Patient Experiences and Perceptions of Care Coordination in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient perceptions of care coordination in primary care can help improve responsiveness to patients' needs, outcomes, and quality of care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore patient experiences and perceptions of care coordination in primary care. METHOD: Interviews with 13 patients from 10 clinics were conducted and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Three primary themes arose: care coordinators provide a gateway to accessing needed care; patients needed and valued the support and trusted advice of their care coordinators; and patients valued care coordinators' help with navigating, engaging, and educating them about their care. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what patients value in care delivery can help frame a vision for a more responsive approach in delivering primary care, as well as create a pathway to quality improvement, moving toward a truly patient-centered focus in primary care.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Reducing diabetes distress and improving self-management with mindfulness.

Stress associated with diabetes makes managing diabetes harder. We investigated whether mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) could reduce diabetes distress and improve management. We recruited 38 participants to complete an MBSR program. Surveys and lab values were completed at baseline and post-intervention. Participants showed significant improvement in diabetes-related distress (Cohen's d -.71, p < .002), psychosocial self-efficacy (Cohen's d .80, p < .001), and glucose control (Cohen's d -.79, p < .001). Significant improvements in depression, anxiety, stress, coping, self-compassion, and social support were also found. These results suggest that MBSR may offer an effective method for helping people better self-manage their diabetes and improve mental health.

A stepped-wedge evaluation of an initiative to spread the collaborative care model for depression in primary care.

PURPOSE: Scale-up and spread of evidence-based practices is one of the most important challenges facing health care. We tested whether a statewide initiative, Depression Improvement Across Minnesota-Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND), to implement the collaborative care model for depression in 75 primary care clinics resulted in patient outcome improvements corresponding to those reported in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Health plans provided a new monthly payment to participating clinics after a 6-month intensive training program with ongoing data submission, networking, and consultation. Implementation was staggered, with 5 sequences of 10 to 40 clinics every 6 months. Payers provided weekly contact information for members from participating clinics who were filling antidepressant prescriptions, and we conducted baseline and 6-month surveys of 1,578 patients about their care and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 466 patients in DIAMOND clinics who received usual care before implementation (UCB), 559 who received usual care in DIAMOND clinics after implementation (UCA), 245 who received DIAMOND care after implementation (DCA), and 308 who received usual care in comparison clinics (UC). Patients who received DIAMOND care after implementation reported more collaborative care depression services than the 3 comparison groups (10.9 vs 6.4-6.7, on a scale of 0 of 14, where higher numbers indicate more services; P <.001) and more satisfaction with their care (4.0 vs 3.4 on a scale 1 to 5, in which higher scores indicate higher satisfaction; P ≤.001). Depression remission rates, however, were not significantly different among the 4 groups (36.4% DCA vs 35.8% UCB, 35.0% UCA, 33.9% UC; P = .94). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the incentive of a supporting payment change and intensive training and support for clinics volunteering to participate, no difference in depression outcomes was documented. Specific unmeasured actions present in trials but not present in these clinics may be critical for successful outcome improvement.

Designing and implementing research on a statewide quality improvement initiative: the DIAMOND study and initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a rigorous methodology that optimally balanced internal validity with generalizability to evaluate a statewide collaborative that implemented an evidence-based, collaborative care model for depression management in primary care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Several operational features of the DIAMOND (Depression Improvement Across Minnesota, Offering a New Direction) Initiative suggested that the DIAMOND Study use a staggered implementation design with repeated cross-sections of patients across clinical settings. A multilevel recruitment strategy elicited virtually complete study participation from the medical groups, clinics, and health plans that coordinated efforts to deliver and reimburse DIAMOND care. Patient identification capitalized on large health plan claims databases to rapidly identify the population of patients newly treated for depression in DIAMOND clinics. RESULTS: The staggered implementation design and multilevel recruitment strategy made it possible to evaluate DIAMOND by holding confounding factors constant and accurately identifying an intent-to-treat population of patients treated for depression without intruding on or requiring effort from their clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and data collection from health plans, medical groups and clinics, and patients ensured a representative, intent-to-treat sample of study-enrolled patients. Separating patient identification from care delivery reduced threats of selection bias and enabled comparisons between the treated population and study sample. A key challenge is that intent-to-treat patients may not be exposed to DIAMOND which dilutes the effect size but offers realistic expectations of the impact of quality improvement in a population of treated patients.

Barriers to improving primary care of depression: perspectives of medical group leaders.

Using clinical trials, researchers have demonstrated effective methods for treating depression in primary care, but improvements based on these trials are not being implemented. This might be because these improvements require more systematic organizational changes than can be made by individual physicians. We interviewed 82 physicians and administrative leaders of 41 medical groups to learn what is preventing those organizational changes. The identified barriers to improving care included external contextual problems (reimbursement, scarce resources, and access to/communication with specialty mental health), individual attitudes (physician and patient resistance), and internal care process barriers (organizational and condition complexity, difficulty standardizing and measuring care). Although many of these barriers are challenging, we can overcome them by setting clear priorities for change and allocating adequate resources. We must improve primary care of depression if we are to reduce its enormous adverse social and economic impacts.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patients Receiving Care Coordination in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Care coordination addresses the needs of patients with complex chronic illness and psychosocial issues, coordinating their care and social needs. It is not known how such patients receiving these services managed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to learn how the health, health care, social needs, and finances of patients receiving care coordination were affected by the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 patients receiving care coordination in primary care across a statewide sample about how the COVID-19 pandemic affected their life in general, including their overall health, social connections, finances and employment, and mental health. A content analysis approach was applied in the data analysis. RESULTS: We identified 4 primary themes in patient interviews including: (1) patients reported few to no impacts on their physical health status or health care services; (2) patients felt disconnected from family, friends, and community in ways that affected their mental health and wellbeing; (3) there were little to no pandemic related impacts for those on fixed incomes or government supports; and (4) care coordinators provided a significant and reliable source of help, support, and comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Care coordination provided a supporting framework for the health and the health care needs of these patients, helping them navigate resources and maintain their physical health during the pandemic. Care coordinators were seen as providing needed communication, connection, and support that was especially needed during a time of social isolation and disconnection.

Care coordination in primary care: mapping the territory.

OBJECTIVE: To document the current approaches to care coordination among different types of care systems in Minnesota. STUDY DESIGN: Observational survey of leaders of most of the care systems in Minnesota that have implemented care coordination. METHODS: Survey questions about organizational structure, size, and approach to care coordination were sent to the leaders of 42 care systems with a total of 327 primary care clinics. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by leaders at every care system participating in this study (100% response rate); 16 small care systems (each with 1-2 clinics) had a total of 26 primary care clinics, 15 medium care systems (3-9 clinics) had 57 clinics, and 11 large care systems (> 9 clinics) had 244 clinics. The large care systems had larger clinics (clinicians per clinic, 8.6 in large vs 4.3 in small and 5.2 in medium; P = .03) and more clinicians per care coordinator (5.7 vs 3.3 and 4.0; P = .04). They also more frequently included a social worker in their care coordination team: 82% vs 25% of small and 40% of medium care systems (P = .01). However, the services provided and complexity tools used were similar. Nearly all reported addressing both medical and social needs for their complex patients with multiple chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are large differences in resources and capabilities between large and small care systems, they were not associated with much difference in the approach taken to care coordination. This map of the care coordination territory in Minnesota has the potential to be valuable to researchers and care system leaders for understanding current implementation trends and directing further evaluations.

Strategies for Dose Optimization: Views From Health Care Systems.

BACKGROUND: Advances in CT have facilitated widespread use of medical imaging while increasing patient lifetime exposure to ionizing radiation. PURPOSE: To describe dose optimization strategies used by health care organizations to optimize radiation dose and image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study of semistructured interviews conducted with 26 leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on strategies that were used to optimize radiation dose at the organizational level. A directed content analysis approach was used in data analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified seven organizational strategies used by these leaders for optimizing CT dose: (1) engaging radiologists and technologists, (2) establishing a CT dose committee, (3) managing organizational change, (4) providing leadership and support, (5) monitoring and benchmarking, (6) modifying CT protocols, and (7) changes in equipment and work rules. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders in these health systems engaged in specific strategies to optimize CT dose within their organizations. The strategies address challenges health systems encounter in optimizing CT dose at the organizational level and offer an evolving framework for consideration in dose optimization efforts for enhancing safety and use of medical imaging.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

Prevalence of practice system tools for improving depression care among primary care clinics: the DIAMOND initiative.

BACKGROUND: Practice system tools improve chronic disease care, but are generally lacking for the care of depression in most primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of various depression-related practice system tools among Minnesota primary care clinics interested in improving depression care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Physician leaders of 82 clinics in Minnesota. MAIN MEASURES: A survey including practice systems recommended for care of depression and chronic conditions, each scored on a 100-point scale, and the clinic's priority for improving depression care on a 10-point scale. KEY RESULTS: Fewer practice systems tools were present and functioning well for depression care (score = 24.4 [SD 1.6]) than for the care of chronic conditions in general (score = 43.9 [SD 1.6]), p < 0.001. The average priority for improving depression care was 5.8 (SD 2.3). There was not a significant correlation between the presence of practice systems for depression or chronic disease care and the priority for depression care except for a modest correlation with the depression Decision Support subscale (r = 0.29, p = 0.008). Certain staffing patterns, a metropolitan-area clinic location, and the presence of a fully functional electronic medical record were associated with the presence of more practice system tools. CONCLUSIONS: Few practice system tools are in place for improving depression care in Minnesota primary care clinics, and these are less well-developed than general chronic disease practice systems. Future research should focus on demonstrating whether implementing these tools for depression care results in much-needed improvements in care for patients with depression.

Barriers to CT Dose Optimization: The Challenge of Organizational Change.

BACKGROUND: The use of diagnostic imaging with computed tomography (CT) has risen significantly, increasing cumulative life-time exposure to ionizing radiation for patients and raising concerns about increased cancer risk. Lowering the doses would reduce concerns about associated cancer risks. PURPOSE: To determine organizational leaders' perceptions of barriers to optimizing radiation dose in CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study using semistructured interviews conducted with 26 organizational leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on approaches the organizations used to optimize radiation dose and barriers encountered. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Analysis identified six primary barriers to dose optimization: (1) resistance to change, (2) limited time and resources, (3) complex organizational structure, (4) lack of leadership support, (5) variations in CT equipment, and (6) variability in CT protocols. CONCLUSION: Barriers to optimizing CT dose across diverse health care organizations were described by organizational leaders tasked with implementing and improving CT imaging. They identified six consistent themes that reflected barriers to optimizing radiation dose at the organizational level. These barriers impeded efforts by health care organizations to optimize radiation doses to patients from CT imaging. Identifying barriers early in any improvement process is an important first step in making meaningful and sustained change.

Personalized outcomes for hip and knee replacement: the patients point of view.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being incorporated into clinical and surgical care for assessing outcomes. This study examined outcomes important to patients in their decision to have hip or knee replacement surgery, their perspectives on PROMs and shared decision-making, and factors they considered important for postoperative care. METHODS: A cross-sectional study employing survey methods with a stratified random sample of adult orthopedic patients who were scheduled for or recently had hip or knee replacement surgery. RESULTS: In a representative sample of 226 respondents, patients identified personalized outcomes important to them that they wanted from their surgery including the ability to walk without pain/discomfort, pain relief, and returning to an active lifestyle. They preferred a personalized outcome (54%) that they identified, compared to a PROM score, for tracking progress in their care and thought it important that their surgeon know their personal outcomes (63%). Patients also wanted to engage in shared decision-making (79%) about their post-surgical care and identified personal factors important to their aftercare, such as living alone and caring for pets. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified unique personalized outcomes they desired from their care and that they wanted their orthopedic surgeons to know about. Asking patients to identify their personalized outcomes could add value for both patients and surgeons in clinical care, facilitating more robust patient involvement in shared decision-making.

Comparing community and specialty provider-based recruitment in a randomized clinical trial: clinical trial in fecal incontinence.

Recruitment of participants to clinical trials remains a significant challenge, especially for research addressing topics of a sensitive nature such as fecal incontinence (FI). In the Fiber Study, a randomized controlled trial on symptom management for FI, we successfully enrolled 189 community-living adults through collaborations with specialty-based and community-based settings, each employing methods tailored to the organizational characteristics of their site. Results show that using the two settings increased racial and ethnic diversity of the sample and inclusion of informal caregivers. There were no differential effects on enrollment, final eligibility, or completion of protocol by site. Strategic collaborations with complementary sites can achieve sample recruitment goals for clinical trials on topics that are sensitive or known to be underreported.

What Outcomes Matter to Patients After Joint or Spine Surgery?

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical care, but there have been few studies of what patients identify as the most important outcomes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, spinal discectomy/laminotomy, or a spinal fusion. Interviews focused on outcomes patients identified as important, perceived usefulness of standardized PROMs measures, and contextual situations important to their care. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Patients identified desired outcomes that were unique and important to them. Their preferred outcomes focused in the areas of freedom from pain, getting back to their normal life, and returning to an active lifestyle. Patients cared more about their individual preferred outcomes, which had more meaning for them, than a standardized PROM score. Patients also identified particular contextual situations that their care team was assumed to know about but that may not have been known. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identify specific preferred outcomes from these surgical procedures that are important and meaningful to them and that frame whether they see their surgery as a success. They also identified personal factors that they assume their surgeons know about, which affect their care and recovery. These findings underscore the importance of engaging patients in discussions about their preferences and contextual factors both prior to and after surgery.

Variation in quality of diabetes care at the levels of patient, physician, and clinic.

INTRODUCTION: We studied variance in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values among adults with diabetes to identify variation in quality of diabetes care at the levels of patient, physician, and clinic, and to identify which levels contribute the most to variation and which variables at each level are related to quality of diabetes care. METHODS: Study subjects were 120 primary care physicians and their 2589 eligible adult patients with diabetes seen at 18 clinics. The dependent variable was HbA1c values recorded in clinical databases. Multivariate hierarchical models were used to partition variation in HbA1c values across the levels of patient, physician, or clinic and to identify significant predictors of HbA1c at each level. RESULTS: More than 95% of variance in HbA1c values was attributable to the patient level. Much less variance was seen at the physician and clinic level. Inclusion of patient and physician covariates did not substantially change this pattern of results. Intensification of pharmacotherapy (t = -7.40, P < .01) and patient age (t = 2.10, P < .05) were related to favorable change in HbA1c. Physician age, physician specialty, number of diabetes patients per physician, patient comorbidity, and clinic assignment did not predict change in HbA1c value. The overall model with covariates explained 11.8% of change in HbA1c value over time. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that most variance in HbA1c values is attributable to patient factors, although physicians play a major role in some patient factors (e.g., intensification of medication). These findings may lead to more effective care-improvement strategies and accountability measures.

Measuring an organization's ability to manage change: the change process capability questionnaire and its use for improving depression care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a new survey tool for assessing medical group capability to improve care and to test the relationship between survey scores and other factors among 41 medical groups. METHODS: The 30 factors and strategies that experienced quality improvement leaders ranked as most important for successful implementation were incorporated in a questionnaire. The scores from 41 medical directors on this Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) in relation to depression improvement were correlated with organizational factors. RESULTS: On a 5-point response scale, there was high variation on nearly all CPCQ items (standard deviation, 0.59-1.63) and for overall scores for factors and strategies. The total CPCQ score also correlated highly with organizational priority for depression improvement as well as with the presence of overall systems for depression care. CONCLUSIONS: This measure appears to distinguish among medical groups and to demonstrate an association with both change priorities and implemented systems for depression.

Relationship between the presence of practice systems and the quality of care for depression.

A valid measure of practice systems for improving chronic disease care is needed as a guide for both improvement and public accountability. We tested whether a new survey measure of the presence of practice systems (the PPC-R) is associated with performance measure rates for depression among 40 medical groups in Minnesota. These PPC-R scores were compared with standardized medical group measures of antidepressant persistence. Only 54% of potentially important systems were present, and there was high variability. However, there was a positive correlation between systems and quality on the 90-day measure of antidepressant persistence, both overall (r = .33, P = .04) and for the Chronic Care Model domains of decision support (r = .38, P = .02) and delivery system redesign (r = .31, P = .05). Thus, practice systems overall and several domains of the Chronic Care Model appear to be associated with higher quality care for depression. This questionnaire may help practices identify particular systems to improve.