Time allocation and caseload capacity in telephone depression care management.

VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Health Services Research & Development, 1100 Olive Way, Ste 1400, Seattle WA 98101, USA.
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.17). 01/2008; 13(12):652-60.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To document time allocated to care management activities and care manager workload capacity using data collected for studies of telephone care management of depression.
Cross-sectional, descriptive analysis of depression care manager (DCM) activities and workload in 2 collaborative depression care interventions (1 implementation study and 1 effectiveness study) at Department of Veterans Affairs primary care facilities.
Each intervention tracked specific care management activities for 4 weeks, recording the number of events for each activity type and length of time for each activity. Patient workload data were obtained from the patient tracking systems for the 2 projects. We calculated the average time for each activity type, the average total time required to complete an initial assessment call and follow-up call, and the maximum patient panel for both projects.
The total time per successful initial assessment was 75 to 95 minutes, and the total time per successful follow-up call was 51 to 60 minutes, with more time spent on ancillary activities (precall preparation, postcall documentation, and provider communication) than on direct patient contact. A significant amount of time was spent in unsuccessful call attempts, requiring 9 to 11 minutes for each attempt. The maximum panel size per care manager per quarter was in the range of 143 to 165 patients.
The study found similar DCM time allocations and panel sizes across 2 studies and 3 regions with full-time DCMs. Reductions in DCM time spent on ancillary activities may be achievable through improved informatics and other support for panel management.

  • Source
    • "; Williams et al . 2007 ) . For example , among patients referred to DCMs , 82 percent were treated for de - pression in primary care and 74 percent stayed on medication ; 90 percent of primary care patients and 50 percent of mental health patients had clinically significant reductions in depressive symptomatology ( PHQ9 scores o10 ) at 6 months ( Liu et al . 2007 ) . The EBQI process , and the costs it entailed , also achieved intended results in terms of sustainability and spread . TIDES care models endured at all original sites ( continuously cared for patients ) for over 2 years , and remain active in five of the seven sites in 2008 ( sustained over 5 years ) . In terms of spread goals , by 2"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We documented organizational costs for depression care quality improvement (QI) to develop an evidence-based, Veterans Health Administration (VA) adapted depression care model for primary care practices that performed well for patients, was sustained over time, and could be spread nationally in VA. Project records and surveys from three multistate VA administrative regions and seven of their primary care practices. Descriptive analysis. We documented project time commitments and expenses for 86 clinical QI and 42 technical expert support team participants for 4 years from initial contact through care model design, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and achievement of stable workloads in which models functioned as routine care. We assessed time, salary costs, and costs for conference calls, meetings, e-mails, and other activities. Over an average of 27 months, all clinics began referring patients to care managers. Clinical participants spent 1,086 hours at a cost of $84,438. Technical experts spent 2,147 hours costing $197,787. Eighty-five percent of costs derived from initial regional engagement activities and care model design. Organizational costs of the QI process for depression care in a large health care system were significant, and should be accounted for when planning for implementation of evidence-based depression care.
    Health Services Research 03/2009; 44(1):225-44. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00911.x · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The formal mission and strategic goals of the Center for the Study of Healthcare Provider Behavior (see bottom of this page) guide our activities in the do- mains of research, dissemination, technical assis- tance and training. Our mission and activities are also guided by the strategic priorities and mission of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA's current strategic emphasis is provided by the "Eight for Excellence" framework, comprising eight broad goals and associated strategies and initiatives. This overview article highlights selected Center activities supporting key goals and strategies in the Eight for Excellence initiative. Many of the Eight for Excellence goals emphasize continuous improvement in healthcare quality and safety. For example, Goal 1 broadly addresses continuous improvement in the quality and safety of health care for veterans, while Goal 5 calls for in- creased focus of VHA research and development activities on clinical and system improvements, including increased collaboration between VHA research and health care delivery and increased targeting of VHA health services research and the QUERI model to improve care delivery. These goals entail substantial overlap with our Cen- ter's core mission and activities: our portfolio of projects in research, technical assistance and train- ing are designed to strengthen VHA's ability to improve quality and safety through implementation of evidence-based practices. Center researchers are pursing improvement in tobacco use (Judith Katz-
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is so much to do in primary care, and so little time to do it. During 15-minute visits, physicians are expected to form partnerships with patients and their families, address complex acute and chronic biomedical and psychosocial problems, provide preventive care, coordinate care with specialists, and ensure informed decision making that respects patients' needs and preferences. This is a challenging task during straightforward visits, and it is nearly impossible when caring for socially disadvantaged patients with complex biomedical and psychosocial problems and multiple barriers to care. Consider the following scenario.
    Archives of internal medicine 10/2008; 168(17):1843-52. DOI:10.1001/archinte.168.17.1843 · 13.25 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from