Delivering Clinical Practice Guideline-Concordant Care for PTSD and Major Depression in Military Treatment Facilities

Short abstract

This article describes the psychological health workforce at military treatment facilities, examines the extent to which care is consistent with clinical practice guidelines, and identifies facilitators and barriers to providing this care.

Abstract

Providing accessible, high-quality care for psychological health (PH) conditions, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), is important to maintaining a healthy, mission-ready force. It is unclear whether the current system of care meets the needs of service members with PTSD or MDD, and little is known about the barriers to delivering guideline-concordant care. RAND used existing provider workforce data, a provider survey, and key informant interviews to (1) provide an overview of the PH workforce at military treatment facilities (MTFs), (2) examine the extent to which care for PTSD and MDD in military treatment facilities is consistent with Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines, and (3) identify facilitators and barriers to providing this care. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of providers' perspectives on their capacity to deliver PH care within MTFs and presents detailed results by provider type and service branch. Findings suggest that most providers report using guideline-concordant psychotherapies, but use varied by provider type. The majority of providers reported receiving at least minimal training and supervision in at least one recommended psychotherapy for PTSD and for MDD. Still, more than one-quarter of providers reported that limits on travel and lack of protected time in their schedule affected their ability to access additional professional training. Finally, most providers reported routinely screening patients for PTSD and MDD with a validated screening instrument, but fewer providers reported using a validated screening instrument to monitor treatment progress.

Addressing psychological health (PH) conditions among U.S. service members remains a pressing challenge for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The Military Health System (MHS) plays a critical role in maintaining a physically and psychologically healthy, mission-ready force. Ensuring the quality and availability of programs and services targeting two of the most common conditions diagnosed and treated in the MHS—posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD)—is a key contributor to this goal.

To provide accessible, high-quality care for PH conditions, the MHS has increased the size of its PH workforce by 34 percent (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2015), established training programs in evidence-based treatments (Borah et al., 2013; Center for Deployment Psychology, undated), developed innovative programs to address PH needs (Weinick et al., 2011), and implemented other approaches to enhance the availability and quality of PH care. However, it is unclear whether these efforts have resulted in a system of care that meets the needs of service members with PH conditions, and little is known about the facilitators and barriers to delivering high-quality, evidence-based PH care.

To help address these questions, DoD's Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE) asked the RAND Corporation to assess the capacity of the MHS to deliver evidence-based care for PTSD and MDD and to recommend areas in which the MHS could focus its efforts to continuously improve the quality of care provided to all service members. Specifically, this study (1) provides an overview of the PH workforce at military treatment facilities (MTFs), (2) describes the extent to which PH providers within MTFs report delivering guideline-concordant care for PTSD and MDD, (3) identifies facilitators and barriers to providing this care, and (4) provides recommendations to increase the use and monitoring of guideline-concordant care for PTSD and MDD. This study builds on previous RAND work examining the characteristics of active-component service members seen by the MHS for PTSD and MDD diagnoses and the quality of care they received using measures derived from administrative data (Hepner et al., 2016; Hepner et al., 2017), as well as lessons for the MHS in measuring the quality of care provided to patients with PH conditions and ensuring that this care is consistent with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) (Martsolf et al., 2015).

We used DoD workforce data to identify the number and mix of PH providers at MTFs. We then surveyed a representative sample of eligible providers (i.e. active-duty and government civilian) to determine the extent to which they report delivering care consistent with clinical practice guidelines for PTSD and MDD, and to identify facilitators and barriers to doing so. Semi-structured discussions with key DoD and MHS personnel provided additional context for our survey findings. Through these discussions, we collected background and perspectives on the organization of the PH workforce, approaches to monitoring demand for care and measuring performance, and quality improvement efforts for PH care.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for PTSD and MDD Care in the MHS

DoD and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have been engaged in ongoing efforts to develop and promulgate guidelines to ensure that all service members receive recommended treatment for a variety of conditions commonly seen by DoD and VA health care providers. In 2009 and 2010, respectively, the VA/DoD Management of Major Depressive Disorder Working Group and the VA/DoD Management of Post-Traumatic Stress Working Group published CPGs to inform the treatment of these conditions.¹ Treatment recommendations are based on a synthesis of the research literature and expert consensus, and treatments are assigned a grade based on the strength of the evidence supporting their use. An “A” grade indicates strong evidence that an intervention improves health outcomes and that the benefits of treatment outweigh the harms. The CPGs strongly recommend that clinicians provide such interventions to eligible patients. For both PTSD and MDD, treatments in this category include specific types of psychotherapy and medication.

Strongly recommended PTSD treatments include trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapies (i.e., prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing), stress inoculation training, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs/SNRIs) (Management of Post-Traumatic Stress Working Group, 2010). For MDD, strongly recommended treatments include cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy, as well as certain antidepressants (Management of Major Depressive Disorder Working Group, 2009).²

For the purposes of our study, the VA/DoD CPG recommendations for the treatment of PTSD and MDD served as the basis for determining the extent to which MTF providers delivered high-quality, evidence-based care to service members with these conditions.

MTF PH Provider Workforce and Approaches to Treatment

Provider Mix in MTFs

The MHS relies on several types of health care providers to deliver PH care. Each service branch is responsible for its own PH workforce, assessing and monitoring PH provider performance, and the extent to which providers deliver CPG-recommended treatments. Our analyses of the PH workforce focused on psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners (PNPs), doctoral-level psychologists, and master's-level clinicians (i.e., masters-level psychologists and social workers). Other providers may deliver PH care (e.g., mental health technicians, addiction counselors). However, we focused our analysis on MTF providers most likely to deliver formal treatment for PTSD or MDD, as outlined in the VA/DoD CPGs, in specialty mental health care settings.

Providers may be employed in one of three ways: as an active-duty service member, as a government civilian employee, or as a civilian contractor. We collected data on the characteristics of the PH workforce from different sources, depending on the provider's employment status. We obtained data on the number and characteristics of active-duty and DoD civilian PH providers from the Defense Manpower Data Center's Health Manpower Personnel Data System. Because that system does not contain information on contractors, we requested data on contracted PH providers working in MTFs in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Health Agency.

From each source, we obtained data on provider types (e.g., psychiatrists, PNPs, psychologists, master's-level clinicians), education level (e.g., master's degree, Ph.D.), and service branch. Table 1 shows the total number of providers in the PH MTF workforce and their representation by service branch. Note that these data include providers who deliver care at MTFs (often referred to as direct care) and do not include community providers contracted to deliver care paid for by the MHS through TRICARE (often referred to as purchased care). Master's-level clinicians, including master's-level psychologists (3 percent) and social workers (45 percent), make up the largest sector of the workforce (48 percent combined). The data revealed differences in workforce composition by service branch. For example, the Air Force has a higher proportion of doctoral-level psychologists (42 percent) than the Army (27 percent).

Table 1.

Composition of the MTF Psychological Health Provider Workforce, by Provider Type and Service Branch

Service Branch	Total Providers	Psychiatrists		PNPs		Doctoral-Level Psychologists		Master's-Level Clinicians
		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Army	2,365	320	14	89	4	638	27	1,318	56
Navy	892	193	22	67	8	354	40	278	31
Air Force	830	96	12	31	4	350	42	353	43
DoD total	4,131	612	15	189	5	1,358	33	1,972	48

NOTES: Total DoD numbers include 44 PH providers employed by the Defense Health Agency's Capital Region Medical Directorate. Master's-level clinicians include both master's-level psychologists and social workers. Data include contracted providers.

Most MTF PH providers are active-duty military personnel (37 percent) or civilian government employees (45 percent). Contractors constitute a relatively small portion of the overall MTF PH workforce (18 percent), but this varies by service. For example, contractors make up 38 percent of the Navy PH workforce, but only 6 percent of the Army PH workforce.

Provider Characteristics and Treatment Approaches

We conducted a survey of PH providers that assessed provider characteristics, practice characteristics, psychotherapy treatment approaches, medication management activities, training and perspectives on PTSD and MDD treatment approaches, and perceived barriers to delivering CPG-concordant care for these conditions. To achieve a final survey cohort of 500 respondents, we estimated that we needed to select a sample of approximately 1,500 PH providers. To be eligible to participate, providers must have seen a patient with PTSD or MDD at an MTF within the previous 30 days, which we determined with an eligibility-screening item in the survey. We drew a stratified, random sample of PH providers across the MHS based on provider type, service branch, and employment status. Our survey sample included 1,489 potentially eligible PH providers who had active-duty or government civilian employment status.³ For the purposes of our analysis, we combined psychiatrists and PNPs into a single category because there was not an adequate number of PNPs to assess this group on its own, and because both of these types of practitioners are often involved in medication management for patients with PTSD or MDD.

Providers were invited to participate and given the option to complete the survey online or by telephone. Reminder invitations were sent via regular mail and email, and invalid email addresses, telephone numbers, and mailing addresses were either updated or these providers were removed from the sample throughout the eight-week survey period, from February to April 2016. We removed respondents ineligible to participate, giving us an adjusted response rate of 39 percent (520 of 1,337 eligible providers). Because our sample and response rates by provider type were not random, we weighted the survey data to ensure that our results represented a relevant population of active-duty and government civilian PH providers.

The providers who participated in our survey had been practicing for an average of 14 years. When asked to identify their primary theoretical orientation, nearly half of master's-level clinicians and doctoral-level psychologists selected cognitive (48 percent), followed by behavioral (10 percent). Although they are separate concepts, theoretical orientation is typically directly related to the types of treatments delivered. For example, providers who endorse a cognitive or behavioral orientation may be likely to practice cognitive behavioral therapy.

Overall, providers reported seeing approximately 23 patients per week, with only a quarter of these visits occurring in a primary care setting. Among providers who had treated patients with PTSD in the previous 30 days, more than half (60 percent) reported that this group accounted for less than 25 percent of their caseload. The findings were similar for providers who had treated patients with MDD in the previous 30 days, with 62 percent reporting that these patients accounted for less than 25 percent of their caseload.

There were differences in overall caseloads, mix of patients, and care settings by service branch. For example, Army providers' caseloads had a higher proportion of patients with PTSD (45 percent) than those in the Navy (37 percent) or the Air Force (32 percent). The percentage of providers' caseloads made up of patients with MDD was not significantly different by service branch.

Delivery of Guideline-Concordant Care in the MHS

To assess delivery of guideline-concordant care, we conducted semi-structured interviews to learn about MHS approaches to monitoring the quality of care. The survey of MTF PH providers assessed self-reported use of guideline-concordant care, measurement-based care, and the facilitators and barriers to delivering guideline-concordant care.

Approaches to Monitoring Provider Performance

In an effort to standardize the assessment of PH care delivery across the MHS, in 2013, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs ordered the service branches to use a common system to monitor quality of care and assess provider performance. The Behavioral Health Data Portal (BHDP) is a secure, web-based system developed by the Army to collect behavioral health symptom data, patient information, diagnoses, and other visit characteristics. These data can be used to inform treatment decisions and monitor patient progress, and they can be aggregated and analyzed to, for example, identify variations in clinical outcomes or assess quality of care by PH diagnosis, treatment, provider, setting, or service branch.

In our discussions, Navy and Air Force informants noted several challenges that impeded the progress of BHDP implementation, including logistical and technical barriers, cost, a need to restructure clinics to accommodate the platform, and cultural resistance. They also cited a lack of guidance on how to implement the platform. Despite these challenges, implementation across MTFs is expected to centralize the monitoring of care quality and outcomes.

When the platform is fully implemented, BHDP data should facilitate additional efforts to understand the extent to which MTF PH providers deliver high-quality, evidence-based care to patients with PTSD and MDD consistent with VA/DoD CPG recommendations for these conditions. In the following section, we present findings from our assessment of providers' use of guideline-concordant care within MTFs in three areas: delivery of psychotherapy, medication management, and use of measurement-based care.

Provider Use of Guideline-Concordant Care

Psychotherapy Approaches for PTSD and MDD

The survey included a comprehensive list of 30 psychotherapy approaches that could be used with a PTSD patient, including the four approaches recommended in the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Post-Traumatic Stress (cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and stress inoculation training). We created a composite of the percentage of providers who selected any VA/DoD-endorsed grade-A psychotherapies for PTSD as their primary approach and found that more than half of providers (59 percent) selected at least one.⁴

We found significant differences in the delivery of CPG-concordant care for PTSD by provider type and service branch. Doctoral-level psychologists (78 percent) were more likely than master's-level clinicians (56 percent) and psychiatrists/PNPs (21 percent) to select a treatment identified as effective for PTSD in the VA/DoD CPG for posttraumatic stress as their primary psychotherapy approach. Air Force providers (80 percent) were significantly more likely than Army (55 percent) and Navy (54 percent) providers to select a primary approach for PTSD psychotherapy that was a grade-A treatment.

Our survey also included a comprehensive list of 30 psychotherapy approaches that could be used with an MDD patient, including the three approaches recommended in the VA/DoD CPG as first-line psychotherapies for uncomplicated MDD (cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy).⁵ We created a composite of the percentage of providers who selected any VA/DoD-endorsed psychotherapies as their primary MDD psychotherapy approach and found that 61 percent selected at least one. We found significant differences in the delivery of CPG-concordant care by provider type but not by service branch. Specifically, master's-level clinicians (67 percent) and doctoral-level psychologists (62 percent) had a similar likelihood of selecting a strongly recommended psychotherapy for MDD as their primary approach, and both these groups were more likely to do so than psychiatrists/PNPs (45.3 percent).

Because self-reported primary therapy approaches may be vulnerable to socially desirable responding, we asked about the specific techniques that had been used with a patient as a means of indirectly assessing whether a guideline-concordant psychotherapy had been delivered. We hypothesized that this approach would be less influenced by social desirability. We expected that a smaller proportion of providers would report delivering all core elements of guideline-concordant psychotherapies than would indicate that a given psychotherapy was their primary approach. In fact, we found the opposite. For example, twice as many providers indicated that they had delivered all core cognitive processing therapy techniques than claimed that cognitive processing therapy was their primary psychotherapy approach, and 96 percent of providers indicated that they had delivered all interpersonal therapy techniques even though use of interpersonal therapy as a primary approach was quite rare (< 1 percent). It may be that the items designed to measure the core techniques of specific therapies instead captured relatively common therapy techniques that are shared across therapies. This suggests that additional scale development work is required.

Medication Management for PTSD and MDD

We asked survey respondents to provide details on medications currently prescribed to patients with PTSD or MDD they had seen in the previous 30 days. These items addressed the types and number of psychopharmacological medications prescribed to patients with these conditions. The VA/DoD CPG recommendations for treatment of PTSD strongly recommends SSRIs and SNRIs as grade-A medications for eligible patients; it also lists medications with “at least fair levels of effectiveness” (grade B) and medications it deems ineffective or potentially harmful to patients with PTSD (grade D). Nearly 90 percent of providers who had prescribed medication indicated they had currently prescribed a grade-A medication to their most recent PTSD patient, but a clinically significant minority (11 percent) reported currently prescribing a medication that CPG guidelines recommend against—specifically, medications with the potential to cause harm or worsen PTSD outcomes.

The VA/DoD CPG for MDD strongly recommends SSRIs, SNRIs, bupropion, and mirtazapine as grade-A medications for eligible patients with MDD; it also lists grade-B medications with limited evidence of effectiveness. Overall, 97 percent of prescribers reported that their most recent MDD patient was currently prescribed at least one grade-A medication, and only 1 percent were currently prescribed a grade-B medication. Providers also indicated that 69 percent of MDD patients were currently prescribed more than one medication, with 12 percent currently prescribed four or more. As the number of prescriptions goes up, the probability that any one of them is classified as a grade-A medication will also rise. This may partially explain the high reported rates of grade-A medication use.

Provider Use of Measurement-Based Care

Screening and monitoring patient symptoms with validated instruments—another contributor to high-quality care—can inform treatment planning and subsequent adjustments. The majority of surveyed providers reported that either they or their support staff “always” screened new patients for PTSD (71 percent) and MDD (79 percent) with a validated screening instrument. Army providers were significantly more likely than Air Force providers to screen new patients for PTSD with a validated screening instrument. However, this pattern was reversed for MDD, with Air Force providers more likely than both Army and Navy providers to screen for MDD with a validated instrument. Overall, fewer providers (58 percent) reported using a validated instrument on patient symptoms to inform treatment plan adjustments. These results suggest that most providers may be routinely screening these patients, but fewer use validated instruments to monitor treatment outcomes.

Facilitators and Barriers to Providing Guideline-Concordant Care

Our survey and key informant discussions elicited information on perceived facilitators and barriers to providing care that was consistent with VA/DoD CPG recommendations for treating PTSD and MDD. Both providers and key informants indicated that training and supervision in evidence-based interventions was a potential facilitator, but a lack of such training could be a barrier. According to our key informants, the Army and Air Force have established training initiatives, but there appears to be no such program in the Navy.

Our survey results indicated that, among respondents who delivered any psychotherapy in the previous 30 days, the majority had received minimally adequate training/supervision in at least one grade-A PTSD psychotherapy (77 percent) or MDD psychotherapy (69 percent).⁶ We also inquired about providers' level of confidence in delivering evidence-based treatments and found that they were most confident in their ability to prescribe medication for PTSD (94 percent) and MDD (96 percent). However, confidence levels were lower for the CPG-endorsed psychotherapies for each of these conditions.

Key informants pointed to patient-level factors as barriers to providing high-quality PH care, such as patients' ability to balance appointment and treatment schedules with their military duties. Providers' caseloads may also limit the frequency with which providers can see patients. However, more than 80 percent of survey respondents reported seeing patients for eight or more sessions, suggesting that most patients are receiving at least the minimum number of psychotherapy sessions recommended for PTSD or MDD. Finally, our key informants cited a lack of information sharing among providers and locations as a barrier to high-quality care, though DoD is taking steps to mitigate these challenges.

To better gauge providers' perspectives, our survey contained 26 items that assessed potential barriers to delivering guideline-concordant care for PTSD and MDD. Table 2 shows the top six perceived barriers to providing guideline-concordant care as cited by survey participants. Barriers to training were the top two barriers. Specifically, providers reported that limits on travel and the lack of protected time affected their ability to access additional professional training.

Table 2.

Top Barriers to Delivery of Guideline-Concordant Care for PTSD and MDD

Response	Percentage of Providers Who Strongly Agree/Strongly Disagree*
Limitations on travel prevent me from receiving additional training.	31.7
I have protected time in my schedule to attend workshops/seminars to improve my clinical skills. (reverse-scored)	28.6
Nonspecific aspects of therapy, like good rapport, are the best predictors of treatment success.	25.7
I don't have the time in my schedule to see patients as often as I would like.	24.7
My patients' military duties limit their ability to receive appropriate care (e.g., patient PCS, deployment, irregular work schedules).	17.6
I am well-supported by case managers (e.g., coordinating interdisciplinary care, follow-up with patients who do not attend appointments). (reverse-scored)	17.4

NOTES: N = 503. Due to missing values, the number of responses for each item ranged from 498 to 503. PCS = permanent change of station.

^*Some items were reverse-scored.

Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for PTSD and MDD in MTFs: Key Findings

Our analysis of MTF workforce data, responses to our provider survey, and discussions with key informants yielded a number of findings that highlight focus areas for future improvement efforts.

Most Providers Reported Using Guideline-Concordant Psychotherapies, but Use Varied by Provider Type

Overall, 59 percent of psychotherapy providers identified a guideline-concordant psychotherapy as their primary approach for treatment for patients with PTSD. Psychologists (78 percent) were more likely than master's-level clinicians (56 percent) and psychiatrists/PNPs (21 percent) to select a guideline-concordant psychotherapy as their primary approach of treatment for patients with PTSD. With the available data, we were able to only partially explain this gap between provider types, and this could be an area for future research. Although not all providers indicated that their primary PTSD psychotherapy approach was CPG-concordant, there nonetheless appeared to be a depth of familiarity with these approaches among master's-level clinicians and psychologists, 85 to 91 percent of whom had delivered a CPG-concordant psychotherapy in the past.

These patterns were similar for the treatment of MDD, with more psychologists (62 percent) and master's-level clinicians (67 percent) than psychiatrists/PNPs (45 percent) selecting a guideline-concordant psychotherapy as their primary psychotherapy approach. However, a substantial majority of providers (79–94 percent) had delivered a guideline-concordant therapy for MDD in the past, suggesting that a lack of familiarity with these treatments may not be a primary barrier to delivering high-quality care for MDD.

Nearly All Psychiatrists and PNPs Reported Using Guideline-Concordant Medications to Treat PTSD and MDD, but Most Patients Received Multiple Psychopharmacologic Medications

Nearly 90 percent of psychiatrists/PNPs who had written prescriptions for their most recent PTSD patients prescribed at least one grade-A medication; this was true for 97 percent of those who treated MDD patients. However, providers reported that 84 percent of PTSD patients had been prescribed more than one psychopharmacological medication, and nearly a quarter had been prescribed four or more medications. Among all PTSD patients prescribed medication, 11 percent were receiving medications indicated as harmful to treatment progress according to VA/DoD CPG recommendations for PTSD (grade D). Providers also indicated that 69 percent of MDD patients received more than one medication, with 12 percent receiving four or more. Additional research is needed to determine whether these patterns of prescribing are appropriate.

Most Providers Reported Routinely Screening Patients for PTSD and MDD, but Fewer Used Validated Instruments to Monitor Treatment Outcomes

The majority of providers reported that they always screened for PTSD (71 percent) and MDD (79 percent) with a validated screening instrument, but fewer providers (58 percent) reported using a validated instrument to monitor patient symptoms and inform adjustments to treatment plans, with differences by service branch. More work is needed to identify the potential benefits of increasing the use of these tools and reasons for the variability in their use.

The Majority of Therapists Reported Receiving at Least Minimal Training/Supervision in a Guideline-Concordant Psychotherapy, but Some Reported Difficulty Accessing Additional Training

The majority of therapists received minimally adequate training and supervision in at least one CPG-concordant psychotherapy for PTSD (77 percent) and MDD (69 percent). However, it is important to note that we applied a lenient definition of minimal adequacy (at least eight hours of training and at least one hour of supervision). We also found differences in providers' confidence in their ability to deliver various types of therapies. Additional training could increase providers' confidence and may, in turn, increase delivery of these recommended treatments.

Some Providers Reported Seeing Patients Infrequently

On average, MTF providers reported seeing 23 patients per week. However, some providers indicated that their caseloads precluded them from seeing their patients as often as they would like. Most psychotherapies are tested across a given number of weekly sessions, and it remains unclear whether patients seen for psychotherapy visits less frequently than weekly receive the full benefit of these treatments. A sensitivity analysis revealed that among psychotherapy-only providers, 45 and 49 percent saw their PTSD and MDD patients weekly (respectively), with the remaining providers seeing patients less often. Further, among providers who delivered only medication management, the modal frequency was monthly (44 and 39 percent for PTSD and MDD patients, respectively). Additionally, a fifth of providers reported seeing patients for fewer than eight sessions. This may not be adequate for patients to benefit from the treatment provided.

Key Strengths and Limitations

This study has a number of key strengths, notably that a comprehensive provider survey was fielded across service branches and several types of PH providers who deliver care for PTSD or MDD in MTFs. However, some limitations should be noted. The provider survey did not include contracted civilian personnel or purchased care providers. Survey sampling relied on existing provider data, which could have resulted in inappropriate exclusion or inclusion of providers. The survey relied on providers' self-report of their approach and perspectives on treating patients with PTSD or MDD, which may have been subject to bias (e.g., social desirability or recall bias). As a result, responses to survey items may not directly correspond with actual provider practice. Finally, while key informant discussions provided important context for interpreting survey results, the limited number of key informant discussions did not fully capture the state of PH care. Despite these limitations, this study provides a comprehensive assessment of providers' perspectives on their capacity to deliver PH care within MTFs and presents detailed results by provider type and service branch.

Recommendations to Guide Improvements in PH Care Across the MHS

Overall, MTF providers are delivering high-quality, CPG-concordant care to patients with PTSD and MDD, but gaps and barriers remain. Our findings pointed to four primary recommendations to guide improvements in care for PTSD, MDD, and other PH conditions within the MHS and to ensure that the care provided is consistent with VA/DoD guidelines.

Recommendation 1. Maximize the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy Training and Reduce Barriers

Recommendation 1a. Adopt a Systematic, Broad-Based Approach to Training and Certification in Guideline-Concordant Therapies, and Track Provider Progress

As the MHS and service branches continue efforts to increase implementation of guideline-concordant psychotherapy, it may be useful to adopt a systematic approach. While key informants described multiple training efforts, it appears there is no formal tracking system or provider certification process MHS-wide or by service branch to ensure that MTFs have the appropriate mix of provider competence to ensure availability of guideline-concordant psychotherapies. Certification in a particular type of psychotherapy indicates that a provider has received training and clinical supervision and ultimately demonstrated competence in delivering that psychotherapy. This process is separate from the traditional credentialing process that ensures a provider has the appropriate degree and license. Tracking provider certifications that indicate competence would allow training efforts to be targeted to particular providers or address a need for a particular type of psychotherapy. It could also guide ongoing quality improvement. Identifying and addressing provider-specific barriers to use of guideline-concordant therapies will be key strategies in improving quality of PH care.

Recommendation 1b. Reduce Barriers to Receiving Training in Guideline-Concordant Therapies

Among the multiple potential barriers to providing guideline-concordant treatment assessed in the provider survey, obstacles to training were the top two barriers, including limits on travel and lack of protected time for trainings. The MHS and service branch leadership should consider one or more of the following policy changes to increase access to trainings and reduce barriers to attending these trainings. First, travel restrictions for training could be lifted or reduced. Second, the MHS could increase delivery of onsite trainings that do not require travel. Finally, the MHS could increase the use of web-based trainings. While these strategies would increase training opportunities, they may not address the second major training barrier identified, which is lack of protected time to participate in trainings. Providers may need additional support from their leadership to allow this protected time. This could be a challenge if provider incentives focus on number of patient visits rather than enhancing skills. Allowing for time to receive supervision/consultation following didactic training will help to ensure providers achieve competence in delivering the therapy.

Recommendation 2. Monitor the Frequency and Duration of Psychotherapy Treatment

Our results raised questions about whether PH providers are able to see patients with PTSD or MDD with the frequency and duration that may be associated with improved outcomes. These results highlight the importance of understanding these patterns to ensure access and availability to psychotherapy appointments. This finding, along with findings from a separate study in which MHS patients reported (Tanielian et al., 2016) frustration over not being able to get timely follow-up appointments, suggests that specific efforts to address the timeliness and frequency of psychotherapy visits is warranted. Toward that end, the MHS should routinely monitor frequency and duration of psychotherapy treatment. This is consistent with recommendations from a recent RAND study that the MHS can improve at providing an adequate amount of treatment for service members beginning a new treatment episode for PTSD or depression. This study included data applying a quality measure that assessed whether service members received at least four psychotherapy visits or two medication management visits in the first eight weeks of beginning their treatment. A modified version of this measure could track frequency and duration of psychotherapy visits. Monitoring this measure would increase emphasis on timely ongoing appointments and balance existing incentives that focus on timely first appointments. While the optimum number and timing of visits is not certain, particularly for an individual patient, observing variation across providers, MTFs, and service branches and investigating the causes of these variations could guide quality improvement. Further, it would allow the MHS to gain a better understanding of the role that patient schedules, preferences, and response to treatment play in attenuating or increasing frequency and duration of treatment. Understanding “no shows” and cancellation rates may lead to implementation of proactive strategies to reduce these rates (e.g., reminder calls, no show policies). To the extent that the data reveal that capacity constraints are driving the inability to meet frequency and duration expectations, MHS leaders will need to consider options for expanding capacity and access (Tanielian et al., 2016).

Recommendation 3. Expand Monitoring of Treatment Outcomes and Use That Information to Improve Quality of Care for PH Conditions

Outcome monitoring across MTFs using BHDP is a promising effort that could be a core tool to monitor and improve outcomes. Providers reported using validated measures more frequently for screening than for informing adjustments to treatment. As the MHS works to increase monitoring of symptoms for patients with PH conditions, it will be important that providers understand how to use this information to inform treatment planning and adjustments to treatment. Providers may need additional training and feedback about how to use the information generated from BHDP at the patient level. Alternatively, real time Clinical Decision Support tools and other technologies can help guide clinical decisionmaking and engage patients. Further, additional training and feedback could be used to ensure providers evaluate their own practice. Encouraging providers to consider their own treatment outcomes, along with ways to improve (e.g., taking advantages of training opportunities), could engage providers in quality improvement. In addition, the MHS can expand use of BHDP data to guide quality improvement efforts. These data could identify PH providers and MTFs that are “outliers” in terms of their ability to obtain improved outcomes (both higher performers and possible lower performers). These data could be linked with process quality measures that would indicate whether the care the provider delivers is typically guideline-concordant and consider whether care could be improved.

Recommendation 4. Develop a Systematic, MHS-Wide Approach to Increasing the Delivery of Guideline-Concordant PH Care Through a Continuous Quality Improvement Strategy

Because service branches have the responsibility for care delivery, staffing, and training providers, there are few MHS-wide efforts to systematically monitor and improve PH care. BHDP is a notable exception and will provide visibility across the MHS on important aspects of the delivery of guideline-concordant care, including symptom monitoring and utilization. The key to increasing the capacity of the MHS to deliver such care, however, is developing and implementing system-wide continuous quality improvement efforts. While we are aware of several service branch–specific efforts, implementing MHS-wide efforts may increase efficiency and shared learning across the service branches.

Monitoring the quality of care is a critical step in ensuring that all patients receive high-quality care. However, using the data effectively and systematically to implement quality improvement initiatives is equally important. By continuously gathering and using data at the system level, as recommended above, the MHS will be able to identify areas for improvement, develop and test strategies for improvement, and then implement those strategies across services. To effectively implement systemic quality improvement efforts across the MHS, service branches and the Defense Health Agency (DHA) will need to determine how to allocate responsibility for these efforts and to assure that those accountable for quality at each level (from MTF to service branch) receive appropriate training in quality improvement tools and procedures. While DHA is collecting data and monitoring quality across service branches, past efforts to improve care have occurred within service branches, rather than across the MHS as a whole. We recommend that MHS policymakers consider mechanisms for system-wide improvements, which should increase efficiency and reduce variability in the delivery of care.

This study expanded on previous RAND work on quality of care for PH conditions by describing the PH workforce at MTFs, examining the extent to which MTF providers report care for PTSD and MDD is consistent with clinical practice guidelines, and identifying facilitators and barriers to providing this care. These findings highlight areas of strength for the MHS, as well as areas that should be targeted for quality improvement. The results presented here can inform how the MHS and service branches can support continuous improvement in the PH care the MHS delivers.