Quality Of Depression Care Research Articles

Improved detection and pharmacotherapy of major depression from 1989 to 2001 in psychiatric outpatient care in Finland

There have been several reports of non-detection and undertreatment of major depression during the past decades. In this study, we investigated how accurately major depression was assessed, diagnosed and treated according to gold standards, and whether any trend could be found from 1989 to 2001 in Finland. In total, documents of 4447 patients were retrospectively checked at most four times to find the patients fulfilling the study criteria. Finally, 531 patients were included in the study. The major finding of the study was the improved diagnostic assessment of patients with major depression seen in psychiatric settings. However, a systematic and comprehensive approach in asking about and recording subtyping, severity and comorbidity of depression was insufficient. Another major finding of the study was the improved pharmacotherapy of patients with major depression. It seems to be relevant that problems in the quality of care for depression in psychiatric settings are now more likely to be related to suboptimal intensity and monitoring of treatment than to mere lack of treatment.

Disparities in Depression Treatment for Latinos and Site of Care

This study examined the impact of patient characteristics and source of care on differences between whites and Latinos in use and quality of depression treatment in managed primary care settings. Data were examined for 1,175 patients (398 Latinos and 777 whites) in 46 managed primary care practices who screened positive for probable depressive disorder. Patient baseline assessments were used to compile sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and to derive variables for receipt of any depression care and depression care that met minimum guidelines (antidepressant use or specialty counseling) in the past six months. Clinics were classified by the percentage of their patient population that consisted of Latinos to determine whether patients in highly Latino clinics reported lower rates of care. Predictors of use and quality of depression care were examined by using logistic regression. Rates of receipt of any depression care and guideline-level depression care were low, and Latinos were less than half as likely as whites to receive such care, even after the analyses controlled for independent predictors (that is, younger age, higher educational level, current unemployment, more comorbid medical illness, and a diagnosis of a depressive or anxiety disorder). The likelihood of receiving any care or care that met guidelines did not significantly vary according to whether clinics served a low, moderate, or high percentage of Latinos. Disparities in depression care for Latinos were not attributable to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and they were not attributable to receiving care in clinics that served ethnically similar or dissimilar clientele. These findings suggest that other patient or provider factors may be responsible.

Improving quality of care for depression: the German Action Programme for the implementation of evidence-based guidelines

Depressive disorders are of great medical and political significance. The potential inherent in achieving better guideline orientation and a better collaboration between different types of care is clear. Throughout the 1990s, educational initiatives were started for implementing guidelines. Evidence-based guidelines on depression have been formulated in many countries. This article presents an action programme for structural, educational, and research-related measures to implement evidence-based care of depressive disorders in the German health system. The starting points of the programme are the 'Guidelines Critical Appraisal Reports' of the 'Guideline Clearing House' and measures from the 'Competence Network on Depression and Suicidality' (CNDS) funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The article gives an overview of the steps achieved as recommended by the Guidelines Critical Appraisal Reports and the ongoing transfer process into the German health care system. The action programme shows that comprehensive interventions to develop and introduce evidence-based guidelines for depression can achieve benefits in the care of depression, e.g. in recognition, management, and clinical outcome. It was possible to implement the German Action Programme in selected care settings, and initial evaluation results suggest some improvements. The action programme provides preliminary work, materials, and results for developing a future 'Disease Management Programme' (DMP) for depression.

Screening and case finding instruments for depression.

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.

Economic Grand Rounds: Improving the Quality of Depression Care in Medicaid

Because many individuals with depression receive mental health care services through Medicare and Medicaid, disseminating evidence-based depression care in the public sector warrants attention. In this column we identify factors that distinguish quality improvement for depression in the Medicaid program and describe system-level changes made by a nonprofit Medicaid health plan—Colorado Access—to improve depression care under a demonstration program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

Management of depression in primary care: a survey of general practitioners in Spain

Objective The objective of this study was to analyze the current situation of health care for depression in Spain according to general practitioners' (GPs') opinion and how it has evolved over the last 20 years on the basis of comparisons with the results of two previous social-health studies (published in 1997 and 1982). Method Throughout 2002, we recorded the opinions of 238 GPs after asking them to fill up structured questionnaires in which they rated care, clinical, therapeutic and care quality aspects. Results Only 40% of patients with depression visit a doctor, implying a very high level of “concealed epidemiology.” The diagnostic instruments most commonly used are assessment of symptoms and patient interview. Pharmacological treatment is the option GPs most commonly choose once a depression diagnosis is established (80% vs. 50% in 1997; P<.001). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), together with anxiolytics, are the drugs most commonly used in the treatment of depression. SSRIs are the first choice drugs, being preferred to tricyclic antidepressants and anxiolytics, which were the most popular options for GPs in the 1997 survey. Areas where there is a need for improvement are time devoted to consultation, coordination between GPs and psychiatrists and waiting lists. Conclusions The quality of health care for depression has improved in recent years, thanks to changes in the attitudes of GPs and the evolution of pharmacological treatment.

Physician Conceptions of Responsibility to Individual Patients and Distributive Justice in Health Care

Physicians' values may be shifting under managed care, but there have been no empirical data to support this claim. We describe physician conceptions of responsibility to individual patients and distributive justice in health care, and explore whether these values are associated with type of managed care practice and professional satisfaction. We mailed a questionnaire to 500 primary care physicians from 80 out-patient clinics in 11 managed care organizations (MCOs) who were participating in 4 studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. We received 414 responses (response rate 83%). Twenty-eight percent of physicians strongly agreed that their main responsibility was to the individual patient rather than to society (strong sense of responsibility to individual patients). Physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients were older (43% of physicians older than 50 years reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients, compared with 26% of physicians aged 36 to 50 years, and 21% of physicians younger than 35 years, P = .009) and tended to practice in network- rather than staff-model MCOs (33% of physicians in network-model MCOs reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients compared with 24% in staff-model MCOs, P = .077). Scores on a scale measuring egalitarian conceptions of distributive justice within the health care system were similar for physicians regardless of whether they reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients. When we controlled for physician and practice characteristics, physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients and physicians with higher scores on an egalitarian scale were more likely to be very satisfied overall with their practices (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.49, and AOR = 1.18, 95% CI, 1.09-1.29, respectively). Physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients are older and less likely to practice in staff-model MCOs. Stronger commitment to an egalitarian health care system and a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients are independently associated with greater practice satisfaction among physicians. The impact of these values on patient care should be a priority for future research and the subject of professional education and debate.

Medication management of depression: The impact of comorbid chronic medical conditions

Objective This paper addresses the following question: Does quality of care for depression differ between depressed persons with and without chronic medical conditions (CMCs)? Methods We used a population-based mental health survey to identify respondents aged 18 to 64 with the diagnosis of major depression in the past year ( N=278). In our model, the dependent variable was guideline-level medication management of depression. Determinants for guideline-level care were modeled using multivariate logistic regression. Results Depressed persons with CMCs were significantly more likely to receive guideline-level care for depression than were the depressed persons without CMCs (OR=1.46; 95% C.I.=1.12–1.90). This increased likelihood did not persist when the sample excluded persons seeing physicians at more than eight visits per year (OR=0.81; 95% CI=0.35–1.90). Previous psychiatric hospitalization was the only other significant determinant of guideline-level care. Conclusion Depressed persons with comorbid CMCs are more likely to receive guideline-level care for depression than are depressed persons without comorbid CMCs. However, the association did not persist once we excluded respondents who were high utilizers. This finding implies that further understanding of the interaction between depression care and comorbid CMCs will require a longitudinal focus on repeated physician–patient interactions.

Disease Management Programs for Depression

Substantial deficits in the care of depression make the provision of new evidence-based care models a matter of increasing importance. So far, disease management programs (DMPs) have not been systematically assessed. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of DMP for depression as compared with usual primary care. Criteria for study selection were depression as main diagnosis in adults, the intervention DMP (evidence-based guidelines, patient/provider education, collaborative care, reminder systems, and monitoring), and trial quality A/B (Cochrane Collaboration guidelines) rated by 2 observers. Measurement instruments had to be published in peer-reviewed journals and filled out by the participants, their relations, or independent raters. Meta-analyses were conducted by using dichotomous outcomes within forest plots. Tests of heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses, and funnel plots were performed. Economic evaluations were descriptively summarized. DMP had a significant effect on depression severity, with a relative risk of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.81) in a homogeneous dataset of 10 high-quality trials. It was robust in all sensitivity analyses (evidence level 1A). Funnel plot symmetry indicated a low probability of publication bias. Patient satisfaction and adherence to the treatment regimen improved significantly, but only in heterogeneous models. The costs per quality adjusted life year ranged between US 9,051 dollars and US 49,500 dollars. DMP significantly enhance the quality of care for depression. Costs are within the range of other widely accepted public health improvements. Future research should focus on the effect of long-term interventions, and the compatibility with health care systems other than managed-care driven ones.

Quality of Depression Care in a Population-Based Sample of Patients With Diabetes and Major Depression

Major depression occurs in approximately 11% to 15% of patients with diabetes and is associated with poor glycemic control and adverse medical outcomes. This study examined the rates and predictors of recognition of depression among primary care patients with diabetes and comorbid major depression and the quality of depression care provided during a 12-month period. This study used automated utilization, pharmacy, and laboratory data from a health maintenance organization to describe the rate of recognition of depression and quality of care provided for patients with major depression and diabetes in the 12-month period before diagnosis. Major depression was diagnosed based on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) that was included in a mail survey sent to 9063 patients on the Group Health diabetes registry from 9 primary care clinics. Approximately 51% of patients with major depression and diabetes were recognized as depressed by the health care system. Women were more likely to be recognized (odds ratio [OR] 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI 1.26-1.97]), as were those with dysthymia (OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.08-5.72), panic attacks (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.19-2.19), patients with more than 7 primary care visits (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.06-1.91) and patients reporting poor health (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.53). Of the 51% of patients with major depression who were recognized, 43% received 1 or more antidepressant prescriptions but only 6.7% received 4 or more psychotherapy sessions during a 12-month period. There were large gaps in both recognition and quality of depression care provided to patients with major depression and diabetes within a health maintenance organization system.

Monitoring depression care: in search of an accurate quality indicator.

Linking process and outcomes is critical to accurately estimating healthcare quality and quantifying its benefits. The objective of this study was to explore the relationship of guideline-based depression process measures with subsequent overall and psychiatric hospitalizations. This is a retrospective cohort study during which we used administrative and centralized pharmacy records for sample identification, derivation of guideline-based process measures (antidepressant dosage and duration adequacy), and subsequent hospitalization ascertainment. Depression care was measured from June 1, 1999, through August 31, 1999. We used multivariable regression to evaluate the link between depression care and subsequent overall and psychiatric hospitalization, adjusting for patient age, race, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbid illness, and hospitalization in the prior 12 months. We studied a total of 12,678 patients from 14 Northeastern VHA hospitals. We identified adequate antidepressant dosage in 90% and adequate duration in 45%. Those with adequate duration of antidepressants were less likely to be hospitalized in the subsequent 12 months than those with inadequate duration (odds ratio [OR],.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], .81-1.00). Those with adequate duration of antidepressants were less likely to have a psychiatric hospitalization in the subsequent 12 months than those with inadequate duration (OR, .82; 95% CI, .69-.96). We did not demonstrate a significant link between dosage adequacy and subsequent overall or psychiatric hospitalization. Guideline-based depression process measures derived from centralized data sources offer an important method of depression care surveillance. Their accuracy in capturing depression care quality is supported by their link to healthcare utilization. Further work is needed to assess the effect of implementing these quality indicators on depression care.

‘Depression Care Managers’ Help Reduce Suicidal Thoughts

‘Depression Care Managers’ Help Reduce Suicidal Thoughts

More Patients Treated By Multiple Clinicians

More Patients Treated By Multiple Clinicians

Research to improve the quality of care for depression: alternatives to the simple randomized clinical trial

Recognition of gaps between evidence gained from mental health research and clinical practice in the community together with changes in treatment patterns and patient/provider preferences for care have led to interest in enhancements in the designs and analyses of clinical and community trials of mental health interventions. Gaps between clinical trials and community care include differences in populations and treatment strategies. To bridge these gaps, we propose enhancing the simple randomized trial with several different designs with the immediate aims of improving patient recruitment and adherence in psychiatric intervention studies thus bringing study designs more in line with clinical practice. The goals are to estimate treatment efficacy and effectiveness so that both internal and external validity are optimized. In this discussion, we address design and analytic issues with respect to a number of enhancements of the randomized trial design, including partial patient-provider preference designs, randomized encouragement and consent designs, fixed adaptive design, and random between- and within-patient adaptive designs. Each has advantages and disadvantages depending on the effect under investigation. Some of these enhancements, such as the fixed adaptive design, have begun to be implemented in effectiveness trials in mental health services research, but all are worthy of more attention.

Race, quality of depression care, and recovery from major depression in a primary care setting

Racial variations in the use of effective medical care and subsequent clinical outcomes have been identified for many medical conditions. Still, it is unclear whether racial variations in care and clinical outcomes exist for depressed primary care patients. Primary care patients presenting for routine treatment were screened for major depression as part of a study to disseminate a depression treatment guideline. Primary care physicians (PCPs) were informed of their patients’ depression via an electronic medical record system and asked whether they agreed with the diagnosis. Treatment patterns and depressive symptoms over the following six-months were assessed by chart review and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, respectively. Over a 20-month period, 8,944 African-American and Caucasian patients aged 18–64 were approached for screening. African-Americans were less likely to agree to undergo screening than Caucasians (83% vs. 88%; P<.0001), but those doing so were more likely to report mood symptoms (26% vs. 15%; P<.001). 204 patients, including 52 African-Americans (25%), met protocol-eligibility criteria and completed a baseline interview. Baseline sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and PCPs’ agreement rate with the depression diagnosis were similar. Although PCPs were less likely to counsel their African-American than Caucasian patients for depression ( P=.03), this difference resolved after adjusting for education level, employment, and insurance status and we found no other variations in the depression care provided or in clinical outcomes by race. We found little racial variation in either process measures or clinical outcomes for depression in our sample of African-American and Caucasian primary care patients.

The relationship between quality and outcomes in routine depression care.

This longitudinal, nonexperimental study examined whether depression treatment provided in concordance with guidelines developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. The medical, insurance, and pharmacy records of a community-based sample of 435 subjects who screened positive for current major depression were abstracted to ascertain whether depression treatment was received and whether it was provided in accordance with AHRQ guidelines. Regression analyses estimated the impact of guideline-concordant treatment on the change in depression severity and on mental and physical health over a six-month period. An instrumental variables analysis was used to check the sensitivity of the results to selection bias. A total of 106 subjects were treated for depression by 105 different primary care and specialty providers. Sixty percent of the sample had current major depression, and about 40 percent had subthreshold depression. Only 29 percent of the patients received guideline-concordant treatment. For patients with major depression, guideline-concordant care was significantly and substantially associated with improved depression severity but not with improvements in overall mental or physical health. The instrumental variables analysis indicated that the standard regression analysis underestimated the treatment effect by 21 percent. For those with subthreshold depression, guideline-concordant care was not associated with improved outcomes. This community-based, nonexperimental study found a positive relationship between the quality of care for depression and clinical outcomes for patients with major depression in routine practice settings.

Interventions that improve the quality of depression care

Interventions that improve the quality of depression care

Designing and implementing a primary care intervention trial to improve the quality and outcome of care for major depression

Complex interventions, which have been shown to improve primary care depression outcomes, are difficult to disseminate to routine practice settings. To address this problem, we developed a brief intervention to train primary care physicians and nurses employed by the practice to improve the detection and management of major depression. Before recruitment began, the research team conducted academic detailing conference calls with primary care physicians and nurses, and provided in-person training with nurses and administrative staff. Administrative staff screened over 11,000 patients before their visits to identify those with probable major depression. Primary care physicians delegated increased responsibility to office nurses, who educated over 90% of patients about effective depression treatment and systematically monitored their progress over time. Early results demonstrate that community primary care practices can rebundle traditional team roles over the short-term to provide more systematic mental health treatment without adding additional personnel. A rigorous evaluation of this effort will reduce time-consuming, expensive, and often unsuccessful efforts to “translate” research intervention findings into everyday practice.

Treatment of depression in rural Arkansas: policy implications for improving care.

Policy-makers have long suspected that greater barriers to care result in depressed rural residents being less likely to receive high-quality treatment. This study recruited 470 depressed community residents in a 1992 telephone survey, followed 95 percent of them through one year, and abstracted additional data on their health care utilization from insurance claims, medical and pharmacy records. Bivariate and multivariate models demonstrated that during the year following the baseline, there were no significant rural-urban differences in the rate (probability of any outpatient depression treatment), type (probability of receiving general medical depression care only), or quality (completion of guideline-concordant acute-stage care) of outpatient depression treatment. Annual expenditures for outpatient depression treatment were lower for rural subjects compared with their urban counterparts. Rural subjects had 3.05 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for physical problems and 3.06 times the odds of being admitted to a hospital for mental health problems during the year following baseline compared with urban subjects. Cost-offset analyses demonstrate that every dollar invested in depression treatment was associated with a $2.61 decrease in the cost of treating physical problems in depressed rural residents. Limited insurance coverage and limited availability of services were the most significant barriers to specialty and general medical outpatient treatment for depression in both rural and urban residents. More than 80 percent of depressed residents in both rural and urban areas visited a primary care provider during the year following baseline. The potential cost offset of depression treatment in rural populations plus the improvement in productivity observed in both rural and urban populations indicate that it may be economically possible to improve quality of care for depression without bankrupting an already strained health care budget.

A framework for drug utilization evaluation in depression: insights from outcomes research.

Drug utilization evaluation (DUE) offers the prospect of improving the quality of care in depression by focusing on drug-related problems (DRPs). Outcomes research in depression can provide a basis on which to address difficulties in implementing DUE programs in the outpatient environment of managed care. The purpose of this paper is to facilitate the development of a drug utilization evaluation program for depressed patients receiving care in an outpatient environment. The literature was reviewed in the area of depression treatment, drug-related problems, and current outcomes research. This information was synthesized into a framework with potential DUE criteria. The quality of care for depression can be improved if these efforts are focused on solving DRPs. Outcomes research findings may be used as the basis for developing DUE criteria and as a first step in selecting and targeting interventions.