Article

Improving quality of depression care using organized systems of care: a review of the literature.

University of Washington Medical School, Seattle, WA, USA.
The primary care companion to CNS disorders 01/2011; 13(1). DOI: 10.4088/PCC.10r01019blu
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Examine time to recurrence of major depressive disorder (MDD) across different treatment settings and assess predictors of time to recurrence of MDD. METHODS: Data were from 375 subjects with a MDD diagnosis from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). The study sample was restricted to subjects with a remission of at least three months. These subjects were followed until recurrence or the end of the two year follow-up. DSM-IV based diagnostic interviews and Life Chart Interviews were used to assess time to recurrence of MDD across treatment settings. Predictors of time to recurrence were determined using Cox's proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: Although trends indicated a slightly higher rate of and shorter time to recurrence in specialized mental health care, no significant difference in recurrence rate (26.8% versus 33.5%, p=0.23) or in time to recurrence (controlled for covariates) of MDD was found between respondents in specialized mental health care and respondents treated in primary care (average 6.6 versus 5.5 months, p=0.09). In multivariable analyses, a family history of MDD and previous major depressive episodes were associated with a shorter time to recurrence. Predictors did not differ across treatment settings. LIMITATIONS: The study sample may not be representative of the entire population treated for MDD in specialized mental health care. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals in both settings should be aware of the same risk factors since the recurrence risk and its predictors appeared to be similar across settings.
    Journal of affective disorders 12/2012; · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 10/2011; 40(10):436-8. · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Persons with bipolar disorder experience a disproportionate burden of medical conditions, notably cardiovascular disease (CVD), leading to impaired functioning and premature mortality. We hypothesized that the Life Goals Collaborative Care (LGCC) intervention, compared to enhanced usual care, would reduce CVD risk factors and improve physical and mental health outcomes in US Department of Veterans Affairs patients with bipolar disorder. Patients with an ICD-9 diagnosis of bipolar disorder and ≥ 1 CVD risk factor (N = 118) enrolled in the Self-Management Addressing Heart Risk Trial, conducted April 2008-May 2010, were randomized to LGCC (n = 58) or enhanced usual care (n = 60). Life Goals Collaborative Care included 4 weekly self-management sessions followed by tailored contacts combining health behavior change strategies, medical care management, registry tracking, and provider guideline support. Enhanced usual care included quarterly wellness newsletters sent during a 12-month period in addition to standard treatment. Primary outcome measures included systolic and diastolic blood pressure, nonfasting total cholesterol, and physical health-related quality of life. Of the 180 eligible patients identified for study participation, 134 were enrolled (74%) and 118 completed outcomes assessments (mean age = 53 years, 17% female, 5% African American). Mixed effects analyses comparing changes in 24-month outcomes among patients in LGCC (n = 57) versus enhanced usual care (n = 59) groups revealed that patients receiving LGCC had reduced systolic (β = -3.1, P = .04) and diastolic blood pressure (β = -2.1, P = .04) as well as reduced manic symptoms (β = -23.9, P = .01). Life Goals Collaborative Care had no significant impact on other primary outcomes (total cholesterol and physical health-related quality of life). Life Goals Collaborative Care, compared to enhanced usual care, may lead to reduced CVD risk factors, notably through decreased blood pressure, as well as reduced manic symptoms, in patients with bipolar disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00499096.
    The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 07/2013; 74(7):e655-62. · 5.81 Impact Factor