Jeffrey Susman

The Recognition of Depression: The Primary Care Clinician’s Perspective

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to explore the responses of primary care clinicians to patients who complain of symptoms that might indicate depression, to examine the clinical strategies used by clinicians to recognize depression, and to identify the conditions that influence their ability to do so. METHODS The grounded theory method was used for data collection and analysis. In-depth, in-person interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 8 clinicians. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. RESULTS This study identified 3 processes clinicians engage in to recognize depression—ruling out, opening the door, and recognizing the person—and 3 conditions—familiarity with the patient, general clinical experience, and time availability—that influence how each of the processes is used. CONCLUSIONS The likelihood of accurately diagnosing depression and the timeliness of the diagnosis are highly influenced by the conditions within which clinicians practice. Productivity expectations in primary care will continue to undermine the identification and treatment of depression if they fail to take into consideration the factors that influence such care.

Reinvention of Depression Instruments by Primary Care Clinicians

PURPOSE Despite the sophisticated development of depression instruments during the past 4 decades, the critical topic of how primary care clinicians actually use those instruments in their day-to-day practice has not been investigated. We wanted to understand how primary care clinicians use depression instruments, for what purposes, and the conditions that influence their use. METHODS Grounded theory method was used to guide data collection and analysis. We conducted 70 individual interviews and 3 focus groups (n = 24) with a purposeful sample of 70 primary care clinicians (family physicians, general internists, and nurse practitioners) from 52 offices. Investigators’ field notes on office practice environments complemented individual interviews. RESULTS The clinicians described occasional use of depression instruments but reported they did not routinely use them to aid depression diagnosis or management; the clinicians reportedly used them primarily to enhance patients’ acceptance of the diagnosis when they anticipated or encountered resistance to the diagnosis. Three conditions promoted or reduced use of these instruments for different purposes: the extent of competing demands for the clinician’s time, the lack of objective evidence of depression, and the clinician’s familiarity with the patient. No differences among the 3 clinician groups were found for these 3 conditions. CONCLUSIONS Depression instruments are reinvented by primary care clinicians in their real-world primary care practice. Although depression instruments were originally conceptualized for screening, diagnosing, or facilitating the management of depression, our study suggests that the real-world practice context influences their use to aid shared decision making—primarily to suggest, tell, or convince patients to accept the diagnosis of depression.

Integrated clinical experience: University of Nebraska Medical Center.

The Integrated Clinical Experience (ICE) at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine is a required, two-year course of study for first- and second-year students. It provides early clinical experiences in primary care settings in metropolitan and rural areas, and related instruction in the social, behavioral, and ethical foundations of medicine. The authors describe the course goals, teaching format, topics, and evaluation of students and faculty. ICE is based on the assumptions that medicine is an applied behavioral science as well as an applied biological science, that critical reflection is important in professional education, and that early exposure to primary care will promote interest in primary care careers. The authors also describe some of the challenges associated with the implementation of this new course of study. These include student dissatisfaction with behavioral and ethical topics, resistance to critical reflection about their personal attitudes and values, and discomfort with “subjective” grading. ICE has also been controversial with some basic science faculty who feel they have had to sacrifice curriculum time to make room for this new program. Also, recruiting the large number of faculty, particularly physicians, needed to run the program has been difficult. Finally, the organization of the curriculum, with basic sciences in the morning and the ICE in the afternoon, may inadvertently reinforce the conceptual split between the biomedical and psychosocial dimensions of medicine. Efforts are under way to address this problem by exploring ways to intergrate the curriculum better.