# Implementation of a Dedicated Intake Team Reduces Time to Massed PTSD Treatment

## TL;DR

A dedicated intake team improved access to PTSD treatment for veterans by reducing wait times and dropout rates.

## Contribution

The study introduces a clinic-wide intake redesign that significantly improves treatment access for PTSD patients.

## Key findings

- Patients received acceptance/rejection decisions one week sooner after the redesign.
- The odds of pre-treatment dropout dropped by about 60%.
- Disparities in wait times persisted for certain demographic groups.

## Abstract

The Institute of Medicine (2001) describes quality health care as safe, effective, patient-centered, efficient, equitable, and timely. Although this definition highlights the necessity of continuous program evaluation to ensure that these goals are being addressed, there is a notable lack of industry-wide standards and benchmarks, and many clinical programs lack the ability to continually and rigorously evaluate their own performance with data. This might be particularly true in the case of ensuring service members and veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) obtain treatment, as several systemic barriers exist, such as long wait times and lack of equitable treatment for individuals with minoritized identities. The current study examines the impact of a clinic-wide intake redesign for a massed PTSD treatment program to shift the intake process to a small, dedicated team rather than a responsibility shared across all clinicians. The redesign led to significantly shorter wait times for treatment and reduced some types of pre-treatment dropout. On average, patients received an acceptance/rejection decision 1 week sooner, attended the program almost 2 months sooner, and saw a roughly 60% reduction in the odds of dropout at the point of receiving an acceptance/rejection decision. Some disparities in wait times for those who were not partnered, women, and individuals who financially supported more family members remained after the redesign. Results are discussed in light of the importance of continuous program evaluation to address IOM’s holistic definition of quality health care.