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
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Despite its high prevalence, help-seeking for depression is low. Aims To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 1-day cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-confidence workshops in reducing depression. Anxiety, self-esteem, prognostic indicators as well as access were also assessed. Method An open randomised controlled trial (RCT) waiting list control design with 12-week follow-up was used (trial registration: ISRCTN26634837). A total of 459 adult participants with depression (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores of >= 14) self-referred and 382 participants (83%) were followed up. Results At follow-up, experimental and control participants differed significantly on the BDI, with an effect size of 0.55. Anxiety and self-esteem also differed. Of those who participated, 25% were GP non-consulters and 32% were from Black and minority ethnic groups. Women benefited more than men on depression scores. The intervention has a 90% chance of being considered cost-effective if a depression-free day is valued at 14. Conclusions Self-confidence workshops appear promising in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and access by difficult-to-engage groups.The British Journal of Psychiatry 12/2013; 204(3). DOI:10.1192/bjp.bp.112.121855 · 7.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Millions of people who need treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) do not receive it. Evidence-based practices for treating SUD exist, and some are appropriate for delivery outside of specialty care settings. Primary care is an opportune setting in which to deliver SUD treatment because many individuals see their primary care providers at least once a year. Further, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) increases coverage for SUD treatment and is increasing the number of individuals seeking primary care services. In this article, we present the protocol for a study testing the effects of an organizational readiness and service delivery intervention on increasing the uptake of SUD treatment in primary care and on patient outcomes. In a randomized controlled trial, we test the combined effects of an organizational readiness intervention consisting of implementation tools and activities and an integrated collaborative care service delivery intervention based on the Chronic Care Model on service system (patient-centered care, utilization of substance use disorder treatment, utilization of health care services and adoption and sustainability of evidence-based practices) and patient (substance use, consequences of use, health and mental health, and satisfaction with care) outcomes. We also use a repeated measures design to test organizational changes throughout the study, such as acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the practices to providers, and provider intention to adopt the practices. We use provider focus groups, provider and patient surveys, and administrative data to measure outcomes. The present study responds to critical gaps in health care services for people with substance use disorders, including the need for greater access to SUD treatment and greater uptake of evidence-based practices in primary care. We designed a multi-level study that combines implementation tools to increase organizational readiness to adopt and sustain evidence-based practices (EBPs) and tests the effectiveness of a service delivery intervention on service system and patient outcomes related to SUD services. Current controlled trials: NCT01810159.Implementation Science 05/2015; 10(1):66. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0256-7 · 3.47 Impact Factor