient communication also tends to be enhanced due to provider use of the same electronic health record (EHR).
In the third model, the behavioral health-primary care model (BH-PC) model, a behavioral health consultant (BHC) provides evidence-based, time-limited psychotherapy services for a particular clinical concern that has been identified by the PCP. The BHC is typically equipped to provide brief psychotherapeutic interventions for a wide range of BH conditions. Use of the same EHR, direct sign-out between PCPs and BHCs, and the possibility for same-day access to the BHC are the strengths of this model.
The collaborative care model (CCM) works by screening all patients at set intervals of time with a battery of BH screening tools. Positive results flags a BH case manager (CM) to evaluate the patient. Typically, a therapist by training, the BH-CM closely works with a BH provider to develop an individualized treatment plan for the patient. The BH-CM and PCP then carry out this treatment plan in collaboration with a psychiatric consultant. The BH-CM meets with the BH provider during weekly case staffings and modify the treatment plan accordingly. Unlike the other models, the BH provider does not typically meet with patients directly. However, this model drastically increases the number of patients that each BH provider can serve, while also enhancing PCP’s comfort and ability to manage common BH concerns. Of all of the ICMs, CCM has the strongest evidence base to support its effectiveness.
In conclusion, NFs may choose to close the treatment gap between physical health and BH conditions by implementing an ICM. In addition, ICMs hold the potential to enhance the quality and safety of NF care, reduce staff burnout, increase staff satisfaction, and reduce overall treatment costs. When deciding which ICM to use, it is recommended that each NF take into consideration the merits of each model, the needs of its patient population, available resources, and the impact on staff’s training needs and clinical workflows.
While policy changes have enhanced reimbursement of ICM services, an evaluation of the financial viability of ICM is also critical (1). In order for ICMs to be both clinically and financially effective, it is imperative that clinicians, NF administrators, healthcare payers, policy advisors, and healthcare quality experts work together to support the utilization of ICMs in NF settings.
References: - Let’s Integrate! The Case for Bringing Behavioral Health to Nursing Home–Based Post-Acute and Subacute Care. Evan Plys PhD , Cari R. Levy MD, PhD, Lisa A. Brenner PhD , Ana-Maria Vranceanu PhD
- Providing Behavioral Health Services in Nursing Homes Is Difficult: Findings From a National Survey. Jessica Orth, Yue Ki, Adam Simning and Helena Temkin-Greener. Orth et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Aug;67(8):1713-1717.