Dual Diagnosis Capability in Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Improved understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of treatment organizations' dual diagnosis capability is critical in order to guide efforts to improve services. This study assesses programs' capacity to meet the needs of clients with dual diagnosis, identifies areas where they are well equipped to serve these clients, and determines where programmatic improvement is needed. The study also undertakes an initial exploration of the potential impact that funding sources have on dual diagnosis capability.
METHODS: We administered Dual Diagnosis Capability in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) and Dual Diagnosis Capability in Mental Health Treatment (DDCMHT) assessments at 30 treatment programs in two California counties. Seven of the programs received funding to provide both mental health and substance use disorder services, 13 received funding to provide mental health services, and 10 received funding to provide substance use disorder services.
RESULTS: The mean DDCAT/DDCMHT score of programs in the sample was 2.83, and just over 43% of the sample met or exceeded DDCAT/DDCMHT criteria for dual diagnosis capability. Programs scored highest and had the highest rates of dual diagnosis capability in domains related to assessment, training, and staffing, whereas scores were weakest and rates of dual diagnosis capability were lowest in the program structure, treatment, and continuity of care domains. Programs that received funding to provide both mental health and substance use disorder services consistently scored higher than the other programs in the sample, and mental health programs scored higher than substance use disorder treatment programs both on the overall assessments and in most domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that programs in the sample are functioning at a nearly dual diagnosis capable level. However, structural barriers continue to limit providers' capacity to serve clients with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, and many organizations have not yet translated their potential to deliver dual diagnosis capable services into practice. By enhancing their program structure, treatment services, and continuity of care services, these treatment organizations should be able to deliver fully dual diagnosis capable services. Observed differences in dual diagnosis capability based on funding source indicate a need for further research to better understand the impact that funding streams have on dual diagnosis capability.