Article

Implementation and maintenance of quality improvement for treating depression in primary care.

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California 90407-2138, USA.
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 1.99). 02/2006; 57(1):48-55. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.57.1.48
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Little is known about the long-term success of quality improvement efforts for the treatment of depression in primary care. This study assessed factors associated with the successful implementation, maintenance, and spread of such efforts.
The authors conducted an independent process evaluation of data from monthly progress reports and 18-month telephone interviews from multidisciplinary quality improvement teams in 17 diverse primary care organizations that participated in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series for Depression from February 2000 through March 2001.
All sites made changes toward improving care in three of six categories: delivery system redesign, self-management strategies, and information systems. The changes that were most commonly viewed as major successes were delivery system changes (ten sites, or 59 percent) and information system changes (nine sites, or 53 percent); these types of changes were also the most often sustained over time (ten sites, or 59 percent, and 16 sites, or 94 percent, respectively). Fifteen sites made changes in decision support, community linkages, and health system support but were less likely to view these changes as major successes or to sustain them. Organizational structure and leadership support were the most common facilitators. Staff resistance, time constraints, and information technology were the most common barriers. Implementation strategies varied with sets of barriers.
Despite substantial challenges, there was evidence of broad success at implementation and maintenance of quality improvement for depression treatment in primary care.

0 Bookmarks
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The collaborative care model is a systematic approach to the treatment of depression and anxiety in primary care settings that involves the integration of care managers and consultant psychiatrists, with primary care physician oversight, to more proactively manage mental disorders as chronic diseases, rather than treating acute symptoms. While collaborative care has been shown to be more effective than usual primary care in improving depression outcomes in a number of studies, less is known about the factors that support the translation of this evidence-based intervention to real-world program implementation. The purpose of this case study was to examine the implementation of a collaborative care model in a community based primary care clinic that primarily serves a low-income, uninsured Latino population, in order to better understand the interdisciplinary relationships and the specific elements that might facilitate broader implementation.
    Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 01/2014; 7:503-13.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is widespread support for primary care to help address growing mental health care demands. Incentives and disincentives are widely used in the design of health care systems to help steer toward desired goals. The absence of a conceptual model to help understand the range of factors that influence the provision of primary mental health care inspired a scoping review of the literature. Understanding the incentives that promote and the disincentives that deter treatment for depression and anxiety in the primary care context will help to achieve goals of greater access to mental health care.
    Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie 07/2014; 59(7):385-392. · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE Policy makers have increasingly turned to learning collaboratives (LCs) as a strategy for improving usual care through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. The purpose of this review was to characterize the state of the evidence for use of LCs in mental health care. METHODS A systematic search of major academic databases for peer-reviewed articles on LCs in mental health care generated 421 unique articles across a range of disciplines; 28 mental health articles were selected for full-text review, and 20 articles representing 16 distinct studies met criteria for final inclusion. Articles were coded to identify the LC components reported, the focus of the research, and key findings. RESULTS Most of the articles included assessments of provider- or patient-level variables at baseline and post-LC. Only one study included a comparison condition. LC targets ranged widely, from use of a depression screening tool to implementation of evidence-based treatments. Fourteen crosscutting LC components (for example, in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in quality improvement methods) were identified. The LCs reviewed reported including, on average, seven components, most commonly in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act cycles, multidisciplinary quality improvement teams, and data collection for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS LCs are being used widely in mental health care, although there is minimal evidence of their effectiveness and unclear reporting in regard to specific components. Rigorous observational and controlled research studies on the impact of LCs on targeted provider- and patient-level outcomes are greatly needed.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 06/2014; · 2.81 Impact Factor