Disseminating the Results of a Depression Management Study in an Urban Alaska Native Health Care System.

A System-Based Approach to Depression Management in Primary Care Using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9

Southcentral Foundation, a tribal health organization serving Alaska Native and American Indian (AN/AI) people in southcentral Alaska, convened the Alaska Native Health Research Forum (Forum) for AN/AI people in May 2016. The purpose of the Forum was to obtain AN/AI community member feedback about sharing health research results. This article describes the funding mechanism that provided resources for the Forum and other factors that were considered when designing the Forum. This is followed by a description of how attendees were invited, the audience response system, and process used to collect quantitative data on participants and qualitative feedback from small group discussions with Forum attendees. Finally, we describe the quantitative and qualitative data analysis processes used to evaluate responses.

Southcentral Foundation, an Alaska Native tribal health organization, has had a depression screening program in primary care since 2001. Program monitoring identified gaps in antidepressant refills and patients' follow-up with behavioral health services. With extensive stakeholder participation, we developed an electronic, patient-centered, depression-management decision support tool (DM-DST). Quality of life and other outcomes are being assessed in a separate study; this case study reports on the multi-year stakeholder engagement process. Data sources included interviews with patients and providers from integrated primary care teams, notes from research meetings, steering committee meetings, and consultations with tribal health system leadership, human subjects review committees, providers, and software designers, and a pilot test of the DS-DMT with patients and providers. We analyzed these sources using qualitative methods to assess the impact of stakeholder input on project processes and outcomes. One comprehensive, iPad-based tool was originally planned to facilitate discussions about depression management. Stakeholder input emphasized the role of family and cultural context of depression and management and improving the usability of the DM-DST. Stakeholder direction led us to split the DM-DST into: (1) a brief iPad-based tool to facilitate conversations between patients and providers during clinic visits; and (2) a complementary Web site that provides detailed information and allows patients flexibility and time to learn more about depression and share information and preferences with family and friends. Stakeholder input across the project substantially modified the DM-DST to ensure cultural applicability to patients and providers and facilitate integration into clinics.

Purpose: Depression is a common condition in rural primary care associated with significant adverse health and quality of life outcomes. Despite evidence-based practice recommendations, depression screening and follow-up are inconsistent in practice. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve the rate of depression screening and management as a component of the Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) in the rural, primary care setting. The overarching project aim was to increase the rate of depression screening and treatment in adult Medicare patients by 50% through the implementation of a standardized screening instrument and management plan within eight weeks of project implementation. Sample: The sample population included 66 Medicare beneficiaries receiving a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit at a primary care practice in rural Northeast Texas. Method: The central focus of this quality improvement project was to initiate standardized depression screening and management in the Medicare population as a component of the annual wellness visit. Patients were screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) instrument. An evidence-based depression management plan based on the PHQ-9 score guided follow-up and management. Findings: When depression screening was performed as a component of the AWV, 98.5% of patients received depression screening with a validated instrument. 73.3% of patients who had a PHQ-9 score of five or greater had a documented follow-up plan, and 93.3% had recommended treatment initiated. A strong positive correlation was found among patients who screened positive for depression and received a documented follow-up plan (rho (63) = .993, p <.001) and had treatment plan initiated (rho (63) = .998, p <.001). Conclusions: Implementing standardized workflows, such as the annual wellness visit, is foundational to consistently identify and treat depression to remission in the rural primary care setting. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14574/ojrnhc.v20i1.602 Keywords: depression, screening, preventive services, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, annual wellness visit.

Using the PHQ-9 for Depression Screening and Treatment Monitoring for Chinese Americans in Primary Care

To update clinical practice guidelines to assist primary care (PC) in the screening and assessment of depression. In this second part of the updated guidelines, we address treatment and ongoing management of adolescent depression in the PC setting. By using a combination of evidence- and consensus-based methodologies, the guidelines were updated in 2 phases as informed by (1) current scientific evidence (published and unpublished) and (2) revision and iteration among the steering committee, including youth and families with lived experience. These updated guidelines are targeted for youth aged 10 to 21 years and offer recommendations for the management of adolescent depression in PC, including (1) active monitoring of mildly depressed youth, (2) treatment with evidence-based medication and psychotherapeutic approaches in cases of moderate and/or severe depression, (3) close monitoring of side effects, (4) consultation and comanagement of care with mental health specialists, (5) ongoing tracking of outcomes, and (6) specific steps to be taken in instances of partial or no improvement after an initial treatment has begun. The strength of each recommendation and the grade of its evidence base are summarized. The Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care cannot replace clinical judgment, and they should not be the sole source of guidance for adolescent depression management. Nonetheless, the guidelines may assist PC clinicians in the management of depressed adolescents in an era of great clinical need and a shortage of mental health specialists. Additional research concerning the management of depressed youth in PC is needed, including the usability, feasibility, and sustainability of guidelines, and determination of the extent to which the guidelines actually improve outcomes of depressed youth.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescriptions for children and adolescents have increased greatly in recent years despite a paucity of demonstrated safety and efficacy data and a lack of clear guidelines for use. Our study sought to describe family physician and pediatrician SSRI prescribing patterns for children and adolescents, identify influences on SSRI prescription variations, and describe the use of SSRI within the overall management of depression and other mental disorders in primary care. A survey was mailed to all 596 active North Carolina general pediatricians and a random sample of 557 family physicians in primary care practice. Family physicians who did not see children in their practice were excluded. The survey instrument consisted of a 4-page questionnaire. Survey items included physician demographics, practice characteristics, general management, volume of pediatric patients with depressive symptoms, prescription of SSRIs for depression and other diagnoses, and potential influences on SSRI prescribing practices. The main outcomes were self-reported physician prescription of SSRIs for children and adolescents. Results were analyzed using chi(2) comparisons and logistic regression. The overall response rate was 66% (55% family physicians and 76% pediatricians). Of the physicians, 72% had prescribed an SSRI for a child or adolescent. Depression was the most common reason for prescribing an SSRI; over two thirds of respondents had prescribed an SSRI for depression in a child 18 years of age or younger. Over half of the physicians reported they had prescribed an SSRI for a diagnosis other than depression in a child 18 years of age or younger. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was the most frequent use cited other than depression, followed by obsessive-compulsive disorder, aggression, eating disorders, and enuresis. Primary care physicians prescribed SSRIs for adolescents more commonly than for younger children. Only 6% of the respondents had ever prescribed an SSRI for a child younger than 6 years of age. In terms of SSRI prescriptions written for depression in the last 6 months, 32% of the physicians had recently prescribed SSRIs for adolescent patients and 6% for patients younger than 12 years of age. Family physicians were more likely than pediatricians to have recently prescribed SSRIs for adolescent patients (41% vs 26%), but there was no difference in recent SSRI prescriptions for children <12 years of age by physician specialty (4% vs 6%). Prescription of SSRIs was not associated with decreased use of counseling for treatment of depression, but prescription of SSRIs was associated with decreased use of referrals (63% vs 74%). There was no difference in the use of counseling between family physicians and pediatricians (61% vs 59%). However, pediatricians were more likely to use referrals in their usual approach to depression (77% vs 48%) compared with family physicians. More family physicians had prescribed SSRIs for pediatric patients compared with pediatricians (91% vs 58%), and more family physicians had prescribed SSRIs in combination with other psychotropic medications (54% vs 31%). For the majority of respondents, SSRI prescriptions constituted most of the medications used to treat childhood depression (75% of family physicians vs 61% of pediatricians). Family physicians were more likely to report a belief in the safety (63% vs 48%) and effectiveness (40% vs 32%) of SSRIs. Only 8% of physicians reported adequate training in the treatment of childhood depression and just 16% were comfortable with the treatment of depression. There were no specialty differences in training for the treatment of childhood depression; however, more family physicians than pediatricians agreed that they were comfortable with the management of childhood depression (22% vs 11%). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Depression is a major public health problem, which is predicted to be second only to cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of disease-related disability worldwide by 2020.[1][1] It is already the leading cause of disease-related disability among women, and in most countries, the prevalence of

Screening or case finding instruments have been advocated as a simple, quick and inexpensive method to improve detection and management of depression in non-specialist settings, such as primary care and the general hospital. However, screening/case finding is just one of a number of strategies that have been advocated to improve the quality of care for depression. The adoption of this seemingly simple and effective strategy should be underpinned by evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness. To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening and case finding instruments in: (1) improving the recognition of depression; (2) improving the management of depression, and (3) improving the outcome of depression. The researchers undertook electronic searches of The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004); The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Register [2004); EMBASE (1980-2004); MEDLINE (1966-2004); CINAHL (to 2004) and PsycLIT (1974-2004). References of all identified studies were searched for further trials, and the researchers contacted authors of trials. Randomised controlled trials of the administration of case finding/screening instruments for depression and the feedback of the results of these instruments to clinicians, compared with no clinician feedback. Trials had to be conducted in non-mental health settings, such as primary care or the general hospital. Studies that used screening strategies in addition to enhanced care, such as case management and structured follow up, were specifically excluded. Citations and, where possible, abstracts were independently inspected by researchers, papers ordered, re-inspected and quality assessed. Data were also independently extracted. Data relating to: (1) the recognition of depression; (2) the management of depression and (3) the outcome of depression over time were sought. For dichotomous data the Relative Risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, weighted and standardised mean difference were calculated. A series of a priori sensitivity analyses relating to the method of administration of questionnaires and population under study were used to examine plausible causes of heterogeneity. Twelve studies (including 5693 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Synthesis of these data gave the following results:(1) the recognition of depression: according to case note entries of depression, screening/case finding instruments had borderline impact on the overall recognition of depression by clinicians (relative risk 1.38; 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.83). However, substantial heterogeneity was found for this outcome. Screening and feedback, irrespective of baseline score of depression has no impact on the detection of depression (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.13). In contrast, three small positive studies using a two stage selective procedure, whereby patients were screened and only patients scoring above a certain threshold were entered into the trial, did suggest that this approach might be effective (relative risk 2.66; 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 3.96). Separate pooling according to this variable reduced the overall level of heterogeneity. Publication bias was also found for this outcome.(2) the management of depression: according to case note entries for active interventions and prescription data, a selected subsample of all studies reported this outcome and found that there was there was an overall trend to showing a borderline higher intervention rate amongst those who received feedback of screening/case finding instruments (relative risk 1.35; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.85), although substantial heterogeneity between studies existed for this outcome. This result was dependant upon the presence of one highly positive study.(3) the outcome of depression: few studies reported the impact of case finding/screening instruments on the actual outcome of depression, and no statistical pooling was possible. However, three out of four studies reported no clinical effect (p<0.05) at either six months or twelve months. No studies examined the cost effectiveness of screening/case finding as a strategy. There is substantial evidence that routinely administered case finding/screening questionnaires for depression have minimal impact on the detection, management or outcome of depression by clinicians. Practice guidelines and recommendations to adopt this strategy, in isolation, in order to improve the quality of healthcare should be resisted. The longer term benefits and costs of routine screening/case finding for depression have not been evaluated. A two stage procedure for screening/case finding may be effective, but this needs to be evaluated in a large scale cluster randomised trial, with a prospective economic evaluation.

Finding a Medical Home for Perinatal Depression: How Can We Bridge the Postpartum Gap?

BackgroundPrimary care plays a central role in the treatment of depression. Nonetheless, shortcomings in its management and suboptimal outcomes have been identified. Collaborative care models improve processes for the management of depressive disorders and associated outcomes. We developed a strategy to implement the INDI collaborative care program for the management of depression in primary health care centers across Catalonia. The aim of this qualitative study was to evaluate a trial implementation of the program to identify barriers, facilitators, and proposals for improvement.MethodsOne year after the implementation of the INDI program in 18 public primary health care centers we performed a qualitative study in which the opinions and experiences of 23 primary care doctors and nurses from the participating centers were explored in focus groups. We performed thematic content analysis of the focus group transcripts.ResultsThe results were organized into three categories: facilitators, barriers, and proposals for improvement as perceived by the health care professionals involved. The most important facilitator identified was the perception that the INDI collaborative care program could be a useful tool for reorganizing processes and improving the management of depression in primary care, currently viewed as deficient. The main barriers identified were of an organizational nature: heavy workloads, lack of time, high staff turnover and shortages, and competing demands. Additional obstacles were inertia and resistance to change among health care professionals. Proposals for improvement included institutional buy-in to guarantee enduring support and the organizational changes needed for successful implementation.ConclusionsThe INDI program is perceived as a useful, viable program for improving the management of depression in primary care. Uptake by primary care centers and health care professionals, however, was poor. The identification and analysis of barriers and facilitators will help refine the strategy to achieve successful, widespread implementation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03285659; Registered 18th September, 2017.

The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence base on the effectiveness of (a) screening for depression in primary care; (b) managing depression in primary care employing specific management strategies; (c) treating primary care depressive patients with antidepressants. Meta-review of all available reviews of the evidence. Screening alone does not improve the recognition, management and outcome of depression in primary care settings. Management strategies, including (a) training primary care staff, (b) consultation-liaison, (c) collaborative care, (d) replacement/referral are supported by insufficient evidence to provide a definite answer as to the clinical effectiveness of individual models. Robust evidence exists to encourage physicians to prescribe effective doses of antidepressants in patients with moderate to severe depression who seek treatment in primary care settings. Population-level screening campaigns have a negative ratio of costs to benefits. However, at an individual-level of care increasing the ability of primary care physicians in recognising depression remains a relevant factor. Primary care physicians should consider whether depression is mild, moderate or severe. This patient categorisation help develop appropriate management and therapeutic strategies.

Treatment of depression by obstetrician-gynecologists: A survey study

Many health systems continue to experiment with the best way to care for those patients who end up in the hospital most frequently.

Addressing the Maternal Mental Health Crisis Through a Novel Tech-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Driven Perinatal Collaborative Care Model