The Institute’s Melissa DeHaven and Penny Liles presented “Strengths Training: No Workout Required!” A training that helped participants identify strengths and use strengths language when helping people find and maintain jobs.
Yesterday, they presented “Matchmaker: Make me a Match.” This training showed participants how to be mindful of the ways in which symptoms might impact the job search and how to plan job supports around them.
Overall, the goal of these IPS trainers was promoting employment for individuals with mental health and substance use diagnoses.
Lyn Legere recently led our Employment Peer Mentor (EPM) training, which is designed for those people working as EPMs on IPS teams across North Carolina.
The 3-day mandatory training supports EPMs to understand their specific role on IPS teams, learn how to maintain their “peerness” and recognize how the NC service definition for EPMs differs from, but complements, the Employment Specialist.
I would bet we all can agree that service intensity should be tailored to what the individual wants and needs — but that response is also too simple, and not very helpful. I’ll bullet point on some considerations…
What you are able to offer depends on what you have on deck for resources.
Fully staffed team, with a ratio closer to 1:8, is going to have more resources for a given client than a team staffed with a ratio of 1:10. BEWARE – ratios of 1:5 signal there are many people out there in need of ACT who could be getting ACT so start enrolling more individuals!
Limit and be thoughtful about staff doubling up to see individuals. Aside from the obvious good clinical practices for sending two staff out to see a client, an example we are less fond of us when there is an expectation that a team member (often a nurse) has to accompany the psychiatric care provider out in the field to see people. You are de facto reducing your staffing resource stock.
Manage your catchment area to control for excessive indirect time (which subtracts from possible direct time) due to travel. Expansive rural areas, excessive mountain terrain driving, and pockets of dense urban areas with challenging gridlock traffic all can be a problem.
A team with a comprehensive repertoire of skills that complete the “all inclusive team” simply has more to offer than a team with more limited skills and focus — person-centered planning will actual result in a rich compliment of services, vs a team that more narrowly focuses on case management and medication monitoring.
Planned service hours creates a space for doing more with individuals. Teams that truly embrace the early evening shift (e.g., 11 – 7) and planned weekend hours (so much you can do to support people on Saturday and Sunday!) will naturally result in more intensive services than the team that believes team operations start and end at 8 – 4 or 9 – 5, then it’s simply crisis on-call coverage.
Offering groups (in compliment to individual services) may result in more options and increased service intensity. BEWARE — too many groups is not a good thing — and if you are using terms like “programming,” I suspect you are down a path that is feeling institutional. Consider offering workshops and changing the focus and topics periodically.
Decisions around how much service (frequency and intensity) may depend on several individual factors. Here are some reasons why someone may be getting more intensive services from the team:
They have multiple and complex needs benefiting from multiple team member contacts across the week. Someone may really want and benefit from 4 visits per week in part because they have a lot going on — struggling with family relationships; interested in getting a part-time job; working on nutrition to address hypertension; and just moved into a new apartment and is needing support in establishing their new home — that’s a lot to be working on all at once and may require several team members working in tandem across a single week. Conversely, some individuals may not tolerate many visits (fragile engagement), and/or are in an “action” or “maintenance” stage of change in only a couple of life areas, but have other needs they are not willing to actively address at the time– in turn, you essentially “bundle in” other outreach and motivational interviewing type interventions with other services.
They have significant impairments in functioning and/or cognitive impairments needing more frequent prompts, reminders, and assistance in structuring their day.
They present with some safety concerns and more frequent supervisory check-ins is important. For some individuals served by ACT, the idea of this service being a “least restrictive alternative” is very evident — and although the team is working to provide a full range of person-centered services to help individuals be more independent and increase quality of life, there may be a need to see this person often to get ahead of any pending problem before it gets too big and has too serious of consequences. For some, it may involve more intensive supports around medications. Relatedly are the individuals who need more intensive supports to help reduce the risk for bigger crises, which includes those who are recently discharged from hospital (a high risk time for many people).
Finally — it is also important to revisit the question — do they really need ACT? Teams serving people who do not benefit from this level of care likely will not see higher levels of intensity for those individuals. This is not necessarily a consequence of people progressing through ACT and getting ready for graduation, but can be due to your area lacking reasonable alternative services. A similarly important question (and lends to other threads on this listserv) is having opportunity to provide longer term services and not experience the pressure of (premature) discharges from the team. So much of the first 1 – 2 years can involve careful rapport building to even get to the point of working on a bunch of life areas … teams under pressure to discharge, are caught up in a cycle of serving a larger proportion of individuals in an engagement phase.
With fidelity reviews, we are often focused on calculating averages (medians – -what the middle person is getting after rank-ordering them high to low). That information is important — and when on the lower end (under 90 minutes — which is not uncommon to see), I’m revisiting all of the above questions and considerations.
I’m also paying attention to how high is high (looking at the top 10% in intensity and seeing how intensive that is) and how did you get there (i.e., there are ways to get high intensity by way of not so good practices — such as excessive use daily medication monitoring; excessive reliance on groups (you start looking like a day treatment program); or serving a high number of people in residential institutions, of which the team has easy access to (captive audience)).
Again, interested in reactions and additional thoughts. In short, service intensity depends on the: 1) resources available from the team; 2) the needs of the individuals served; 3) the team’s ability and opportunity to meet those needs across time
Our recent two-day Intro to START Training with Dr. Sarah Desmarais from NC State. Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) is a framework and tool providers (broadly defined) can use to systematically examine strengths and protective factors, as well as current problems that create risks…
Spanning a full array of “risks,” undercutting and interfering with recovery. The intent is to strategically help increase protective factors and decrease problems through thoughtful supports and interventions.
North Carolina (NC) ACT Coalition was founded over 10 years ago, where a few NC agencies committed to providing ACT – and doing it well — joined together as a solid unit to share resources, ideas, and unite to be a single voice lobbying for more resources and better policy. These few originating agencies spanned the state.
It was indeed a grassroots effort– no mental health authority was
directing them to convene. Agency executive leadership, clinical
directors, and team leaders chose to meet because they believed in this
service, and most importantly, the people served. The growth of the NC
ACT Coalition was well timed with my own move to NC – I was eventually enlisted
to give some guest speaker talks, then slowly pulled in to facilitate and lead
them (and thankful for it!).
Although our Coalition meeting location shifted many times over
the years (there was a “Golden Corral” era – something only
some of you will appreciate), our focus and commitment only grew. At one
point, we created committees to take on tasks such as : administrative
advocacy; outcomes monitoring; fidelity monitoring; and a training
committee. We pooled resources, we pooled data, and we negotiated
differences in perspective and opinion about best practice ACT.
As of 2019, the NC ACT Coalition remains and now essentially
represents all agencies operating ACT in NC. Given the size and spread of
teams, we bifurcated into an “Eastern” and “Western”
Coalition for the sake of our bi-monthly meetings. We meet as one large
Statewide Coalition annually for a conference. In addition to these
meetings, members have access to a listserv, received discounts on trainings,
and engage in surveys used to collect data and generate reports to meet
provider needs (e.g., we conduct a salary survey every three years and share
data (de-identified) back to the teams).
We do collect annual agency membership dues to help pay for the
expenses related to facilitating and coordinating; but we’ve kept those rates
steady over time. One of my personal struggles with a Coalition like this
is how to preserve it’s grassroots origin, as well as decisions around
membership inclusion vs. exclusion. Do we welcome all, or those who
clearly show a demonstrated alignment with our mission statement of best practice
ACT? Analysis of fidelity data a positive correlation between the length
of membership and participation in meetings and ACT fidelity (of course there
are two different interpretations of this relationship).
I go on and on about this to share something cool happening in California, or at least in Solano County and it’s neighboring counties – led by a friend, and champion for best practices in general — Emery Cowan. Emery arrived in NC to work with our DHHS/Division of Mental Health during the “Golden Corral” Days, and the Coalition so greatly appreciated her immediate interest in them and wanting to support the providers in delivering best practice ACT. She eventually moved back to do some good things in Broward County, Florida (where she is from), before being scooped up by smart people in California. Emery is working diligently to invite provides to get more involved in her area — become grassroots champions of their own right. She kindly agreed to share this resource guide she developed. Check it out!
“You never forget that feeling when you are somebody,” shared an audience member, who also shared some background, while discussing supportive housing and watching Coco’s story.
Amidst a discussion of supportive housing, we showed this video:
Sixty team members, spanning positions (COD, employment and peer specialists, QPs, nurses, psychiatrists, therapists, and team leaders) and the state (Asheville to Wilmington), attended our recent High-Fidelity ACT 101 training in Raleigh, NC.
The Institute is so grateful to Sandhill’s MCO for encouraging their providers to develop deeper skills in Co-Occurring (Mental Health & Substance Use) treatment practices. Stacy Smith, LPC and MINT said, “The robust discussions around newer ways of seeing recovery is so pleasing. We met providers willing and able to help using the latest in evidence-based practices like harm reduction and medication assisted therapy!”
“Dr. Moser and Stacy Smith provided a series of trainings for Virginia’s ACT teams in 2016. The team at the Institute for Best Practices has also provided team-level consultation and training to several teams since that time. We could not have been more pleased with the depth and breadth of knowledge that all brought, as well as the personable, and down right enjoyable way that it was all presented. The Institute has definitely helped us to bolster our understanding and delivery of high-fidelity ACT which has benefited hundreds of service providers, and most importantly, thousands of individuals receiving those services, and their families.”
Jeff VanArnam, ACT Coordinator, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services