Facilitating implementation of primary care mental health over time and across organizational contexts: a qualitative study of role and process.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations have increasingly utilized facilitation to improve implementation of evidence-based practices and programs (e.g., primary care mental health integration). Facilitation is both a role, related to the purpose of facilitation, and a process, i.e., how a facilitator operationalizes the role. Scholars continue to call for a better understanding of this implementation strategy. Although facilitation is described as dynamic, activities are often framed within the context of a staged process. We explored two understudied characteristics of implementation facilitation: 1) how facilitation activities change over time and in response to context, and 2) how facilitators operationalize their role when the purpose of facilitation is both task-focused (i.e., to support implementation) and holistic (i.e., to build capacity for future implementation efforts). METHODS: We conducted individual monthly debriefings over thirty months with facilitators who were supporting PCMHI implementation in two VA networks. We developed a list of facilitation activities based on a literature review and debriefing notes and conducted a content analysis of debriefing notes by coding what activities occurred and their intensity by quarter. We also coded whether facilitators were "doing" these activities for sites or "enabling" sites to perform them. RESULTS: Implementation facilitation activities did not occur according to a defined series of ordered steps but in response to specific organizational contexts through a non-linear and incremental process. Amount and types of activities varied between the networks. Concordant with facilitators' planned role, the focus of some facilitation activities was primarily on doing them for the sites and others on enabling sites to do for themselves; a number of activities did not fit into one category and varied across networks. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that facilitation is a dynamic and fluid process, with facilitation activities, as well as their timing and intensity, occurring in response to specific organizational contexts. Understanding this process can help those planning and applying implementation facilitation to make conscious choices about the facilitation role and the activities that facilitators can use to operationalize this role. Additionally, this work provides the foundation from which future studies can identify potential mechanisms of action through which facilitation activities enhance implementation uptake.

From novice to expert: methods for transferring implementation facilitation skills to improve healthcare delivery.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial evidence that facilitation can address the challenges of implementing evidence-based innovations. However, facilitators need a wide variety of complex skills; lack of these can have a negative effect on implementation outcomes. Literature suggests that novice and less experienced facilitators need ongoing support from experts to develop these skills. Yet, no studies have investigated the transfer process. During a test of a facilitation strategy applied at 8 VA primary care clinics, we explored the techniques and processes an expert external facilitator utilized to transfer her skills to two initially novice internal facilitators who became experts. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted monthly debriefings with three facilitators over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. Debriefings with the expert facilitator focused on how she trained and mentored facilitation trainees. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two semi-structured qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We used a mix of inductive and deductive approaches to analyze data; our analysis was informed by a review of mentoring, coaching, and cognitive apprenticeship literature. We also used a case comparison approach to explore how the expert tailored her efforts. RESULTS: The expert utilized 21 techniques to transfer implementation facilitation skills. Techniques included both active (providing information, modeling, and coaching) and participatory ones. She also used techniques to support learning, i.e., cognitive supports (making thinking visible, using heuristics, sharing experiences), psychosocial supports, strategies to promote self-learning, and structural supports. Additionally, she transferred responsibility for facilitation through a dynamic process of interaction with trainees and site stakeholders. Finally, the expert varied the level of focus on particular skills to tailor her efforts to trainee and local context. CONCLUSIONS: This study viewed the journey from novice to expert facilitator through the lens of the expert who transferred facilitation skills to support implementation of an evidence-based program. It identified techniques and processes that may foster transfer of these skills and build organizational capacity for future implementation efforts. As the first study to document the implementation facilitation skills transfer process, findings have research and practical implications.

From novice to expert: a qualitative study of implementation facilitation skills.

BACKGROUND: It is widely reported that facilitation can aid implementation of evidence-based practices. Although scholars agree that facilitators need a diverse range of skills, only a few retrospective studies have identified some of these. During the test of a facilitation strategy within the context of a VA initiative to implement evidence-based care delivery models, we documented the skills an expert external facilitator transferred to two initially novice internal regional facilitators. Ours is the first study to explore facilitation skills as they are being applied and transferred. METHODS: Facilitators applied the strategy at eight primary care clinics that lacked implementation capacity in two VA networks. We conducted monthly debriefing interviews over a 30-month period and documented these in detailed notes. External facilitator interviews focused specifically on training and mentoring internal facilitators and the skills that she transferred. We also conducted, recorded, and transcribed two qualitative interviews with each facilitator and queried them about training content and process. We conducted a content analysis of the data, using deductive and inductive methods, to identify skills the external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn. We also explored the complexity of facilitation skills and grouped them into overarching skillsets. RESULTS: The external facilitator helped internal facilitators learn 22 complex skills; with few exceptions, these skills were not unique but overlapped with one another. We clustered 21 of these into 5 groups of overarching skillsets: (1) building relationships and creating a supportive environment, (2) changing the system of care and the structure and processes that support it, (3) transferring knowledge and skills and creating infrastructure support for ongoing learning, (4) planning and leading change efforts, and (5) assessing people, processes, and outcomes and creating infrastructure for program monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study documented a broad range of implementation facilitation skills that are complex and overlapping. Findings suggest that studies and initiatives planning or applying facilitation as an implementation strategy should ensure that facilitators have or have the opportunity to learn the skills they need. Because facilitation skills are complex, the use of didactic methods alone may not be sufficient for transferring skills; future work should explore other methods and techniques.

Using implementation facilitation to foster clinical practice quality and adherence to evidence in challenged settings: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated a facilitation strategy to help clinical sites likely to experience challenges implement evidence-based Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) care models within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative. This article describes our assessment of whether implementation facilitation (IF) can foster development of high quality PC-MHI programs that adhere to evidence, are sustainable and likely to improve clinical practices and outcomes. METHODS: Utilizing a matched pair design, we conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation of the IF strategy in sixteen VA primary care clinics. To assess program quality and adherence to evidence, we conducted one-hour structured telephone interviews, at two time points, with clinicians and leaders who knew the most about the clinics' programs. We then created structured summaries of the interviews that VA national PC-MHI experts utilized to rate the programs on four dimensions (overall quality, adherence to evidence, sustainability and level of improvement). RESULTS: At first assessment, seven of eight IF sites and four of eight comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Our qualitative assessment suggested that experts rated IF sites' programs higher than comparison sites' programs with one exception. At final assessment, all eight IF but only five comparison sites had implemented a PC-MHI program. Again, experts rated IF sites' programs higher than their matched comparison sites with one exception. Over time, all ratings improved in five of seven IF sites and two of three comparison sites. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing complex evidence-based programs, particularly in settings that lack infrastructure, resources and support for such efforts, is challenging. Findings suggest that a blend of external expert and internal regional facilitation strategies that implementation scientists have developed and tested can improve PC-MHI program uptake, quality and adherence to evidence in primary care clinics with these challenges. However, not all sites showed these improvements. To be successful, facilitators likely need at least a moderate level of leaders' support, including provision of basic resources. Additionally, we found that IF and strength of leadership structure may have a synergistic effect on ability to implement higher quality and evidence-based programs.

Prescribing clinicians' perspectives on evidence-based psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder.

Evidence-based psychotherapies (EBP) for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder are not utilized to their full extent within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA provides care to many persons with PTSD and has been in the forefront of clinical practice guidelines and EBP training and dissemination. Yet VA continues to find EBP implementation difficult. Veterans with PTSD often initially present to prescribing clinicians, who then help make care decisions. It is therefore critical that these clinicians correctly screen and triage appropriate mental health care. The purpose of this study was to assess VA prescribing clinicians' knowledge, perceptions, and referral behaviors related to EBPs for PTSD and to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing EBPs within VA. We conducted qualitative interviews with 26 VA prescribing clinicians. Limited access to EBPs was the most commonly noted barrier. The clinicians we interviewed also held specific beliefs and behaviors that may delay or deter EBPs. Strategies to improve utilization also emerged. Findings suggest the need for increased access to EBPs, training to optimize the role of prescribing clinicians in helping Veterans with PTSD make appropriate care decisions, and specific organizational changes to facilitate access and effective referral systems for EBPs.

Outcomes of a partnered facilitation strategy to implement primary care-mental health.

BACKGROUND: Implementing new programs and practices is challenging, even when they are mandated. Implementation Facilitation (IF) strategies that focus on partnering with sites show promise for addressing these challenges. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an external/internal IF strategy within the context of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mandate of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI). DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental, Hybrid Type III study. Generalized estimating equations assessed differences across sites. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and providers at seven VA primary care clinics receiving the IF intervention and national support and seven matched comparison clinics receiving national support only participated in the study. INTERVENTION: We used a highly partnered IF strategy incorporating evidence-based implementation interventions. MAIN MEASURES: We evaluated the IF strategy using VA administrative data and RE-AIM framework measures for two 6-month periods. KEY RESULTS: Evaluation of RE-AIM measures from the first 6-month period indicated that PC patients at IF clinics had nine times the odds (OR=8.93, p<0.001) of also being seen in PC-MHI (Reach) compared to patients at non-IF clinics. PC providers at IF clinics had seven times the odds (OR=7.12, p=0.029) of referring patients to PC-MHI (Adoption) than providers at non-IF clinics, and a greater proportion of providers' patients at IF clinics were referred to PC-MHI (Adoption) compared to non-IF clinics (ß=0.027, p<0.001). Compared to PC patients at non-IF sites, patients at IF clinics did not have lower odds (OR=1.34, p=0.232) of being referred for first-time mental health specialty clinic visits (Effectiveness), or higher odds (OR=1.90, p=0.350) of receiving same-day access (Implementation). Assessment of program sustainability (Maintenance) was conducted by repeating this analysis for a second 6-month time period. Maintenance analyses results were similar to the earlier period. CONCLUSION: The addition of a highly partnered IF strategy to national level support resulted in greater Reach and Adoption of the mandated PC-MHI initiative, thereby increasing patient access to VA mental health care.

Roles of managers, frontline staff and local champions, in implementing quality improvement: stakeholders' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Translating promising research findings into routine clinical care has proven difficult to achieve; even highly efficacious programmes remain unadopted. Critical to changing care is an understanding of the context within which the improvement effort occurs, including the climate or culture. Health care systems are multicultural due to the wide variety of professionals, subgroups, divisions and teams within them. Yet, little work describes and compares different stakeholders' views on their and others' roles in promoting successful quality improvement implementation. OBJECTIVE: To identify manager and frontline staff perspectives about which organizational stakeholders should play a role in implementation efforts as well as what implementation roles these stakeholders should perform. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews of a purposive sample of stakeholders at the clinic, medical centre and regional network levels. Participants included stakeholders across five clinics (n = 49), their four affiliated medical centres (n = 12) and three regional networks (n = 7). Working in coding teams, we conducted a content analysis utilizing Atlas.ti Version 5. RESULTS: According to informants, individuals at each organizational level have unique and critical roles to play in implementing and sustaining quality improvement efforts. Informants advocated for participation of a wide range of organizational members, described distinct roles for each group, and articulated the need for and defined the characteristics of frontline programme champions. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of multiple types of stakeholders is likely to be costly for health care organizations. Yet, if such organizations are to achieve the highest quality care, it is also likely that such involvement is essential.

A qualitative study of U.S. veterans' reasons for seeking Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the most prevalent compensable mental disorder within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disability system and the number of veterans with PTSD service-connected disability has increased steadily over the past decade. An understanding of the reasons veterans apply for PTSD disability status may inform interpretation of this increase and policies and interventions to assist veterans with military-related PTSD. The authors conducted an exploratory qualitative study to describe the reasons veterans seek PTSD disability benefits and explored differences between those who served in different military service eras. They gathered data through in-depth interviews with 44 purposefully selected U.S. veterans, and conducted content analysis of transcribed interviews using inductive and deductive analysis with constant comparison. Participants described 5 interrelated categories of reasons for seeking PTSD disability benefits, including 3 internal factors (tangible need, need for problem identification or clarification, beliefs that justify/legitimize PTSD disability status) and 2 external factors (encouragement from trusted others and professional assistance). There were no major differences by service era. Findings may help policy makers, providers, and researchers understand what veterans hope to achieve through PTSD disability and the instrumental role of social networks and government systems in promoting the pursuit of PTSD disability status.

Using a multi-level approach to implement a primary care mental health (PCMH) program.

Successfully spreading innovation across large health care systems is a complex process requiring participation of stakeholders from a broad spectrum of professional backgrounds, skill sets, and organizational levels. We describe a process for engaging and activating stakeholders across individual, team, organization, and system levels to implement primary care-mental health integrated care programs in one regional Veterans Affairs health care network. Key stakeholders and researchers collaborated to propose and implement the program. Preliminary findings indicate that the program may reduce referrals to specialty mental health care.

'To take care of the patients': Qualitative analysis of Veterans Health Administration personnel experiences with a clinical informatics system.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has invested significant resources in designing and implementing a comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) that supports clinical priorities. EHRs in general have been difficult to implement, with unclear cost-effectiveness. We describe VA clinical personnel interactions with and evaluations of the EHR. METHODS: As part of an evaluation of a quality improvement initiative, we interviewed 72 VA clinicians and managers using a semi-structured interview format. We conducted a qualitative analysis of interview transcripts, examining themes relating to participants' interactions with and evaluations of the VA EHR. RESULTS: Participants described their perceptions of the positive and negative effects of the EHR on their clinical workflow. Although they appreciated the speed and ease of documentation that the EHR afforded, they were concerned about the time cost of using the technology and the technology's potential for detracting from interpersonal interactions. CONCLUSIONS: VA personnel value EHRs' contributions to supporting communication, education, and documentation. However, participants are concerned about EHRs' potential interference with other important aspects of healthcare, such as time for clinical care and interpersonal communication with patients and colleagues. We propose that initial implementation of an EHR is one step in an iterative process of ongoing quality improvement.

A qualitative study of determinants of PTSD treatment initiation in veterans.

Although there are effective treatments for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), many PTSD sufferers wait years to decades before seeking professional help, if they seek it at all. An understanding of factors affecting treatment initiation for PTSD can inform strategies to promote help-seeking. We conducted a qualitative study to identify determinants of PTSD treatment initiation among 44 U.S. military veterans from the Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraq wars; half were and half were not receiving treatment. Participants described barriers to and facilitators of treatment initiation within themselves, the post-trauma socio-cultural environment, the health care and disability systems, and their social networks. Lack of knowledge about PTSD was a barrier that occurred at both the societal and individual levels. Another important barrier theme was the enduring effect of experiencing an invalidating socio-cultural environment following trauma exposure. In some cases, system and social network facilitation led to treatment initiation despite individual-level barriers, such as beliefs and values that conflicted with help-seeking. Our findings expand the dominant model of service utilization by explicit incorporation of factors outside the individual into a conceptual framework of PTSD treatment initiation. Finally, we offer suggestions regarding the direction of future research and the development of interventions to promote timely help-seeking for PTSD.

From trauma to PTSD: beliefs about sensations, symptoms, and mental illness.

Despite the ongoing debate about its legitimacy as a diagnostic entity, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) continues to be the prevailing model for posttrauma suffering in Western societies. In this article, we examine how U.S. veterans came to conceptualize their posttrauma suffering as reflecting the mental disorder of PTSD. We describe the criteria veterans used to evaluate the potential clinical importance of their posttrauma reactions, and the process by which they came to label these reactions as PTSD. Difficulties that veterans experienced in evaluating their posttrauma reactions and in labeling them as PTSD mirror issues that have been raised about the diagnosis of PTSD in the professional literature.

A social marketing approach to implementing evidence-based practice in VHA QUERI: the TIDES depression collaborative care model.

Collaborative care models for depression in primary care are effective and cost-effective, but difficult to spread to new sites. Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES) is an initiative to promote evidence-based collaborative care in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Social marketing applies marketing techniques to promote positive behavior change. Described in this paper, TIDES used a social marketing approach to foster national spread of collaborative care models. TIDES SOCIAL MARKETING APPROACH: The approach relied on a sequential model of behavior change and explicit attention to audience segmentation. Segments included VHA national leadership, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) regional leadership, facility managers, frontline providers, and veterans. TIDES communications, materials and messages targeted each segment, guided by an overall marketing plan. RESULTS: Depression collaborative care based on the TIDES model was adopted by VHA as part of the new Primary Care Mental Health Initiative and associated policies. It is currently in use in more than 50 primary care practices across the United States, and continues to spread, suggesting success for its social marketing-based dissemination strategy. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Development, execution and evaluation of the TIDES marketing effort shows that social marketing is a promising approach for promoting implementation of evidence-based interventions in integrated healthcare systems.

Clinic-level process of care for depression in primary care settings.

Multi-component models for improving depression care target primary care (PC) clinics, yet few studies document usual clinic-level care. This case comparison assessed usual processes for depression management at 10 PC clinics. Although general similarities existed across sites, clinics varied on specific processes, barriers, and adherence to practice guidelines. Screening for depression conformed to guidelines. Processes for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up varied to different degrees in different clinics. This individuality of usual care should be defined prior to quality improvement interventions, and may provide insights for introducing or tailoring changes, as well as improving interpretation of evaluation results.

Creating a quality-improvement dialogue: utilizing knowledge from frontline staff, managers, and experts to foster health care quality improvement.

There is a growing consensus that a hybrid of two common approaches to quality improvement (QI), local participatory QI and expert QI, might be the best method for achieving quality care. Achieving such a hybrid requires that content experts establish an ongoing dialogue with both frontline staff members and managers. In this study we examined frontline staff members' and managers' preferences regarding how to conduct such a dialogue, and we provide practical suggestions for implementation. The two groups shared a number of preferences (e.g., verbal face-to-face exchanges, discussions focused on quality of care). There were also some differences. For example, although managers were interested in discussions of business aspects (e.g., costs), frontline staff members were concerned with workload issues. Finally, although informants acknowledged that engaging in a QI dialogue was time consuming, they also believed it was essential if health care organizations are to improve the quality of care they provide.

Balancing health care evidence and art to meet clinical needs: policymakers' perspectives.

Rationale, aims and objectives Although many believe that evidence-based practice (EBP) has great potential, critics have identified limitations including a focus on randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence to the exclusion of other evidence types and a disregard for the art of medicine. Others have argued, however, that proper application of EBP involves reasoned consideration of a wide variety of information; thus, the dichotomy between medical science and art may be false. We explore the views of executive-level policymakers from the Veterans Health Administration, a leader in the EBP movement, regarding what constitutes evidence and the relative importance of evidence versus practical needs when determining clinical policy. Method We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews and performed a content analysis. Results Although informants generally believed in the value of EBP and the role of RCTs within it, they also valued other types of evidence. Further, they had concerns that were sometimes antithetical with strict adherence to an evidence-based approach. These included practical concerns, fit with organizational values and with local circumstances, resources, political pressures and patient needs. They were especially concerned about how to address medical conditions that affect many individuals or high-risk populations that have no evidence-based treatment. Conclusion When possible, health care practice should be evidence-based. When this is not possible, health care providers must turn to the art of medicine by using consensus-based best practices. Further, it is important for policymakers and researchers to work in concert to develop EBPs that are practical and meet needs.

Balancing participation and expertise: a comparison of locally and centrally managed health care quality improvement within primary care practices.

In a longitudinal qualitative study, the authors evaluated two health care quality improvement (QI) methods that emphasized either participation (local approach) or expertise (central approach). They followed teams using these approaches to develop depression care QI programs for primary care practices over several years, observing their processes and outcomes and learning about participants' perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Concordant with the literature, most participants preferred the local approach, but some were willing to relinquish some decision making to experts. Participants identified unique advantages of both the local (e.g., maximizes buy-in and local fit) and central (e.g., maximizes efficiency, reduces burden) approaches. The authors propose a hybrid model in which experts make strategic decisions about what practices to adopt and local site personal make tactical decisions about implementation. They believe that balancing participation and expertise provides the best formula for producing lasting QI for health care organizations across a wide variety of circumstances.

Primary care - mental health collaboration: an example of assessing usual practice and potential barriers.

Practice guidelines include recommendations for collaboration between primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) to improve the quality of depression management within primary care. There is little research, however, assessing usual care relationships between PC and MH providers, or providers' perceptions regarding collaboration. Based on the literature, we conceptualize a continuum of collaborative activities and strategies. We describe the extent of collaboration and perceived barriers in selected outpatient clinics. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 PC and MH clinical leaders from 10 outpatient facilities. Topics included existing referral, consultation, and collaboration practices between PC and MH, beliefs and barriers related to collaboration. Informants generally described good relationships between providers, and PC providers reported satisfaction with referrals to MH. Informal consultation also occurred, although it was not universal. There was little evidence of collaboration beyond this basic level. The leaders identified several potential barriers to collaboration, including inadequate staffing and resources for both services. In contrast with practice guidelines, the clinics we studied incorporated little collaboration with MH providers into PC management of depression. We identify strategies that can help overcome the barriers to collaboration that our informants most commonly identified.

Developing effective collaboration between primary care and mental health providers.

OBJECTIVE: Improving care for depressed primary care (PC) patients requires system-level interventions based on chronic illness management with collaboration among primary care providers (PCPs) and mental health providers (MHPs). We describe the development of an effective collaboration system for an ongoing multisite Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) study evaluating a multifaceted program to improve management of major depression in PC practices. METHOD: Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES) is a research project that helps VA facilities adopt depression care improvements for PC patients with depression. A regional telephone-based depression care management program used Depression Case Managers (DCMs) supervised by MHPs to assist PCPs with patient management. The Collaborative Care Workgroup (CWG) was created to facilitate collaboration between PCPs, MHPs, and DCMs. The CWG used a 3-phase process: (1) identify barriers to better depression treatment, (2) identify target problems and solutions, and (3) institutionalize ongoing problem detection and solution through new policies and procedures. RESULTS: The CWG overcame barriers that exist between PCPs and MHPs, leading to high rates of the following: patients with depression being followed by PCPs (82%), referred PC patients with depression keeping their appointments with MHPs (88%), and PC patients with depression receiving antidepressants (76%). The CWG helped sites implement site-specific protocols for addressing patients with suicidal ideation. CONCLUSION: By applying these steps in PC practices, collaboration between PCPs and MHPs has been improved and maintained. These steps offer a guide to improving collaborative care to manage depression or other chronic disorders within PC clinics.

Impacts of evidence-based quality improvement on depression in primary care: a randomized experiment.

CONTEXT: Previous studies testing continuous quality improvement (CQI) for depression showed no effects. Methods for practices to self-improve depression care performance are needed. We assessed the impacts of evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI), a modification of CQI, as carried out by 2 different health care systems, and collected qualitative data on the design and implementation process. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate impacts of EBQI on practice-wide depression care and outcomes. DESIGN: Practice-level randomized experiment comparing EBQI with usual care. SETTING: Six Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and 3 Veterans Administration primary care practices randomly assigned to EBQI teams (6 practices) or usual care (3 practices). Practices included 245 primary care clinicians and 250,000 patients. INTERVENTION: Researchers assisted system senior leaders to identify priorities for EBQI teams; initiated the manual-based EBQI process; and provided references and tools. EVALUATION PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and sixty-seven representative patients with major depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Appropriate treatment, depression, functional status, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Depressed patients in EBQI practices showed a trend toward more appropriate treatment compared with those in usual care (46.0% vs 39.9% at 6 months, P = .07), but no significant improvement in 12-month depression symptom outcomes (27.0% vs 36.1% poor depression outcome, P = .18). Social functioning improved significantly (mean score 65.0 vs 56.8 at 12 months, P = .02); physical functioning did not. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based quality improvement had perceptible, but modest, effects on practice performance for patients with depression. The modest improvements, along with qualitative data, identify potential future directions for improving CQI research and practice.