Integrating clinical nurse specialists into the treatment of primary care patients with depression.

Roudebush VAMC, USA.
The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine (Impact Factor: 0.81). 02/2003; 33(1):17-37. DOI: 10.2190/QRY5-B61V-QE4R-8141
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine the effectiveness of integrating generalist and specialist care for veterans with depression.
We conducted a randomized trial of patients screening positive for depression at two Veterans Affairs Medical Center general medicine clinic firms. Control firm physicians were notified prior to the encounter when eligible patients had PRIME-MD depression diagnoses. In the intervention firm, a mental health clinical nurse specialist (CNS) was to: design a treatment plan; implement that plan with the primary care physician; and monitor patients via telephone or visits at two weeks, one month and two months. Primary outcomes (depressive symptoms, patient satisfaction with health care) were collected at 3 and 12 months.
Of 268 randomized patients, 246 (92%) and 222 (83%) completed 3- and 12-month follow-up interviews. There were no between-group differences in depressive symptoms or satisfaction at 3 or 12 months. The intervention group had greater chart documentation of depression at baseline (63% versus 33%, p = 0.003) and a higher referral rate to mental health services at 3 months (27% versus 9%, p = 0.019). There was no difference in the rate of new prescriptions for, or adequate dosing of, anti-depressant medications. In 40% of patients, CNSs disagreed with the PRIME-MD depression diagnosis, and their rates of watchful waiting were correspondingly high.
Implementing an integrated care model did not occur as intended. Experienced CNSs often did not see the need for treatment in many primary care patients identified by the PRIME-MD. Integrating integrated care models in actual practice may prove challenging.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior meta-analysis indicates that collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) improve mental and physical health outcomes for individuals with mental disorders. This study aimed to investigate the stability of evidence over time and identify patient and intervention factors associated with CCM effects to facilitate implementation and sustainability of CCMs in clinical practice. We reviewed 53 CCM trials that analyzed depression, mental quality of life (QOL), or physical QOL outcomes. Cumulative meta-analysis and metaregression were supplemented by descriptive investigations across and within trials. Most trials targeted depression in the primary care setting, and cumulative meta-analysis indicated that effect sizes favoring CCM quickly achieved significance for depression outcomes, and more recently achieved significance for mental and physical QOL. Four of 6 CCM elements (patient self-management support, clinical information systems, system redesign, and provider decision support) were common among reviewed trials, whereas 2 elements (health care organization support and linkages to community resources) were rare. No single CCM element was statistically associated with the success of the model. Similarly, metaregression did not identify specific factors associated with CCM effectiveness. Nonetheless, results within individual trials suggest that increased illness severity predicts CCM outcomes. Significant CCM trials have been derived primarily from 4 original CCM elements. Nonetheless, implementing and sustaining this established model will require health care organization support. Although CCMs have typically been tested as population-based interventions, evidence supports stepped care application to more severely ill individuals. Future priorities include developing implementation strategies to support adoption and sustainability of the model in clinical settings while maximizing fit of this multicomponent framework to local contextual factors.
    Medical care 08/2013; DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182a3e4c4 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles. Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization). Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012. Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (), NP-transition (), NP-inpatient (), CNS-outpatient (), CNS-transition (), and CNS-inpatient (). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity. Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.
    09/2014; DOI:10.1155/2014/896587
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study has a dual purpose: 1) identify determinants of healthcare service utilization for mental health reasons (MHR) in a Canadian (Montreal) catchment area; 2) determine the patterns of recourse to healthcare professionals in terms of frequency of visits and type of professionals consulted, and as it relates to the most prevalent mental disorders (MD) and psychological distress. Data was collected from a random sample of 1,823 individuals interviewed after a two-year follow-up period. A regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with service utilization and complementary analyses were carried out to better understand participants' patterns of healthcare service utilization in relation to the most prevalent MD. Among 243 individuals diagnosed with a MD in the 12 months preceding an interview, 113 (46.5%) reported having used healthcare services for MHR. Determinants of service utilization were emotional and legal problems, number of MD, higher personal income, lower quality of life, inability of individuals to influence events occurring in their neighborhood, female gender and, marginally, lack of alcohol dependence in the past 12 months. Emotional problems were the most significant determinant of healthcare service utilization. Frequent visits with healthcare professionals were more likely associated with major depression and number of MD with or without dependence to alcohol or drugs. People suffering from major depression, psychological distress and social phobia were more likely to consult different professionals, while individuals with panic disorders relied on their family physician only. Concerning social phobia, panic disorders and psychological distress, more frequent visits with professionals did not translate into involvement of a higher number of professionals or vice-versa. This study demonstrates the impact of emotional problems, neighborhood characteristics and legal problems in healthcare service utilization for MHR. Interventions based on inter-professional collaboration could be prioritized to increase the ability of healthcare services to take care especially of individuals suffering from social phobia, panic disorders and psychological distress. Others actions that could be prioritized are training of family physicians in the treatment of MD, use of psychiatric consultants, internet outreach, and reimbursement of psychological consultations for individuals with low income.
    BMC Health Services Research 04/2014; 14(1):161. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-161 · 1.66 Impact Factor