These data suggest that the PIP is useful, has face, content, and internal validity, and distinguishes among types of practices with known variations in integration. We discuss how the PIP may support practices and policymakers in their integration efforts and researchers assessing the degree to which integration affects patient health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Although the benefits of integrating behavioral health (BH) services into primary care are well established (World Health Organization and World Organization of Family Doctors, 2012; Chiles et al. in Clin Psychol-Sci Pr 6:204-220, 1999; Cummings 1997; O'Donohue et al. 2003; Olfson et al. in Health Aff 18:79-93, 1999; Katon et al. in Ann Intern Med 124:917-925, 2001; Simon et al. in Arch Gen Psychiatry 52:850-856, 1995; Anderson et al. in Diabetes Care 24:1069-1078, 2001; Ciechanowski et al. in Arch Intern Med 160:3278-3285, 2000; Egede et al. in Diabetes Care 25:464-470, 2002), research has focused primarily on describing the types of interventions behavioral health providers (BHPs) employ rather than on reasons for referral, treatment initiation rates, or the patient characteristics that may impact them. This study presents the results of a multisite card study organized by The Collaborative Care Research Network, a subnetwork of the American Academy of Family Physicians' National Research Network devoted to conducting practice-based research focused on the provision of BH and health behavior services within primary care practices. The goals of the study included: (1) identifying the characteristics of patients referred for BH services; (2) codifying reasons for referral and whether patients were treated for the referral; (3) exploring any differences between patients who initiated BH contact and those who did not; and (4) assessing the types and frequency of BH services provided to patients who attended at least one appointment. Of the 200 patients referred to a BHP, 81 % had an initial contact, 71 % of which occurred on the same day. Men and women were equally likely to engage with a BHP although the time between appointments varied by gender. Depression and anxiety were the primary reasons for referral. Practice-based research is a viable strategy for advancing the knowledge about integrated primary care.

Insufficient knowledge exists regarding how to measure the presence and degree of integrated care. Prior estimates of integration levels are neither grounded in theory nor psychometrically validated. They provide scant guidance to inform improvement activities, compare integration efforts, discriminate among practices by degree of integration, measure the effect of integration on quadruple aim outcomes, or address the needs of clinicians, regulators, and policymakers seeking new models of health care delivery and funding. We describe the development of the Practice Integration Profile (PIP), a novel instrument designed to measure levels of integrated behavioral health care within a primary care clinic. The PIP draws upon the Agency for Health care Research & Quality's (AHRQ) Lexicon of Collaborative Care which provides theoretic justification for a paradigm case of collaborative care. We used the key clauses of the Lexicon to derive domains of integration and generate measures corresponding to those key clauses. After reviewing currently used methods for identifying collaborative care, or integration, and identifying the need to improve on them, we describe a national collaboration to describe and evaluate the PIP. We also describe its potential use in practice improvement, research, responsiveness to multiple stakeholder needs, and other future directions. (PsycINFO Database Record

In a progressively complex and fragmented health care system and in response to the need to provide whole-person, quality care to greater numbers of patients than ever before, primary care practices throughout the United States have turned their attention and efforts to integrating behavioral health into their standard service-delivery models. With few resources and little guidance, systems struggle to gather the support required to establish effective integrated programs. Based on first-hand experience, we describe a working integrated primary care model, currently utilized in a large community health center system in Colorado, that encompasses universal screening, consultation, psychotherapy, and psychological testing. With appreciation for the way an organization's unique circumstances inform the best approach for that particular organization, we highlight the clinicallevel and system-level variables that we consider necessary for successful practice development and address how our behavioral health program operates despite funding limitations. We conclude that organizations that aim for integrated primary care must mobilize leadership to implement systemic changes while making difficult decisions about program development, financing, staffing, and interagency relationships.