Population level effectiveness of implementing collaborative care management for depression.

OBJECTIVE: Care management is feasible to deploy in routine care, and the depression outcomes of patients reached by this evidence-based practice are similar to those observed in randomized controlled trials. However, no studies have estimated the population level effectiveness of care management when deployed in routine care. Population level effectiveness depends on both reach into the target population and the clinical effectiveness for those reached. METHOD: This multisite hybrid Type 3 effectiveness-implementation study employed a pre-post, quasi-experimental design. The study was conducted at 22 Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinics. Evidence-based quality improvement was used as the facilitation strategy to promote adoption. Medication possession ratios (MPRs) were calculated for 1558 patients with an active antidepressant prescription. Differences in treatment response rates at implementation and control sites were estimated from observed differences in MPR. RESULTS: Reach into the target population at implementation sites was 10.3%. Patients at implementation sites had a significantly higher probability of having MPR≥0.9 than patients at control sites [odds ratio=1.38, confidence interval95=(1.07, 1.78), P=.01]. This increase in MPR was estimated to yield a 1% point increase in response rates. CONCLUSIONS: While depression care management improves outcomes for patients receiving services, low levels of reach can reduce overall population level effectiveness.

Steps for implementing collaborative care programs for depression.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that collaborative care (care management) for depression improves outcomes, yet few clinics have implemented this evidence-based practice. To promote adoption of this best practice, our objective was to describe the steps needed to tailor collaborative care models for local needs, resources, and priorities while maintaining fidelity to the evidence base. Based on lessons learned from 2 multisite Veterans Affairs implementation studies conducted in 2 different clinical, organizational, and geographic contexts, we describe in detail the steps needed to adapt an evidence-based collaborative care program for depression for local context while maintaining highly fidelity to the research evidence. These steps represent a detailed checklist of decisions and action items that can be used as a tool to plan the implementation of a collaborative care model for depression. We also identify other tools (eg, decision support systems, suicide risk assessment) and resources (eg, training materials) that will support implementation efforts. These implementation tools should help clinicians and administrators develop informed strategies for rolling out collaborative care models for depression.

Hospital characteristics associated with timeliness of care in veterans with lung cancer.

RATIONALE: Timeliness is one of six important dimensions of health care quality recognized by the Institute of Medicine. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate timeliness of lung cancer care and identify institutional characteristics associated with timely care within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: We used data from a VA nation-wide retrospective chart review and an independent audit of VA cancer programs to examine the association between time to first treatment and potentially explanatory institutional characteristics (e.g., volume of lung cancer patients) for 2,372 veterans diagnosed with lung cancer between 1 January 2002 and 1 September 2005 at 127 VA medical centers. We developed linear mixed effects models to control for clustering of patients within hospitals and we stratified analyses by stage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Median time to treatment varied widely between (23 to 182 d) and within facilities. Median time to treatment was 90 days in patients with stage I or II cancer and 52 days in those with more advanced disease (P < 0.0001). Factors associated with shorter times to treatment included a nonacademic setting and the existence of a specialized diagnostic clinic (in patients with limited-stage disease), performing a patient flow analysis (in patients with advanced disease), and leadership beliefs about providing timely care (in both groups). However, institutional characteristics explained less than 1% of the observed variation in treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: Time to lung cancer treatment in U.S. veterans is highly variable. The numerous institutional characteristics we examined explained relatively little of this variability, suggesting that patient, clinician, and/or unmeasured institutional characteristics may be more important determinants of timely care.

Timeliness across the continuum of care in veterans with lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: By providing timely care at all steps along the continuum of lung cancer care, providers may be able to limit disease progression before treatment and possibly improve clinical outcomes. This study examines the timeliness of key events in the process of care between initial radiograph and first treatment. METHODS: Dates of key events were extracted from the medical records of 2463 veterans receiving lung cancer care at 133 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. After reviewing their site's abstraction results, facility leaders completed a survey on their perceptions of their local processes of lung cancer care. RESULTS: Median time from first radiography to first treatment was 71 days. The longest intermediate time interval examined was between first treatment referral and first treatment (median = 12 days). Time from first to last diagnostic test was most variable (interquartile range = 0-27 days). We found a significant trend indicating that the time interval from first radiograph to treatment was shorter for patients with more advanced disease. This effect was also significant within six of the seven intermediate time intervals we examined. Survey responses indicated that the chart review process stimulated improvement activity. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with earlier stage disease benefit more from treatment, they do not proceed as quickly through the continuum of care as patients with more advanced disease. By measuring variability in timeliness of care at multiple steps in the lung cancer care process, facilities may identify opportunities for improvement.