Farifteh F. Duffy

Collaborative care to improve the management of depressive disorders: a community guide systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT To improve the quality of depression management, collaborative care models have been developed from the Chronic Care Model over the past 20 years. Collaborative care is a multicomponent, healthcare system-level intervention that uses case managers to link primary care providers, patients, and mental health specialists. In addition to case management support, primary care providers receive consultation and decision support from mental health specialists (i.e., psychiatrists and psychologists). This collaboration is designed to (1) improve routine screening and diagnosis of depressive disorders; (2) increase provider use of evidence-based protocols for the proactive management of diagnosed depressive disorders; and (3) improve clinical and community support for active client/patient engagement in treatment goal-setting and self-management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A team of subject matter experts in mental health, representing various agencies and institutions, conceptualized and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on collaborative care for improving the management of depressive disorders. This team worked under the guidance of the Community Preventive Services Task Force, a nonfederal, independent, volunteer body of public health and prevention experts. Community Guide systematic review methods were used to identify, evaluate, and analyze available evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS An earlier systematic review with 37 RCTs of collaborative care studies published through 2004 found evidence of effectiveness of these models in improving depression outcomes. An additional 32 studies of collaborative care models conducted between 2004 and 2009 were found for this current review and analyzed. The results from the meta-analyses suggest robust evidence of effectiveness of collaborative care in improving depression symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.34); adherence to treatment (OR=2.22); response to treatment (OR=1.78); remission of symptoms (OR=1.74); recovery from symptoms (OR=1.75); quality of life/functional status (SMD=0.12); and satisfaction with care (SMD=0.39) for patients diagnosed with depression (all effect estimates were significant). CONCLUSIONS Collaborative care models are effective in achieving clinically meaningful improvements in depression outcomes and public health benefits in a wide range of populations, settings, and organizations. Collaborative care interventions provide a supportive network of professionals and peers for patients with depression, especially at the primary care level.

Systematic Use of Patient-Rated Depression Severity Monitoring: Is It Helpful and Feasible in Clinical Psychiatry?

OBJECTIVE The gap between evidence-based treatments and routine care has been well established. Findings from the Sequenced Treatments Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) emphasized the importance of measurement-based care for the treatment of depression as a key ingredient for achieving response and remission; yet measurement-based care approaches are not commonly used in clinical practice. METHODS The Nine-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for monitoring depression severity was introduced in 19 diverse psychiatric practices. During the one-year course of the project the helpfulness and feasibility of implementation of PHQ-9 in these psychiatric practices were studied. The project was modeled after the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series. Two of the 19 practices dropped out during the course of the project. RESULTS By the conclusion of the study, all remaining 17 practices had adopted PHQ-9 as a routine part of depression care in their practice. On the basis of responses from 17 psychiatrists from those practices, PHQ-9 scores influenced clinical decision making for 93% of 6,096 patient contacts. With the additional information gained from the PHQ-9 score, one or more treatment changes occurred during 40% of these clinical contacts. Changing the dosage of antidepressant medication and adding another medication were the most common treatment changes recorded by psychiatrists, followed by starting or increasing psychotherapy and by switching or initiating antidepressants. In 3% of the patient contacts, using the PHQ-9 led to additional suicide risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS The study findings suggest that adopting measurement-based care, such as using the PHQ-9, is achievable, even in practices with limited resources.

Use of Evidence-Based Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Army Behavioral Healthcare

Objective: To identify the extent to which evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) and psychopharmacologic treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are provided to U.S. service members in routine practice, and the degree to which they are consistent with evidence-based treatment guidelines. Method: We surveyed the majority of Army behavioral health providers (n = 2,310); surveys were obtained from 543 (26%). These clinicians reported clinical data on a total sample of 399 service member patients. Of these patients, 110 (28%) had a reported PTSD diagnosis. Data were weighted to account for sampling design and nonresponses. Results: Army providers reported 86% of patients with PTSD received evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for PTSD. As formal training hours in EBPs increased, reported use of EBPs significantly increased. Although EBPs for PTSD were reported to be widely used, clinicians who deliver EBP frequently reported not adhering to all core procedures recommended in treatment manuals; less than half reported using all the manualized core EBP techniques. Conclusions: Further research is necessary to understand why clinicians modify EBP treatments, and what impact this has on treatment outcomes. More data regarding the implications for treatment effectiveness and the role of clinical context, patient preferences, and clinical decision-making in adapting EBPs could help inform training efforts and the ways that these treatments may be better adapted for the military.

Quality of care measures for the treatment of bipolar disorder.

The staff of the American Psychiatric Assocition (APA), the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), and a national panel of experts in bipolar disorder and practice guideline development have collaborated to generate a set of quality of care indicators for the pharmacologic and psychosocial treatment of bipolar disorder. The indicators were derived from APA’s evidence-based Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Bipolar Disorder, 2002 (1) and the Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Medication Treatment of Bipolar Disorder, 2000 (2) These quality indicators can be used for quality monitoring, benchmarking, and quality improvement efforts across health plans, systems of care, and health care providers to improve quality and outcomes of care for patients with bipolar disorder.

APIRE Practice Research Network: Accomplishments, challenges, and lessons learned

Abstract The Practice Research Network (PRN) was established in 1993 to bridge the gap between the science base and the clinical practice of psychiatry by expanding the generalizability of findings and involving clinicians in the development and conduct of research. It began as a nationwide network of psychiatrists and has evolved to conduct large-scale, clinical and policy research studies using randomly selected samples of psychiatrists from the AMA Physician Masterfile. This paper provides an overview of major PRN initiatives and the impact of these studies. It describes the benefits to clinicians of participating in PRN research, as well as strategies developed to address key challenges.

Measuring Performance in Psychiatry: A Call to Action

Many recent public and private strategies aimed at improving the quality and efficiency of the U.S. health care system focus on measuring, reporting on, and providing incentives for improving quality. In behavioral health care, despite recent efforts, quality measurement for even the more common conditions is less well developed than for comparable general medical conditions. The absence of a comprehensive set of well-accepted measures capable of demonstrating the value of behavioral health treatment makes building a case for devoting resources to treatment more difficult. This Open Forum reviews the current state of behavioral health quality measurement, describes the criteria relevant to assessing measures, and provides a case for encouraging the development, collection, and routine use of functional outcome measures in behavioral health care.

Sustaining practice change one year after completion of the national depression management leadership initiative

OBJECTIVE This report describes the sustainability of quality improvement interventions for depression care in psychiatric practice one year after the completion of the National Depression Management Leadership Initiative (NDMLI) in 2006. The main intervention involved continued use of the nine-item depression scale of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) for routine care of patients with depressive disorders. METHODS One year after project completion, lead psychiatrists from the 17 participating practices were surveyed about the sustainability of key practice interventions and dissemination of the interventions. RESULTS All 14 practices that provided baseline and follow-up data reported sustained use of the PHQ-9 for screening, diagnosis, or monitoring purposes. Moreover, practices reported dissemination of this approach to clinicians within and outside their practices. CONCLUSIONS Psychiatrists reported sustainability and dissemination of PHQ-9 use one year after the conclusion of the NDMLI. The model has potential as a depression care improvement strategy and is worthy of additional study.

Assessment and Evidence-Based Treatments for Patients with Alcohol Use Disorders Treated in Army Behavioral Health Care Settings

ABSTRACT This study examines patterns and quality of care for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) provided by U.S. Army behavioral health clinicians (BHCs). Army BHCs (N = 399) completed a clinically detailed Web-based questionnaire on one systematically selected service member patient. Of 399 service member patients, 18% (n = 68) were diagnosed with AUD. Nearly two-thirds received evidence-based (EB) psychopharmacotherapy and/or any psychotherapy. Only 40%, however, received AUD-targeted psychotherapy (e.g., motivational interviewing/enhancement, 12-Step facilitation) and/or psychopharmacotherapy. Army BHCs commonly provide EB care for AUD. However, AUD-targeted psychotherapies are less common. Selected opportunities for improvement in provision of EB care for AUD have been identified.