Improving quality of depression care using organized systems of care: a review of the literature.
ABSTRACT To establish the need for a chronic disease management strategy for major depressive disorder (MDD), discuss the challenges involved in implementing guideline-level treatment for MDD, and provide examples of successful implementation of collaborative care programs.
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and the US National Library of Medicine was performed.
We reviewed clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions for the treatment of depression in the primary care setting using the keywords collaborative care, depression, and MDD. This review includes 45 articles relevant to MDD and collaborative care published through May 2010 and excludes all non-English-language articles.
Collaborative care interventions include a greater role for nonmedical specialists and a supervising psychiatrist with the major goal of improving quality of depression care in primary care systems. Collaborative care programs restructure clinical practice to include a patient care strategy with specific goals and an implementation plan, support for self-management training, sustained patient follow-up, and decision support for medication changes. Key components associated with the most effective collaborative care programs were improvement in antidepressant adherence, use of depression case managers, and regular case load supervision by a psychiatrist. Across studies, primary care patients randomized to collaborative care interventions experienced enhanced treatment outcomes compared with those randomized to usual care, with overall outcome differences approaching 30%.
Collaborative care interventions may help to achieve successful, guideline-level treatment outcomes for primary care patients with MDD. Potential benefits of collaborative care strategies include reduced financial burden of illness, increased treatment adherence, and long-term improvement in depression symptoms and functional outcomes.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to identify potential discordance between physician and patient rated measures of depression used by primary care physicians and psychiatrists. This study collected data from primary care physicians and psychiatrists in the United States between October and December 2009. A real-world, cross-sectional study was conducted using the Neuroses Disease-Specific Programme (Adelphi Real World, Macclesfield, United Kingdom). Treatment practice data were collected by 180 physicians (100 primary care and 80 psychiatrists) who were asked to provide information for the next 15 outpatients presenting prospectively with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression (n = 2,704 patients). The primary outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scales, completed by both physicians and their matched patients, respectively. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scale responses. Physician- and patient-rated overall improvement in illness was 82% and 89%, respectively. Results of the kappa analysis demonstrated fair agreement between patients and physicians regarding overall improvement in illness (44% agreement; κ= 0.23). Physician ratings of patient improvement progressively decreased with increased severity of illness. These real-world data suggest that the degree of reduction in symptoms of anxiety and/or depression may be estimated differently by physicians when compared with their patients. Understanding the potential for disparities between physician- and patient-rated measures in reviewing patient care, particularly in patients with more severe depressive symptoms, can help ensure that treatment plans are aligned with patient needs.Professional case management 19(2):63-74. DOI:10.1097/NCM.0000000000000015
- Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 10/2011; 40(10):436-8. · 1.22 Impact Factor