Supporting research, protecting data: one institution's approach to clinical data warehouse governance.

Institutions must decide how to manage the use of clinical data to support research while ensuring appropriate protections are in place. Questions about data use and sharing often go beyond what the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) considers. In this article, we describe our institution's governance model and approach. Common questions we consider include (1) Is a request limited to the minimum data necessary to carry the research forward? (2) What plans are there for sharing data externally?, and (3) What impact will the proposed use of data have on patients and the institution? In 2020, 302 of the 319 requests reviewed were approved. The majority of requests were approved in less than 2 weeks, with few or no stipulations. For the remaining requests, the governance committee works with researchers to find solutions to meet their needs while also addressing our collective goal of protecting patients.

Major depression symptoms in primary care and psychiatric care settings: a cross-sectional analysis.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to confirm and extend preliminary findings that participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care and specialty care settings have with equivalent degrees of depression severity and an indistinguishable constellation of symptoms. METHODS: Baseline data were collected for a distinct validation cohort of 2,541 participants (42% primary care) from 14 US regional centers comprised of 41 clinic sites (18 primary care, 23 specialty care). Participants met broadly inclusive eligibility criteria requiring a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnosis of MDD and a minimum depressive symptom score on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. The main outcome measures were the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology--Clinician Rated and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. RESULTS: Primary care and specialty care participants had identical levels of moderately severe depression and identical distributions of depressive severity scores. Both primary care and specialty care participants showed considerable suicide risk, with specialty care participants even more likely to report prior suicide attempts. Core depressive symptoms or concurrent psychiatric disorders were not substantially different between settings. One half of participants in each setting had an anxiety disorder (48.6% primary care vs 51.6% specialty care, P = .143), with social phobia being the most common (25.3% primary care vs 32.1% specialty care, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD, depressive symptoms and severity vary little between primary care and specialty care settings. In this large, broadly inclusive US sample, the risk factors for chronic and recurrent depressive illness were frequently present, highlighting a clear risk for treatment resistance and the need for aggressive management strategies in both settings.

A direct comparison of presenting characteristics of depressed outpatients from primary vs. specialty care settings: preliminary findings from the STAR*D clinical trial.

PURPOSE: No study has directly compared the clinical features of depression for patients entering clinical trials using identical enrollment criteria at primary care (PC) and specialty care (SC) settings. The Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study (http://www.star-d.org) provides a unique opportunity to provide this comparison for patients with a major depressive disorder (MDD) requiring treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We report baseline data for the first 1500 patients enrolled in this trial involving 41 clinic sites (18 PC, 23 SC). Broadly inclusive eligibility criteria required that patients have a DSM-IV diagnosis of nonpsychotic MDD, have not failed an adequate medication trial during their current episode and score>or=14 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17). Primary outcomes included the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30) and the HAM-D17. RESULTS: Specialty care and PC patients had equivalent degrees of depressive severity (IDS-C30=35.8; HAM-D17=20.4). Specialty care patients were almost twice as likely to report a prior suicide attempt than PC patients (21% vs. 12%, P<.0001) and slightly less likely to endorse suicidal ideation in the past week (45.0% vs. 50.8%, P=.006). The only other distinguishing core symptoms were a slightly lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing depressed mood (95.2% vs. 97.7%, P=.032) or anhedonia (66.3% vs. 70.7%, P=.042, IDS-C30) and a lower likelihood of PC patients endorsing weight loss (IDS-C30). HAM-D17 results were identical. CONCLUSION: Depressive severity was not different, and symptomatic presentations did not differ substantially. Major depressive disorder is more similar than different among patients at SC and PC settings. Thus, similar clinical and research methods for screening, detecting and measuring treatment outcomes can be applied in both settings.