Donald M Hilty1, Terry Rabinowitz2, Robert M McCarron3, David J Katzelnick4, Trina Chang5, Amy M Bauer6, John Fortney7. 1. Mental Health, Northern California, Veterans Administration Health Care System, Mather, CA; Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, UC Davis, 10535 Hospital Way, Mather, CA 95655 (116/SAC). Electronic address: donh032612@gmail.com. 2. Departments of Psychiatry and Family Medicine, Burlington, Vermont; Division of Consultation Psychiatry and Psychosomatic Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont; University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont. 3. Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Irvine Health System, Irvine, CA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Division of Integrated Behavioral Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 6. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Behavioral Health Integration Program (BHIP) and Washington State's Mental Health Integration Program (MHIP), Seattle, WA. 7. Division of Population Health, Seattle, WA; Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, the University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this era of patient-centered care, telepsychiatry (TP; video or synchronous) provides quality care with outcomes as good as in-person care, facilitates access to care, and leverages a wide range of treatments at a distance. METHOD: This conceptual review article explores TP as applied to newer models of care (e.g., collaborative, stepped, and integrated care). RESULTS: The field of psychosomatic medicine (PSM) has developed clinical care models, educates interdisciplinary team members, and provides leadership to clinical teams. PSM is uniquely positioned to steer TP and implement other telebehavioral health care options (e.g., e-mail/telephone, psych/mental health apps) in the future in primary care. Together, PSM and TP provide versatility to health systems by enabling more patient points-of-entry, matching patient needs with provider skills, and helping providers work at the top of their licenses. TP and other technologies make collaborative, stepped, and integrated care less costly and more accessible. CONCLUSION: Effective health care delivery matches the intensity of the services to the needs of a patient population or clinic, standardizes interventions, and evaluates both process and clinical outcomes. More research is indicated on the application of TP and other technologies to these service delivery models.
INTRODUCTION: In this era of patient-centered care, telepsychiatry (TP; video or synchronous) provides quality care with outcomes as good as in-person care, facilitates access to care, and leverages a wide range of treatments at a distance. METHOD: This conceptual review article explores TP as applied to newer models of care (e.g., collaborative, stepped, and integrated care). RESULTS: The field of psychosomatic medicine (PSM) has developed clinical care models, educates interdisciplinary team members, and provides leadership to clinical teams. PSM is uniquely positioned to steer TP and implement other telebehavioral health care options (e.g., e-mail/telephone, psych/mental health apps) in the future in primary care. Together, PSM and TP provide versatility to health systems by enabling more patient points-of-entry, matching patient needs with provider skills, and helping providers work at the top of their licenses. TP and other technologies make collaborative, stepped, and integrated care less costly and more accessible. CONCLUSION: Effective health care delivery matches the intensity of the services to the needs of a patient population or clinic, standardizes interventions, and evaluates both process and clinical outcomes. More research is indicated on the application of TP and other technologies to these service delivery models.
Authors: Danielle H Rochlin; Chuan-Mei Lee; Claudia Scheuter; Terry Platchek; Robert M Kaplan; Arnold Milstein Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Mariell Hoffmann; Michel Wensing; Frank Peters-Klimm; Joachim Szecsenyi; Mechthild Hartmann; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Markus W Haun Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Paula C Zimbrean; Carrie L Ernst; Ariadna Forray; Scott R Beach; Mallika Lavakumar; Andrew M Siegel; Thomas Soeprono; Ann C Schwartz Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.386