Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT)

Authors: Jeanette Waxmonsky, Ph.D. | Andrea Auxier, Ph.D. | Pam Wise Romero, Ph.D. | Bern Heath, Ph.D.
 

The definition of integrated care alone can be highly debated. And knowing where to start with your existing systems, providers, workflows, and logistics can be a lot.

Netsmart encourages you to begin with the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT), supported by SAMSHA and authored by experts, to help you understand how integrated your organization currently is based on the national Standard Framework for Levels of Integrated Healthcare. By taking this brief assessment, you’ll score on a level of 0 to 6. The result will be emailed to you and can serve as a conversation starter or opportunities to better integrate the care you deliver.
 

 

Directions for the IPAT

1. Who should take it: it is recommended that two or more personnel who are intimately knowledgeable about the operations of an organization take the IPAT.
2. When selecting your response: it is recommended to choose "no" if you cannot definitively answer the question with a "yes."
3. Click “Get started now” to begin.

Description of the Instrument
The authors of the Integrated Practice Assessment Tool (IPAT) have devised this tool to place practices on the level of collaboration/integration defined by A Standard Framework for Levels of Integrated Healthcare issue brief. The IPAT uses a decision tree model rather than a metric model. This more accurately mirrors the issue brief tables, and avoids the need to weigh responses to questions, which may result in an in-between assessment score (e.g., a 3.75 co-location). The decision tree model uses a series of yes/no questions that cascade to a specific Level of Integrated Healthcare determination.
 

About the IPAT
In April 2013 the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions released A Standard Framework for Levels of Integrated Healthcare authored by Bern Heath, Pam Wise Romero and Kathy Reynolds. This issue brief expanded, updated and re-conceptualized the initial work of Doherty, McDaniel, and Baird (1996) to produce a national standard with six levels of collaboration/integration that run from Minimal Collaboration to Full Collaboration in a Transformed/Merged Integrated Practice. In presenting this framework, the authors developed three tables. The first table provides Core Descriptions of each level, the second table introduces the Key Differentiators for each level (categorized as Clinical Delivery, Patient Experience, Practice/Organization and Business Model), and the third table discusses the Advantages and Weaknesses of each level. Despite the degree of detail provided in these tables, the subjective placement of practices on the continuum of the six levels has been inconsistent between practices and has fallen short of establishing an objective and reliable categorization of practices by level.