State psychiatric hospitals across the United States continue to use methodologies that predate the emergence of the evidenced-based practices movement and widespread adoption of the recovery model. The cultural legacy of state psychiatric hospitals is often heavily influenced by the era of custodial treatment with an emphasis on medication and the primacy of the medical model of care. Using a recovery and wellness philosophy, combined with practices that are evidence based, represents a vision for the future of these institutions (Smith & Bartholomew, 2006). This article describes the implementation of the evidence-based practice of illness management and recovery (SAMHSA, 2008) in a state psychiatric hospital. The role of this evidence-based program, as a way of operationalizing a recovery and wellness philosophy, is discussed in addition to some of the successful implementation strategies and program barriers. Directions for future work in this area are also discussed.

Objective To examine provider competence in providing Illness Management and Recovery (IMR), an evidence-based self-management program for people with severe mental illness, and the association between implementation supports and IMR competence. Methods IMR session recordings, provided by 43 providers/provider pairs, were analyzed for IMR competence using the IMR treatment integrity scale. Providers also reported on receipt of commonly available implementation supports (e.g., training, consultation). Results Average IMR competence scores were in the “Needs Improvement” range. Clinicians demonstrated low competence in several IMR elements: significant other involvement, weekly action planning, action plan follow-up, cognitive-behavioral techniques, and behavioral tailoring for medication management. These elements were commonly absent from IMR sessions. Competence in motivational enhancement strategies and cognitive-behavioral techniques differed based on the module topic covered in a session. Generally, receipt of implementation supports was not associated with increased competence; however, motivational interviewing training was associated with increased competence in action planning and review. Conclusions and Implications for Practice IMR, as implemented in the community, may lack adequate competence and commonly available implementation supports do not appear to be adequate. Additional implementation supports that target clinician growth areas are needed.

The current study examined the association between number of hours attended of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program and psychiatric readmission rates after discharge from a state psychiatric hospital. The study used archival data, N = 1186, from a large northeastern state psychiatric hospital in the United States. A Cox's regression survival analyses was conducted, adjusting for extreme outliers and controlling for sociodemographic covariates, to examine the association between different amounts of IMR and the risk for returning to the hospital. After controlling for the client characteristics of age, sex, marital status, psychiatric diagnosis, and Global Assessment of Functioning score at discharge, as well as controlling for mean daily dose of generic hospital programming and the number of days of hospitalization, it was found that, for each hour of IMR, there was an associated 1.1% reduction in the risk for returning to the hospital. This suggests that participation in IMR while in inpatient settings may assist individuals in reducing their risk for returning to the hospital.

Provider competence may affect the impact of a practice. The current study examined this relationship in sixty-three providers engaging in Illness Management and Recovery with 236 consumers. Improving upon previous research, the present study utilized a psychometrically validated competence measure in the ratings of multiple Illness Management and Recovery sessions from community providers, and mapped outcomes onto the theory underlying the practice. Provider competence was positively associated with illness self-management and adaptive coping. Results also indicated baseline self-management skills and working alliance may affect the relationship between competence and outcomes.

At a time of significant upheaval in American health policy, maintaining a focus on a "North Star" is critical. For implementation science, this star is the knowledge base on how to optimally disseminate evidence related to health and health care, how to implement interventions to improve care within the many settings where people receive health care and make health-related decisions, and how to improve the health of the global population. To that end, the end of 2016 brought over 1100 engaged and activated "disciples of D & I" to Washington, DC for the 9 th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health. Once again, the accompanying abstracts in this issue demonstrate the breadth, depth and vigor of this continually expanding and evolving subset of health research. During three dynamic plenaries with rows and rows of filled seats and packed concurrent sessions presenters and attendees shared findings, raised methodologic and other challenges, and discussed future priorities, trends, and next steps for this community of research. For the third year in a row, we were buoyed by a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from others committed to implementation science: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The multidisciplinary program planning committee informed the development of the key themes for the conference, identified the plenary sessions topics and speakers, established track leads to manage the review process for concurrent panels, papers, and posters, and convened a scientific advisory panel to advise on the overall conference, thus ensuring a robust, inclusive, and rigorous process. Together, the opening keynote address and the three plenary panel sessions set a tone of innovation and dialogue, raised critical issues, surfaced different perspectives, and ensured that follow on lunchtime and hallway discussions delved deeper into thorny challenges facing the field. Roy Rosin, Chief Innovation Officer for the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, introduced the audience to a range of methods for rapid testing, innovation in healthcare delivery, and lessons learned from other industries to maximize potential of new practices to be scaled-up. Each of the three plenary panels presented a general discussion on a high priority challenge for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research. A panel on the balance between intervention and implementation fidelity and local adaptation touched on the very real dynamic that is playing out in communities across this country as policy and payment changes are driving providers and others to seek new ways to solve the challenges in their particular contexts. A panel on the longerterm decisions around sustainment or de-implementation of interventions could not be more timely given the "im...