The effect of adherence to practice guidelines on depression outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed clinician adherence to depression practice guidelines and the relationship between clinician adherence and depression outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how frequently specific guideline recommendations are followed and to assess whether following guideline recommendations is linked to improved depression outcomes. DESIGN: Observational analysis of data collected from 1996 to 1998 in 3 randomized clinical trials. SETTING: 45 primary care practices in 13 U.S. states. PATIENTS: 1131 primary care patients with depression. MEASUREMENTS: Expert panel methods were used to develop a patient survey-based index that measured adherence to clinical practice guidelines on depression. Rates of adherence to the 20 indicators that form the index were evaluated. Multivariable regression that controlled for case mix was used to assess how index scores predicted continuous and dichotomous depression measures at 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: Quality of care was high (clinician adherence > or =79%) for 6 indicators, including primary care clinician detection of depression. Quality of care was low (adherence, 20% to 38%) for 8 indicators, including management of suicide risk (3 indicators), alcohol abuse (2 indicators), and elderly patients; assessment of symptoms and history of depression; and treatment adjustment for patients who did not respond to initial treatment. Greater adherence to practice guidelines significantly predicted fewer depressive symptoms on continuous measures (P < 0.001 for 12 months, P < 0.01 for 18 months, and P < 0.001 for 24 months) and dichotomous measures (P < 0.05 for 18 and 24 months). LIMITATIONS: Data are based on patient self-report. Possible changes in practice since 1998 may limit the generalizability of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines was high for one third of the recommendations that were measured but was very low for nearly half of the measures, pointing to specific needs for quality improvement. Guideline-concordant depression care appears to be linked to improved outcomes in primary care patients with depression.

Factors associated with primary care clinicians' choice of a watchful waiting approach to managing depression.

OBJECTIVES: Watchful waiting to manage depression in primary care may be an appropriate management approach for some patients who present with less severe depression. This study examined factors associated with primary care clinicians' choice of a watchful waiting approach to care management for depression. METHODS: Secondary data were analyzed from Partners in Care, which examined dissemination of best practices for depression in primary care. Primary care clinicians' decisions regarding watchful waiting were examined by using the baseline survey data from Partners in Care completed by clinicians and patients from February 1996 to March 1997. Participants were 167 primary care clinicians from 46 practices of seven managed care organizations across the United States and their 1,187 patients with depression. Primary care clinicians' proclivity for watchful waiting was examined by using a brief scenario describing a patient with major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Thirty-four clinicians (20 percent) reported a strong proclivity to use watchful waiting for the patient in the scenario. The proclivity was significantly associated with clinicians' reports of the proportion of their actual patients with whom they used this approach. Clinicians were significantly more likely to choose watchful waiting for their actual patients if they had more psychotherapy knowledge (p=.035) or perceived that the need to treat the patient's medical illness was more important than the need to treat his or her mental illness (p=.046) and were less likely to choose a watchful waiting approach if they perceived the lack of availability of mental health professionals as a barrier (p=.050). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians' knowledge of treatment and perception of barriers influence their proclivity for watchful waiting. Clinician education to promote appropriate use of watchful waiting on the basis of clinical need is recommended.

Influence of patient preference and primary care clinician proclivity for watchful waiting on receipt of depression treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether patients' preference for watchful waiting and their primary care clinician's proclivity for watchful waiting were associated with decreased likelihood of receiving depression treatment. METHODS: In a quality improvement intervention for depression in primary care, patients with depressive symptoms were identified through screening in 46 clinics from June 1996 to March 1997. We analyzed baseline survey data completed by clinicians and patients using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1140 patients, 179 (16%) preferred watchful waiting over active treatment. After controlling for covariates, patients with depressive disorders who preferred watchful waiting were less likely to report use of antidepressants (OR=0.86, 95% CI=0.77-0.95). Among patients with depressive symptoms only, those who preferred watchful waiting were less likely to report antidepressant use (OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.76-0.93) or counseling (OR=0.84, 95% CI=0.77-0.95). Patients with less knowledge about depression were less likely to receive depression treatment. Clinician proclivity for watchful waiting was not associated with the likelihood that patients received depression treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference for watchful waiting is associated with lower rates of some depression treatments, especially among patients with subsyndromal depression. Addressing patient preference for watchful waiting in primary care may include active symptom monitoring and patient education.

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.

Primary care provider attitudes are associated with smoking cessation counseling and referral.

OBJECTIVE: Most primary care providers (PCPs) endorse the importance of smoking cessation, but counseling rates are low. We evaluated the consistency of PCP's attitudes toward smoking cessation counseling and corresponding smoking-cessation behaviors. DESIGN: This was a postintervention analysis of a population-based sample from a group randomized controlled trial to improve adherence to smoking cessation guidelines. SETTING: A total of 18 VA sites in Southwestern and Western United States participated. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 280 PCPs completed a survey at 12 months after the implementation of a smoking-cessation quality improvement (QI) program. Their patients also completed 12- (n = 1080) and 18-month (n = 924) follow-up surveys. INTERVENTION: The quality improvement intervention included local priority setting, quality improvement plan development, implementation, and monitoring. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PCPs at intervention sites were more likely to report counseling patients about smoking cessation (P = 0.04) but not referral. PCP attitude toward smoking-cessation counseling was strongly associated with reported counseling (P < 0.001) and with referral (P = 0.01). Other associations with counseling were the perceived barrier "patients are not interested in quitting" (P = 0.01) and fewer years in practice (P = 0.03); other associations with referral were specialty consultation (P < 0.0001) and the perceived barrier "referral not convenient" (P = 0.001) (negative association). PCP attitudes were associated with higher rates of counseling, referral, and program attendance. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs, regardless of intervention participation, had attitudes consistent with their reported smoking-cessation behaviors and more favorable attitudes were associated with higher rates of patient-reported smoking cessation behavior. Findings suggest that PCPs who endorse smoking-cessation counseling and referral may provide more treatment recommendations and have higher patient quit rates.