Elizabeth Lin

Collaborative Care for Patients with Depression and Chronic Illnesses

BACKGROUND Patients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients. METHODS We conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patients primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect. RESULTS As compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P=0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.).

Distressed high utilizers of medical care ☆: DSM-III-R diagnoses and treatment needs

Among a sample of 767 high utilizers of health care, 51% were identified as distressed by an elevated score on the SCL anxiety and depression scales, the SCL somatization scale, or by their primary-care physician. These distressed high utilizers were found to have a high prevalence of chronic medical problems and significant limitation of activities caused by illness. In the prior year, they made an average of 15 medical visits and 15 telephone calls to the clinic. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule was completed on 119 distressed high utilizers randomly assigned to an intervention group in a controlled trial of psychiatric consultation. The following DSM-III-R disorders were most common: major depression 23.5%, dysthymic disorder 16.8%, generalized anxiety disorder 21.8%, and somatization disorder 20.2%. Two thirds had a lifetime history of major depression. The examination resulted in an improved diagnostic assessment for 40% of intervention patients and a revised treatment plan for 67%.

Treatment costs, cost offset, and cost-effectiveness of collaborative management of depression

Objective This report estimates the treatment costs, cost-offset effects, and cost-effectiveness of Collaborative Care of depressive illness in primary care. Study Design Treatment costs, cost-offset effects, and cost-effectiveness were assessed in two randomized, controlled trials. In the first randomized trial (N = 217), consulting psychiatrists provided enhanced management of pharmacotherapy and brief psychoeducational interventions to enhance adherence. In the second randomized trial (N = 153), Collaborative Care was implemented through brief cognitive-behavioral therapy and enhanced patient education. Consulting psychologists provided brief psychotherapy supplemented by educational materials and enhanced pharmacotherapy management. Results Collaborative Care increased the costs of treating depression largely because of the extra visits required to provide the interventions. There was a modest cost offset due to reduced use of specialty mental health services among Collaborative Care patients, but costs of ambulatory medical care services did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups. Among patients with major depression there was a modest increase in cost-effectiveness. The cost per patient successfully treated was lower for Collaborative Care than for Usual Care patients. For patients with minor depression, Collaborative Care was more costly and not more cost-effective than Usual Care. Conclusions Collaborative Care increased depression treatment costs and improved the cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with major depression. A cost offset in specialty mental health costs, but not medical care costs, was observed. Collaborative Care may provide a means of increasing the value of treatment services for major depression.

Frustrating patients: physician and patient perspectives among distressed high users of medical services.

Objective:To identify differences between patients viewed as frustrating by their physicians and those considered typical and satisfying.Design:This cross-sectional observational study focused on psychologically distressed high users of medical services. Frustrating patients were compared with typical and satisfying patients, using data from patient questionnaires, physician assessments, structured psychiatric interviews, and computerized utilization records.Setting:Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, a large health maintenance organization.Patients/participants:Study patients were in the top decile for ambulatory visits, and had elevated scores for anxiety, depression, and somatization. Among the 339 patients invited to participate in the study, 251 agreed, and 228 were rated by their physicians.Main results:A substantial proportion (37%) of the high users were viewed as frustrating by their physicians. Physicians’ ratings of physical disease severity did not differ among the groups, but frustrating patients rated their own health status less favorably and reported more somatic symptoms and disabilities. The frustrating group utilized more medical services than did other distressed high utilizers. All three groups had a high prevalence of mental disorders. However, frustrating patients had higher rates of somatization and generalized anxiety disorder.Conclusions:Physicians and their frustrating patients had contrasting views of the patients’ illnesses. The best predictors of physician frustration were somatization and increased medical service utilization. There is need for further research and clinical attention concerning optimal clinical management for patients with somatization.

Long‐term Effects of a Collaborative Care Intervention in Persistently Depressed Primary Care Patients

AbstractOBJECTIVE: A previous study described the effect of a collaborative care intervention on improving adherence to antidepressant medications and depressive and functional outcomes of patients with persistent depressive symptoms 8 weeks after the primary care physician initiated treatment. This paper examined the 28-month effect of this intervention on adherence, depressive symptoms, functioning, and health care costs. DESIGN: Randomized trial of stepped collaborative care intervention versus usual care. SETTING: HMO in Seattle, Wash. PATIENTS: Patients with major depression were stratified into severe and moderate depression groups prior to randomization. INTERVENTIONS: A multifaceted intervention targeting patient, physician, and process of care, using collaborative management by a psychiatrist and a primary care physician. MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention was associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms at 28 months in patients in the moderate-severity group (F1,87=8.65; P=.004), but not in patients in the high-severity group (F1,51=0.02; P=.88) Improvements in the intervention group in antidepressant adherence were found to occur for the first 6 months (χ2(1)=8.23; P<.01) and second 6-month period (χ2(1)=5.98; P<.05) after randomization in the high-severity group and for 6 months after randomization in the moderate-severity group(χ2(1)=6.10; P<.05). There were no significant differences in total ambulatory costs between intervention and control patients over the 28-month period (F1,180=0.77; P=.40). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative care intervention was associated with sustained improvement in depressive outcomes without additional health care costs in approximately two thirds of primary care patients with persistent depressive symptoms.

Impact of improved depression treatment in primary care on daily functioning and disability

BACKGROUND Few data are available regarding the impact of improved depression treatment on daily functioning and disability. METHODS In two studies of more intensive depression treatment in primary care, patients initiating antidepressant treatment were randomly assigned to either usual care or to a collaborative management programme including patient education, on-site mental health treatment, adjustment of antidepressant medication, behavioural activation and monitoring of medication adherence. Assessments at baseline as well as 4 and 7 months included several measures of impairment, daily functioning and disability: self-rated overall health, number of bodily pains, number of somatization symptoms, changes in work due to health, reduction in leisure activities due to health, number of disability days and number of restricted activity days. RESULTS Average data from the 4- and 7-month assessments in both studies, intervention patients reported fewer somatic symptoms (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46, 0.99) and more favourable overall health (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28, 0.91). While intervention patients fared better on other measures of functional impairment and disability, none of these differences reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS More effective acute-phase depression treatment reduced somatic distress and improved self-rated overall health. The absence of a significant intervention effect on other disability measures may reflect the brief treatment and follow-up period and the influence of other individual and environmental factors on disability.

Enhancing adherence to prevent depression relapse in primary care

We performed a randomized trial to prevent depression relapse in primary care by evaluating intervention effects on medication attitudes and self-management of depression. Three hundred and eighty six primary care patients at high risk for recurrent depression were randomized to receive a 12-month intervention. Interviews at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12-months assessed attitudes about medication, confidence in managing side effects, and depression self-management. This depression relapse prevention program significantly increased: 1) favorable attitudes toward antidepressant medication [Beta =.26, 95% C.I. = (.18,.33)]; 2) self-confidence in managing medication side effects [Beta =.53, 95% C.I. = (.15,.91)]; 3) depressive symptom monitoring [O.R. = 4.08, 95% C.I. = (2.80, 5.94)]; 4) checking for early warning signs [O.R. = 3.27, 95% C.I. = (2.32, 4.61)]; and, 5) planful coping [O.R. = 2.01, 95% C.I. = (1.49, 2.72)]. Significant predictors of adherence to long-term pharmacotherapy were: favorable attitudes toward antidepressant treatment [OR = 2.20, 95% CI = (1.50, 3.22)], and increased confidence in managing medication side effects [OR = 1.10, 95% CI = (1.04, 1.68)]. Among primary care patients at high risk for depression relapse, enhanced attitudes towards antidepressant medicines and higher confidence in managing side effects were key factors associated with greater adherence to maintenance pharmacotherapy.

Panic disorder: Relationship to high medical utilization

The purpose of this review is to describe the relationship between panic disorder, somatization, functional disability, and high medical utilization. Data from community, primary-care, and specialty studies were reviewed to determine the prevalence of anxiety and panic disorder in these populations. Data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study were reviewed to emphasize the effect of panic disorder on health-care utilization and health perception in a community population. Data on the prevalence of panic disorder in primary care and mode of presentation of primary-care patients with panic disorder were also reviewed. Finally, the epidemiologic psychiatric findings from our recent study of distressed high utilizers of primary care were presented. Panic disorder was found to occur in 1-3% of people in the study community and 1.4-8% of primary-care patients. Of people with or without psychiatric disorder, people with panic disorder in the community had the highest risk of having multiple medically unexplained symptoms and of being high utilizers of medical ambulatory services. People with panic disorder in the community compared to both community psychiatric and nonpsychiatric controls tend to perceive themselves as having poor physical health and to be high users of emergency and hospital inpatient services, as well as ambulatory services. Most patients with panic disorder present to their primary-care physician with somatic complaints, especially cardiac (tachycardia, chest pain), gastrointestinal (epigastric pain or irritable bowel syndrome), or neurologic complaints (headaches, dizziness, or presyncope). Patients who were distressed high utilizers of primary care had an extremely high prevalence of current panic disorder (12%) and lifetime panic disorder (30%), which supported the association between panic disorder and high medical utilization found in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) Study.

Integrating depression and chronic disease care among patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease: The design of the TEAMcare study

Diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD) are two of the most prevalent medical illnesses in the US population and comorbid depression occurs in up to 20% of these patients. Guidelines for management of diabetes and CHD overlap for healthy lifestyle and disease-control recommendations. However, the majority of patients with these medical illnesses have been shown to have inadequate control of key risk factors such as blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, or blood sugar. Comorbid depression has been shown to adversely affect self-care of diabetes and CHD, and is associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality. Interventions that have improved quality and outcomes of depression care alone in patients with diabetes and CHD have not demonstrated benefits in self-care, improved disease control or morbidity and mortality. This paper describes the design and development of a new biopsychosocial intervention (TEAMcare) aimed at improving both medical disease control and depression in patients with poor control of diabetes and/or CHD who met the criteria for comorbid depression. A team approach is used with a nurse interventionist who receives weekly psychiatric and primary care physician caseload supervision in order to enhance treatment by the primary care physician. This intervention is being tested in an NIMH-funded randomized controlled trial in a large integrated health plan.

Patterns of care for depressed older adults in a large-staff model HMO.

The authors examined automated pharmacy and visit data for 502 members of a large-staff model health maintenance organization (HMO) who had been diagnosed with depression and started on antidepressants by their primary-care providers. Older patients (age >/=60; n=110) were less likely than younger adults (age 18-59, n=110) to receive adequate doses of antidepressant medications for 30 or 90 days. Older adults were also less likely than younger adults to receive more than two primary-care visits for depression in the 12 weeks after receiving a new antidepressant prescription and were less likely to receive specialty mental health care in the 6 months after receiving a new antidepressant prescription.