Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Technical Assistance and Implementation Support on Program Capacity to Deliver Integrated Services

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study assessed gains that New York State mental health and addiction outpatient clinics achieved in their capacity to provide integrated mental health and substance abuse services for persons with co-occurring disorders. The investigators used two Dual Diagnosis Capability (DDC) indices—one for Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) and one for Mental Health Treatment (DDCMHT)—to measure integration capability at baseline (n = 603) and at follow-up (n = 150), an average of 2 years post-baseline, during which time programs received technical assistance and implementation support. At baseline, the average program score was 2.68, below the “Capable” level (3.0 on a 5-point scale). At follow-up, the average score was 3.04, and the percent of programs rated Capable more than doubled (from 22 to 52%). Programs with lower baseline scores and those with more time to follow-up (2–3 years) had the greatest increases, but 12 to 18 months were sufficient to realize sizeable and significant improvements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring disorders. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, Number 42. S. Sacks, Chair & R. Reis, Co-Chair, Consensus Panel. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 05–3992. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005. Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64197/pdf/TOC.pdf. Accessed on June 6, 2013.

  2. Drake RE, Mueser KT, Brunette MF, et al. A review of treatments for people with severe mental illnesses and co-occurring substance use disorders. Psychiatric Rehabilitation 2004; 27(4): 360–374. DOI: 10.2975/27.2004.360.374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Drake RE, O’Neal EL, Wallach MA. A systematic review of psychosocial research on psychosocial interventions for people with co-occurring severe mental and substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2008; 34(1): 123–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nunes EV, Selzer J, Levounis P, et al. (Eds). Substance dependence and co-occurring psychiatric disorders: Best practices for diagnosis and clinical treatment. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc., 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McGovern MP, Becker K, Lambert-Harris C. The Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) index: A six state collaborative to enhance policy and implement evidence-based practices for co-occurring disorders. Paper presented at the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program Annual Grantee Meeting, Amelia Island, FL, December 6, 2007a. Available online at http://www.adp.ca.gov/cod/pdf/mcgovern_ddcat_index.pdf. Accessed on December 3, 2011.

  6. McGovern MP, Matzkin AL, Giard J. Assessing the dual diagnosis capability of addiction treatment services: The Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) index. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2007b; 3(2): 111–123. DOI: 10.1300/J374v03n02_13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gotham HJ, Brown JL, Comaty JE, et al. Assessing the co-occurring capability of mental health treatment programs: the Dual Diagnosis Capability in Mental Health Treatment (DDCMHT) index. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 2013; 40(2): 234–241. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-012-9317-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gotham HJ, Claus RE, Selig K, et al. Increasing program capability to provide treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders: Organizational characteristics. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2010; 38(2):160–169. DOI: 10.1016/jsat2009.07.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee N., Cameron J. Differences in self and independent ratings on an organizational dual diagnosis capacity measure. Drug and Alcohol Review 2009; 28(6): 682–684. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00116.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Matthews H, Kelly PJ, Deane FP. The dual diagnosis capability of residential addiction treatment centers: Priorities and confidence to improve capability following a review process. Drug and Alcohol Review 2010; 30(2): 195–199. (Epub August 19, 2010.) DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00215.x.

  11. McGovern MP, Lambert-Harris C, Gotham HJ, et al. Dual Diagnosis Capability in Mental Health and Addiction Treatment Services: An assessment of programs across multiple state systems. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2014 (Epub, November 27, 2012; print available May 27, 2014); in press. DOI: 10.1007/s10488-012-0449-1.

  12. McGovern MP, Lambert-Harris C, McHugo GJ, et al. Improving the dual diagnosis capability of addiction and mental health treatment services: Implementation factors associated with program level change. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2013; 6(3–4): 237–250. DOI: 10.1080/15504263.2010.537221.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sacks S, Chaple M, Sirikantraporn J, et al.: Center for Excellence in Integrated Care: Capability of outpatient clinics in New York State to provide integrated care. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2013 (Epub January 12, 2013); 44(5): 488–493. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.11.001.

  14. Damush TM, Bravata DM, Plue L, et al. Facilitation of Best Practices (FAB) Framework. Stroke QUERI Center Annual Report, 2008.

  15. Tabak, RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, et al. Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2012; 43(3): 337–350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dezdar S, Ainin S. The influence of organizational factors on successful implementation. Management Decision, 2011; 49(6): 911–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Forsner T, Hansson J, Brommels N, et al. Implementing clinical guidelines in psychiatry: a qualitative study of perceived facilitators and barriers. BMC Psychiatry, 2010; 10(8).

  18. Yung SY, Chen C, Wang KH. Critical success factors for the implementation of integrated health care information systems practices: An organization fit perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2014; 34 (39): 775–796.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cotton JL. Participation’s effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of Wagner. Academy of Management Review 1995; 20: 276–278.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sagie A. Employee participation and work outcomes: An end to the dispute? Academy of Management Review 1995; 20: 278–280.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wanberg CR, Banas JT. Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000; 85(1): 132–142. DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.1.132.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sagie A, Elizur D, Koslowsky M. Effect of participation in strategic and tactical decision on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1990; 130: 459–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sagie A, Elizur D., Koslowsky M. Decision type, participative decision making (PDM), and organizational behavior: An experimental simulation. Human Performance 1995; 8: 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blasé KA, et al. Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231), 2005. Available online at http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/nirnmonograph.pdf. Accessed on March 24, 2013.

  25. Havelock RG, Havelock MC. Training for change agents. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  26. NIATx. The NIATx Way: A step-by-step guide to running a successful change project. Available online at http://www.niatx.net/content/contentpage.aspx?NID=40. Accessed on March 24, 2013.

  27. Ovretveit J, Bate P, Cleary P, et al. Quality Collaboratives: Lessons from evaluation research. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 2002; 11: 345–351.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administrative Policy in Mental Health 2011; 38(2): 65–76. doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Deming WE. Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality, JUSE, 1950.

  30. Miller WR, Yahne CE, Moyers TB, et al. A randomized trial of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 2004; 72(6): 1050–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, et al. Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 274(9): 700–705. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1995.03530090032018.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McHugh RK, Barlow DH. The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments: A review of current efforts. American Psychologist 2010; 65(2): 73–84. DOI: 10.1037/a0018121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chaple M, Sacks S, Melnick G, et al. Exploring the predictive validity of the DDCAT index. Journal of Dual Diagnosis 2013; 9(2): 171–178. DOI: 10.1080/15504263.2013.779128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Minkoff K, Zweben J, Rosenthal R, et al. Development of service intensity criteria and program categories for individuals with co-occurring disorders. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2003; 22(Supplemental 1): 113–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Center for Practice Improvement (CPI). Focus on Integrated Treatment (FIT) Initiative: Online training in treatment for co-occurring disorders. New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia. Available online at http://www.nyebpcenter.org/CPIInitiatives/FocusonIntegratedTreatmentFIT/tabid/186/Default.aspx. Accessed on June 13, 2013.

  36. Minkoff K, Zweben J, Rosenthal R, et al. Development of service intensity critieria and program categories for individuals with co-occurring disorders. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2004; 22(S1): 113–129. DOI: 10.1300/J069v22S01_08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. H.R. 3590. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 111th Congress, 2nd Session, January 5, 2010, pp 1–903. Available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf. Accessed on August 1, 2013.

  38. McGovern MP, Urada D, Lambert-Harris C, et al. Development and initial feasibility of an organizational measure of behavioral health integration in medical settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2012; 43: 402–409. DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project received funding support (grants #2008-2496857, 2009-3426912, and 11-02788) from the New York State Health Foundation (NYSHealth), 1385 Broadway, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10018.

Human Subjects

The project did not test a treatment intervention, patients were not interviewed about personal information, nor were any confidential data requested; rather, program staff members were collectively interviewed about the program itself, and data collection related to the program, not to human subjects. NDRI’s IRB determined that the project was exempt, and that IRB oversight was not necessary.

Conflict of Interest

No disclosures and no conflicts of interest for either author. Neither author has any conflict of interest to report; neither benefits in any way from the study nor its results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Integration of Research & Practice (CIRP), National Development & Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI), 71 W 23 Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10010, USA

    Michael Chaple PhD & Stanley Sacks PhD

Authors
  1. Michael Chaple PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stanley Sacks PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Chaple PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaple, M., Sacks, S. The Impact of Technical Assistance and Implementation Support on Program Capacity to Deliver Integrated Services. J Behav Health Serv Res 43, 3–17 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9419-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9419-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation