(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Developing standards for virtual delivery of mental health services in Canadian primary care: A qualitative study and modified Delphi process [1]
['Abban Yusuf', 'Map Centre For Urban Health Solutions', 'Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute', 'St. Michael S Hospital', 'Toronto', 'Ontario', 'Ginetta Salvalaggio', 'Department Of Family Medicine', 'University Of Alberta', 'Edmonton']
Date: 2024-10
In Canada, public health measures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid onset and prolonged, widespread increase in the use of virtual primary care services, including for mental health conditions. Our aim was to develop standards on virtual delivery of mental health services in primary care in Canada using information obtained from an earlier rapid review as well as participant feedback obtained through interviews and a focus group. We developed standards using three interlinked processes. First, we completed a rapid review of guidelines regarding virtual primary mental health care services. We then invited health care workers and people with lived experience of mental health concerns to participate in a focus group and interviews. Finally, members of the study team drafted standards and shared them with an advisory group, who reviewed their feasibility, phrasing, and acceptability through a modified Delphi process. Standards ranked as having less than 100% feasibility and acceptability were brought to a virtual discussion of the advisory group to finalize the list. Seven participants were recruited into the focus group and interviews. We identified three themes: (i) patients’ and providers’ agreement about expectations regarding virtual care, (ii) accessibility and equity, and (iii) safety planning in the delivery of virtual care. We drafted 18 standards on virtual primary mental health care delivery that were reviewed by an advisory group of identified experts. Thirteen standards were included in the final list. The standards bring attention to continuity of care, and resources and information that should be given to patients to further health equity. These standards provide guidance for the organization and delivery of virtual mental health services in Canadian and international primary care, particularly within the context of single payer health systems.
Many research publications and provincial documents were quickly developed over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic to guide and support health care providers as they sought to adjust to the rapidly-changing health care landscape. Yet, despite the quickly growing popularity and usage of virtual care, there is a paucity of recommendations that emphasize mental health services in primary care, health equity and improvement of quality of care within a Canadian context. The objectives of this study were to develop and refine a list of standards on virtual delivery of mental health services in primary care in Canada using information from an earlier rapid review [ 33 ] as well as the participant feedback obtained in this study through interviews and a focus group.
Thus, it is necessary to develop standards for the delivery of virtual mental health services. Standards provide a benchmark for high quality care, and they provide guidance for practitioners and organizations enabling comparison with each other. According to Health Quality Ontario, “Quality standards outline for clinicians and patients what quality care looks like” [ 37 ]. Implementing standards can also ensure that quality care is delivered in a consistent manner for all patients by minimising variation [ 38 ].
Substantial increases in virtual care use have resulted in an abundance of literature on virtual care service delivery [ 12 – 32 ]. Our team completed a rapid review of guidance and standards for virtual delivery of mental health services from high-income country settings and identified 40 resources from 9 countries [ 33 ]. Themes from content analysis of those resources included: screen patients for appropriateness of virtual care; obtain emergency contact details; communicate transparently with patients; improve marginalised patients’ access to care; support health equity for all patients; determine the cost-effectiveness of virtual care; inform patients of insurance coverage for virtual care services; increase provider training for virtual care and set professional boundaries between providers and patients [ 33 ]. Despite these resources being available in other countries, efforts to organise virtual care guidance and recommendations have been limited in Canada until recently [ 33 ]. Existing frameworks and guidelines for virtual care in Canada, such as the Canadian Medical Association’s 2021 ‘Virtual Care Playbook’ [ 34 ] and the Foundation of Medical Regulatory Associations of Canada’s 2021 guidance [ 35 ] are largely focused on operational considerations such as what size screen to use, or noting that the limitations of virtual care must be disclosed to patients. Existing guidance is therefore inadequate to support primary care providers to be able to provide safe, effective virtual care in general; and this guidance is not focused on mental health in particular, which has its own set of challenges including patient safety considerations that need to be specifically addressed. Various publications in the literature have already noted how poorly planned or delivered virtual health care appointments can increase the possibility of patients experiencing negative consequences. For example, one article found that patients who report to ‘walk-in’ virtual health visits (that is, episodic care settings where there is no expectation of longitudinal follow up) were more likely to visit an emergency room later [ 36 ]. Another article noted that the privacy of patient health information may be compromised if adequate protections are not put in place [ 28 ]. Some authors caution that virtual health care could worsen health inequities and disparities [ 12 ]; for example, in the United States, virtual health care services tend to be used more by people of higher income, while people of lower income use in-person visits more frequently [ 5 ].
Approximately 20% of people in Canada will experience a mental health issue each year [ 6 ]. Mental health services in Canada are often first accessed through primary care [ 7 ], with the most common reasons for primary care visits being anxiety and depression [ 8 , 9 ]. Yet, approximately 17% of Canadians–at least 6 million people–do not have access to primary care providers [ 10 ]. Given that virtual care services are proposed to improve access to primary health care for many people while decreasing the cost of delivering care when performed well [ 11 , 12 ] and that psychiatry-based mental health care has been reported as particularly amenable to virtual care delivery compared to other forms of physical ailments [ 13 ], it is evident that virtual delivery of mental health services will be an important ongoing pillar of primary health care delivery. Thus, improving access to virtual care will be an important component of improving health equity within the Canadian health care system [ 12 ].
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health restrictions, virtual delivery of health care became far more common in high income nations and has persisted since [ 1 ]. Virtual care is "any interaction between patients and/or members of their circle of care, occurring remotely, using any forms of communication or information technologies…" [ 2 ]. In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, the usage of virtual care increased substantially; for example, there was a 5,600% increase in virtual visits in Ontario; virtual care made up more than 70% of primary care visits [ 3 ]. Between 2019 and 2020, only 4% of all physician-provided mental health services were delivered virtually; one year later, this percentage increased to 57% of all physician-provided mental health services [ 4 , 5 ].
We invited individuals through our personal networks and connections from various backgrounds across Canada, including people with lived experience, health care providers, policy makers, administrators, and clinicians, to participate in interviews, focus group and the advisory group (who completed the Delphi process) to discuss their views on virtual primary mental health care services and review the standards. We also conducted a Google search to identify at least one mental health organisation in every province and territory and contacted these organisations (19 in total) through email to recruit participants with experience in delivering or receiving mental health care. Participants in the focus group and interviews were provided with a $50 Canadian gift card as reimbursement for their time and participation in the study.
Study team. The study team was based at a research hospital based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The authors GS, OM, SM, HA, LL and BN were involved in the conception of the study and methodology design. The focus group and interviews were conducted by a research coordinator with experience in public health (NE) and the principal investigator (BO) who is a family physician and health services researcher. We were cognizant of power differentials particularly within interactions between us as research professionals and people with lived experience of mental illness. Although we sought to limit the effect of this on people’s responses by recruiting participants for the focus group and interviews with whom we did not have any pre-existing relationship, it remains possible that people may have been inhibited in sharing criticism of their own virtual care experiences.
We modified the Delphi approach by having the advisory group conduct the process to combine and condense the initial list, rather than sending out a survey more broadly for prioritization. We did this because of resource and time limitations within our one-year study period. Once feedback from this round was put together, the study team met in an online video meeting to go over the feedback and make final revisions to the list of proposed standards. Any standard that had a score of less than 100% for both feasibility and agreeability was brought to that meeting. Five members attended.
In this study, we implemented a modified two-step Delphi consensus process, drawing inspiration from the method used by Eubank et al [ 41 ]. Using this methodology, we first prepared a Google Forms-based survey asking for independent feedback on the agreeability, feasibility, and phrasing of the initial draft of standards. We sent this to the 14 members of our advisory group. Seven people from the advisory group responded; this group comprised researchers, physicians, health care providers and people with lived experience who did not participate in drafting the original standards. None of the authors who originally drafted the standards took part in this Delphi process.
In a typical Delphi process, a group of expert panel members is asked to repeatedly, independently, and anonymously rank and evaluate statements on a given topic [ 42 , 43 ]. In subsequent rounds, the anonymized responses from the previous rounds are shared with panelists, to give panelists the opportunity to read other opinions and decide whether to alter their own (43). The format of the Delphi process is designed to attain a group’s consensus on a set of drafted statements while minimising bias that may originate from group conformity [ 42 ].
Three study team members (AY, NE, BO) drafted an initial list of standards (containing 18 standards in total) using information from the rapid review (specifically the themes described in the manuscript) [ 33 ] and the results of the analysis of the focus group and interviews. We then conducted a modified Delphi consensus process by sending these to the 14 members of the advisory group [ 41 ].
Three team members (BO, NE, AY) used thematic analysis to code the focus group and interview transcripts [ 40 ]. This involved three phases: (1) reading of the data, (2) coding of the data, which allowed for early data management and analysis, and (3) theming, where the team members shared their perspectives, deliberated and grouped codes into themes (42). In the first phase, reading, all team members familiarised themselves with the transcripts by reading through them individually. In the second phase, coding, the team members created “codes” for each transcript, defined by Saunders et al. as “labels for concepts in the data that are directly relevant in the study objective”, and recorded these codes and their definitions. After individual coding was completed for the first transcript in Microsoft Word, BO, NE and AY met to negotiate consensus and develop these codes into a shared codebook to use for the two subsequent transcripts [ 13 ]. Lastly, in the third phase, theming, the three team members individually grouped together repeating codes and constructs into overarching themes, using Microsoft Excel. They then met together to deliberate and decide on a final set [ 40 ].
We used the findings of an earlier rapid review of guidance from high-income country settings [ 33 ] to develop questions for a focus group and a series of interviews with healthcare providers and people with lived experience. ( S1 Text ). We recruited seven participants into one focus group and two interviews (assignment based on a participant’s request; they could choose to be questioned individually in an interview or as part of a group).These lasted about one hour each, and were held between May and July, 2023 on Zoom; we used the internal features of Zoom to record each interview and to generate draft transcripts, which a research staff member reviewed and edited in detail for accuracy for use in analysis. Data were stored on a secure server at Unity Health Toronto.
We conducted a qualitative study using a modified Delphi process which included findings from a rapid review [ 33 ], consultation with people with lived experience and health workers, expert review from an external advisory group, and development of consensus among the study team. ( Fig 1 ) The study was mostly conducted virtually; all meetings were conducted over Zoom. This manuscript has been reported using the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) checklist [ 39 ], located in S1 Table .
The study team then made final revisions to the draft standards; these revisions included modifying phrasing of statements, deleting statements entirely and combining statements together. Five draft standards were left unmodified. Three draft standards were combined into one. Wording was revised for seven draft standards. Three draft standards were deleted. After these revisions were made, the standards were brought back to the study team, who made minor changes to their wording.
After the focus group, interviews and rapid review (34) were completed, three study team members (NE, AY, BO) developed a draft list of 18 standards. Seven advisory group members (who had not taken part in drafting the standards initially) took part in the modified Delphi consensus process to rate the agreeability and feasibility of the 18 draft standards. The number of participants between the first and second rounds of the Delphi process dropped from seven to five. These advisory group members self-identified as four researchers, two health care administrators, two healthcare providers and one person with lived experience. (People could choose more than one role.) The initial draft list of standards and the feedback provided on them are presented in Table 1 .
“…if someone’s at such a high crisis point, and they cannot be grounded, virtually, it puts you in a really kind of sticky spot, because although we may have their emergency contact information, you know, to call someone in the event of- I find not being able to kind of make that eye contact, not being able to see that they’re doing the exercise properly… anxiety provoking for the clinician as well.” [Health care provider, Focus group 1].
The final theme was safety planning in virtual care. Conversations on this theme described situations in which virtual care may be riskier to a patient compared to in-person appointments. For example, one participant suggested it may be easier on a patient to have certain conversations in-person rather than virtually, stating that they would advise their patients to meet in-person for follow-up if something traumatic came up during a video call:
“… I felt like there was less shame too, because I didn’t have to tell my workplace where I was going, I could sort of schedule it on my own time. And it felt more personalized to me doing it from my own home.” [Person with lived experience, Focus group 1].
“If it’s a question about something, we’ve got no problem like about a resource or something fair. But if I have to spend more than 10 minutes engaged in responding to or looking something up for you, then there will be a charge associated with that.” [Health care provider, Interview 1].
Four people with lived experience and one health care provider met in the focus group. Each of the two interviews included one health care provider. All of the participants were adults (18 years or older) who self-identified as people with lived or living experience of mental illness, mental health clinicians, policy makers or health care administrators.
Discussion
We developed a list of standards that can be used nationally and serve as a blueprint for delivering virtual mental health services in primary care. This process was comprehensive and drew on previous research, feedback from interviews and a focus group with community members and health care workers and input from a diverse group of panelists. Although this project was focused on Canadian primary care, we believe these standards are applicable to other single-payer healthcare settings.
Data from the interview and focus group led to the development of three themes: (1) patients and providers agreeing about expectations regarding virtual care, (2) accessibility and equity, and (3) safety planning in virtual care. These themes were used in the development of the drafted standards 4–12, 14, and 15; findings from the rapid review [33] were used to draft the other standards. There were some similarities between these standards and guidance that has been developed in other settings. For example, Ontario Health (which oversees the administration of the health system in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province) published a guidance document emphasizing the need for health equity, assessing population health needs and determining the best modalities of virtual care for patients [31]. Other literature exploring how to improve delivery of virtual mental health care in Canada also described the importance of considering the impact of health care disparities, including those experienced by populations experiencing inequitable access to quality care, during guideline development [44]. This is represented in standard 11 (“Patients from equity-seeking groups should have opportunities for prioritized access to virtual mental health services, if that is their preference and it is feasible”) (Table 2).
As part of this overall research project, we reviewed Canadian provincial and territorial policies on delivering virtual health care [45] and found some other similarities and differences to the standards we created. For example, standards of practice published online by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta stated those providing virtual care must assess the suitability of their patient’s physical environment, obtain consent, develop plans for adverse or emergency situations and confirm the location of their patient prior to initiating each virtual appointments [46], consistent with standards 4 and 5 in our study (Table 2). The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan provided similar guidance through their virtual care policy, and reported that physicians providing virtual care should, among other things, strive to ensure confidentiality and verify the appropriateness of virtual care with each patient before commencing a virtual appointment [47].
Some of the standards were developed from the policy and literature reviewed in our earlier work [33, 45], instead of originating from one of the interviews or focus group. In this project, our team performed a rapid review on virtual health care guidance published in the literature, through the lens of the Quadruple Aim Framework. The Quadruple Aim framework guided this search through its focus on four key principles when designing and delivering health care services: improving patient experience, improving population health, reducing health care costs and improving provider experience [48]. For example, Standard 1, which calls for health care providers to perform standardized symptom assessments for their patients, originated from the research found through the rapid review [33] as well as policy mandating that physicians continue to monitor their patients’ symptoms despite being based virtually [49, 50]. This type of assessment is based on the concept of measurement-based care. Measurement-based care can be described as “…routinely administered outcome measures with practitioner and patient review to inform clinical decision-making” [51]. It has been reported to be viewed favourably among Canadian clinicians delivering psychiatric care, so long as it can be implemented through methods considering ease-of-use and feasibility [52]. Although measurement-based care has been found to be effective to improve symptoms of anxiety and depression [51], it also provides a method to collect and retain a longitudinal, comprehensive record of patients’ health and symptoms in the absence of in-person tests–a useful tool to use when providing health care virtually.
However, there were also key areas in which our findings differed from other work in this area. These differences are valuable as they inform further research. For example, one report described the importance of coordinating virtual care services from local and regional perspectives to ensure that the unique circumstances and needs of different regions are taken into account [44]. Surprisingly, this did not come up during the focus group, interview or team meetings. Nevertheless, this is important to meet the needs of patients and health care providers across Canada. Another report encouraged providers to self-assess their capacity and aptitude to deliver virtual primary care services [31]. Capacity and aptitude can be built through workplace training initiatives around virtual health care. This is an important aspect of virtual health care delivery, as providers must have the tools and learning they require to successfully conduct virtual mental health appointments.
Another area for further research may explore how to ensure that episodic appointments (e.g., ‘walk-in’ services) ensure patient continuity of care. This is an important step for improving virtual care services, especially given that reports have critiqued walk-in virtual primary care services for putting patients in more danger of experiencing harm [5, 28]. For example, physicians delivering care virtually may be unable to link patients to critical community resources because the physician is not that patient’s regular healthcare practitioner and may be unaware of the patient’s background or neighbourhood [5].
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000071
Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/
