Importance Few studies have examined the effects of both clinician and organizational characteristics on the use of evidence-based practices in mental healthcare. Improved understanding of these factors could guide future implementation efforts to ensure effective adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practices. Objective To estimate the relative contribution of clinician and organizational factors on clinician self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic techniques within the context of a large-scale effort to increase use of evidence-based practices in an urban public mental health system serving youth and families. Design Observational and cross-sectional. Data collected in 2013. Setting Twenty-three organizations. Participants We used purposive sampling to recruit the 29 largest child-serving agencies, which together serve approximately 80% of youth receiving publically funded mental health care. The final sample included 19 agencies with 23 sites, 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Main Outcome Measures Clinician self-reported use of cognitive-behavioral, family, and psychodynamic techniques, as measured by the Therapist Procedures Checklist – Family Revised. Results Linear mixed-effects regression models were used; models included random intercepts for organization to account for nesting of clinicians within organization. Clinician factors accounted for the following percentage of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral (16%), family (7%), psychodynamic (20%). Organizational factors accounted for the following percentage of the overall variation: cognitive-behavioral (23%), family (19%), psychodynamic (7%). Older clinicians and clinicians with more open attitudes were more likely to endorse use of cognitive behavioral techniques, as were those in organizations that had spent fewer years participating in evidence-based practice initiatives, had more resistant cultures, and had more functional climates. Female clinicians were more likely to endorse use of family techniques, as were those in organizations employing more fee-for-service staff and with more stressful climates. Clinicians with more divergent attitudes and less knowledge about evidence-based practices were more likely to use psychodynamic techniques. Conclusions & Relevance This study suggests that both clinician and organizational factors are important in explaining clinician behavior and the use of evidence-based practices, but that their relative importance varies by therapeutic technique.

Our goal was to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of evidence-based practices from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in a large publicly funded mental health system. We completed 56 interviews with three stakeholder groups: treatment developers (n = 7), agency administrators (n = 33), and system leadership (n = 16). The three stakeholder groups converged on the importance of inner (e.g., agency competing resources and demands, therapist educational background) and outer context (e.g., funding) factors as barriers to implementation. Potential threats to implementation and sustainability included the fiscal landscape of community mental health clinics and an evolving workforce. Intervention characteristics were rarely endorsed as barriers. Inner context, outer context, and intervention characteristics were all seen as important facilitators. All stakeholders endorsed the importance of coordinated collaboration across stakeholder groups within the system to successfully implement evidence-based practices.

: Biological drug testing is a tool that provides information about an individual's recent substance use. Like any tool, its value depends on using it correctly; that is, on selecting the right test for the right person at the right time. This document is intended to clarify appropriate clinical use of drug testing in addiction medicine and aid providers in their decisions about drug testing for the identification, diagnosis, treatment, and recovery of patients with, or at risk for, addiction. The RAND Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method (RAM) process for combining scientific evidence with the collective judgment of experts was used to identify appropriate clinical practices and highlight areas where research is needed. Although consensus panels and expert groups have offered guidance on the use of drug testing for patients with addiction, very few addressed considerations for patients across settings and in different levels of care. This document will focus primarily on patients in addiction treatment and recovery, where drug testing is used to assess patients for a substance use disorder, monitor the effectiveness of a treatment plan, and support recovery. Inasmuch as the scope includes the recognition of addiction, which often occurs in general healthcare settings, selected special populations at risk for addiction visiting these settings are briefly included.

Staff turnover rates in publicly-funded mental health settings are high. We investigated staff and organizational predictors of turnover in a sample of individuals working in an urban public mental health system that has engaged in a system-level effort to implement evidence-based practices. Additionally, we interviewed staff to understand reasons for turnover. Greater staff burnout predicted increased turnover, more openness toward new practices predicted retention, and more professional recognition predicted increased turnover. Staff reported leaving their organizations because of personal, organizational, and financial reasons; just over half of staff that left their organization stayed in the public mental health sector. Implications include an imperative to focus on turnover, with a particular emphasis on ameliorating staff burnout.

BackgroundExamining the role of modifiable barriers and facilitators is a necessary step toward developing effective implementation strategies. This study examines whether both general (organizational culture, organizational climate, and transformational leadership) and strategic (implementation climate and implementation leadership) organizational-level factors predict therapist-level determinants of implementation (knowledge of and attitudes toward evidence-based practices).MethodsWithin the context of a system-wide effort to increase the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and recovery-oriented care, we conducted an observational, cross-sectional study of 19 child-serving agencies in the City of Philadelphia, including 23 sites, 130 therapists, 36 supervisors, and 22 executive administrators. Organizational variables included characteristics such as EBP initiative participation, program size, and proportion of independent contractor therapists; general factors such as organizational culture and climate (Organizational Social Context Measurement System) and transformational leadership (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire); and strategic factors such as implementation climate (Implementation Climate Scale) and implementation leadership (Implementation Leadership Scale). Therapist-level variables included demographics, attitudes toward EBPs (Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale), and knowledge of EBPs (Knowledge of Evidence-Based Services Questionnaire). We used linear mixed-effects regression models to estimate the associations between the predictor (organizational characteristics, general and strategic factors) and dependent (knowledge of and attitudes toward EBPs) variables.ResultsSeveral variables were associated with therapists’ knowledge of EBPs. Clinicians in organizations with more proficient cultures or higher levels of transformational leadership (idealized influence) had greater knowledge of EBPs; conversely, clinicians in organizations with more resistant cultures, more functional organizational climates, and implementation climates characterized by higher levels of financial reward for EBPs had less knowledge of EBPs. A number of organizational factors were associated with the therapists’ attitudes toward EBPs. For example, more engaged organizational cultures, implementation climates characterized by higher levels of educational support, and more proactive implementation leadership were all associated with more positive attitudes toward EBPs.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence for the importance of both general and strategic organizational determinants as predictors of knowledge of and attitudes toward EBPs. The findings highlight the need for longitudinal and mixed-methods studies that examine the influence of organizational factors on implementation.

Raghavan et al. (2008) proposed that effective implementation of evidence-based practices requires implementation strategies deployed at multiple levels of the “policy ecology,” including the organizational, regulatory or purchaser agency, political, and social levels. However, much of implementation research and practice targets providers without accounting for contextual factors that may influence provider behavior. This paper examines Philadelphia’s efforts to work toward an evidence-based and recovery-oriented behavioral health system, and uses the policy ecology framework to illustrate how multifaceted, multilevel implementation strategies can facilitate the widespread implementation of evidence-based practices. Ongoing challenges and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Financing has been hypothesized as an important driver of the implementation of evidence based practices (EBPs), yet there is little systematic investigation. This article presents a qualitative study of the effects of financial factors on the implementation of EBPs in a large urban publicly-funded mental health system. Our interviews with agency and system leaders identified financial distress in community mental health agencies, leading to concern about implementing complex and expensive EBPs. Stakeholders agreed that the cost of implementation of EBP should be shared between the agencies and the system, but disagreed on the solution.

A transitional care intervention is recommended; however, the model needs to be modified from a single nurse to a multidisciplinary team with expertise from a psychiatric nurse practitioner, a social worker, and a peer support specialist. A team approach can best manage the complex physical/mental health conditions and complicated social needs of the population with serious mental illness.