Evaluating case studies of community-oriented integrated care.

This paper summarises a ten-year conversation within London Journal of Primary Care about the nature of community-oriented integrated care (COIC) and how to develop and evaluate it. COIC means integration of efforts for combined disease-treatment and health-enhancement at local, community level. COIC is similar to the World Health Organisation concept of a Community-Based Coordinating Hub - both require a local geographic area where different organisations align their activities for whole system integration and develop local communities for health. COIC is a necessary part of an integrated system for health and care because it enables multiple insights into 'wicked problems', and multiple services to integrate their activities for people with complex conditions, at the same time helping everyone to collaborate for the health of the local population. The conversation concludes seven aspects of COIC that warrant further attention.

Barriers, facilitators, and survival strategies for GPs seeking treatment for distress: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: GPs are under increasing pressure due to a lack of resources, a diminishing workforce, and rising patient demand. As a result, they may feel stressed, burnt out, anxious, or depressed. AIM: To establish what might help or hinder GPs experiencing mental distress as they consider seeking help for their symptoms, and to explore potential survival strategies. DESIGN AND SETTING: The authors recruited 47 GP participants via e-mails to doctors attending a specialist service, adverts to local medical committees (LMCs) nationally and in GP publications, social media, and snowballing. Participants self-identified as either currently living with mental distress, returning to work following treatment, off sick or retired early as a result of mental distress, or without experience of mental distress. Interviews were conducted face to face or over the telephone. METHOD: Transcripts were uploaded to NVivo 11 and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were related to work, stigma, and symptoms. Specifically, GPs discussed feeling a need to attend work, the stigma surrounding mental ill health, and issues around time, confidentiality, and privacy. Participants also reported difficulties accessing good-quality treatment. GPs also talked about cutting down or varying work content, or asserting boundaries to protect themselves. CONCLUSION: Systemic changes, such as further information about specialist services designed to help GPs, are needed to support individual GPs and protect the profession from further damage.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (CADET).

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.

Clinical effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors' standard clinical practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months. RESULTS: 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32829227.

An exploration of the experiences of recent graduates from an interprofessional foundation degree.

This short report describes a study which aimed to explore the experiences of newly qualified assistant practitioners (APs) from an interprofessional foundation degree in long-term conditions. Interviews were carried out with one cohort of newly qualified APs and their employee mentors, 6-9 months after the APs had re-entered full-time practice. Three major themes were identified after analysis of the interview transcripts: widened AP horizons, poor AP pay and conditions and friction between APs and their colleagues. The course was highly praised by the APs and their workplace mentors. Unfortunately, the workplace infrastructure needed to support the APs was reported to be inadequate.

Ultrasonic particle size fractionation in a moving air stream.

Identification of bio-aerosol particles may be enhanced by size sorting before applying analytical techniques. In this paper, the use of ultrasonic acoustic radiation pressure to continuously size fractionate particles in a moving air stream is described. Separate particle-laden and clean air streams are introduced into a channel and merged under laminar flow conditions. An ultrasonic transducer, mounted flush to one wall of the channel, excites a standing ultrasonic wave perpendicular to the flow of the combined air stream. Acoustic radiation forces on the particles cause them to move transverse to the flow direction. Since the radiation force is dependent upon the particle size, larger particles move a greater transverse distance as they pass through the standing wave. The outlet flow is then separated into streams, each containing a range of particle sizes. Experiments were performed with air streams containing glass microspheres with a size distribution from 2-22 microm, using a centerline air stream velocity of approximately 20 cm/s. An electrostatic transducer operating at a nominal frequency of 50 kHz was used to drive an ultrasonic standing wave of 150 dB in pressure amplitude. The microsphere size distributions measured at the outlet were compared with the predictions of a theoretical model. Experiments and theory show reasonable correspondence. The theoretical model also indicates an optimal partitioning of the particle-laden and clean air inlet streams.

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression--study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9. DISCUSSION: If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients.

IAPT: help or hindrance to general practice?

KEY MESSAGES: IAPT needs to improve how it expresses itself to the outside world.Commissioning should be concerned with activities that develop and sustain trusting and therapeutic relationships as well as treat illnesses.Polyclinics should enable local people to collaborate and themselves improve their collective mental health.IAPT should enhance and not destabilise existing good practice. WHY THIS MATTERS TO ME: For years I have been working to improve mental health provision in primary care. IAPT is potentially a powerful device to make a quantum leap forward, leaving behind poor primary care practice that medicalises appropriate distress and responses to life, and building from the best.

'Real-life burden of depression' surveys--GP and patient perspectives on treatment and management of recurrent depression.

Depression is a chronic, recurrent illness carrying a heavy burden for the health service and the community. Current evidence suggests that the majority of patients with depression will experience recurrent episodes of illness, although there is extensive evidence that continuation therapy with antidepressant drugs will prevent relapse. Two surveys were designed and distributed in the UK in 2002 to compare the expectations of patients and GPs in the management of relapse in depression. For the patient survey, 1010 completed questionnaires of the 7000 distributed (through the charity Depression Alliance), were returned for analysis and feedback. For the GP survey (endorsed by the charity Primary care Mental Health Education (PriMHE), 200 responses were received from the 400 GPs contacted. A majority of patients in the survey (85%) who experience depression expressed concern about recurrent episodes and 88% of respondents had suffered at least one repeat episode. The survey found that 65% of respondents had stopped taking their medication at some stage: reasons cited include unacceptable side-effects and lack of efficacy. The findings suggest that discontinuation and non-compliance of therapies is associated with recurrent depression. Continuation therapy is now standard treatment to avoid recurrent depression; however, the majority of GPs questioned, continued therapy for less than the 6 months after acute treatment response as advised by the British Associated of Psychopharmacologists. Although depression is generally managed well at primary care level, this survey highlights the major worries of depression sufferers concerning further episodes of depression and the need to prevent relapse and recurrence through safe and effective therapies with which these patients are happy to comply.