Maga Jackson-Triche

Who Is at Risk of Nondetection of Mental Health Problems in Primary Care

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To determine patient and provider characteristics associated with increased risk of nondetection of mental health problems by primary care physicians. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient and physician surveys conducted as part of the Medical Outcomes Study. PARTICIPANTS: We studied 19,309 patients and 349 internists and family physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We counted “detection” of a mental health problem whenever physicians reported, in a postvisit survey, that they thought the patient had a mental health problem or that they had counseled or referred the patient for mental health. Key independent variables included patient self-reported demographic characteristics, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), depression diagnoses according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and physician demographics and proclivity to provide counseling for depression. Logistic regression analysis, adjusted for HRQOL, revealed physicians were less likely to detect mental health problems in African Americans (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.86), men (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.75), and patients younger than 35 years (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84), and more likely to detect them in patients with diabetes (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8) or hypertension (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6). In a model that included DSM-III diagnoses, odds of detection remained reduced for African Americans as well as for Hispanics (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.71), and patients with more-severe DSM-III diagnoses were more likely to be detected. Physician proclivity toward providing counseling for depression influenced the likelihood of detection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ race, gender, and coexisting medical conditions affected physician awareness of mental health problems. Strategies to improve detection of mental health problems among African Americans, Hispanics, and men should be explored and evaluated.

Improving Care for Minorities: Can Quality Improvement Interventions Improve Care and Outcomes For Depressed Minorities? Results of a Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE Ethnic minority patients often receive poorer quality care and have worse outcomes than white patients, yet practice-based approaches to reduce such disparities have not been identified. We determined whether practice-initiated quality improvement (QI) interventions for depressed primary care patients improve care across ethnic groups and reduce outcome disparities. STUDY SETTING The sample consists of 46 primary care practices in 6 U.S. managed care organizations; 181 clinicians; 398 Latinos, 93 African Americans, and 778 white patients with probable depressive disorder. STUDY DEIGN: Matched practices were randomized to usual care or one of two QI programs that trained local experts to educate clinicians; nurses to educate, assess, and follow-up with patients; and psychotherapists to conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Patients and physicians selected treatments. Interventions featured modest accommodations for minority patients (e.g., translations, cultural training for clinicians). DATA EXTRACTION METHODS Multilevel logistic regression analyses assessed intervention effects within and among ethnic groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS At baseline, all ethnic groups Latino, African American, white) had low to moderate rates of appropriate care and the interventions significantly improved appropriate care at six months (by 8-20 percentage points) within each ethnic group, with no significant difference in response by ethnic group. The interventions significantly decreased the likelihood that Latinos and African Americans would report probable depression at months 6 and 12; the white intervention sample did not differ from controls in reported probable depression at either follow-up. While the intervention significantly improved the rate of employment for whites and not for minorities, precision was low for comparing intervention response on this outcome. It is important to note that minorities remained less likely to have appropriate care and more likely to be depressed than white patients. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of quality improvement interventions that have modest accommodations for minority patients can improve quality of care for whites and underserved minorities alike, while minorities may be especially likely to benefit clinically. Further research needs to clarify whether employment benefits are limited to whites and if so, whether this represents a difference in opportunities. Quality improvement programs appear to improve quality of care without increasing disparities, and may offer an approach to reduce health disparities.

Patient Engagement Programs for Recognition and Initial Treatment of Depression in Primary Care: A Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE Encouraging primary care patients to address depression symptoms and care with clinicians could improve outcomes but may also result in unnecessary treatment. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a depression engagement video (DEV) or a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) improves initial depression care compared with a control without increasing unnecessary antidepressant prescribing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial comparing DEV, IMCP, and control among 925 adult patients treated by 135 primary care clinicians (603 patients with depression and 322 patients without depression, defined by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score) conducted from June 2010 through March 2012 at 7 primary care clinical sites in California. INTERVENTIONS DEV targeted to sex and income, an IMCP tailored to individual patient characteristics, and a sleep hygiene video (control). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Among depressed patients, superiority assessment of the composite measure of patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation, mental health referral, or both (primary outcome); depression at 12-week follow-up, measured by the PHQ-8 (secondary outcome). Among nondepressed patients, noninferiority assessment of clinician- and patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation (primary outcomes) with a noninferiority margin of 3.5%. Analyses were cluster adjusted. RESULTS Of the 925 eligible patients, 867 were included in the primary analysis (depressed, 559; nondepressed, 308). Among depressed patients, rates of achieving the primary outcome were 17.5% for DEV, 26% for IMCP, and 16.3% for control (DEV vs control, 1.1 [95% CI, -6.7 to 8.9], P = .79; IMCP vs control, 9.9 [95% CI, 1.6 to 18.2], P = .02). There were no effects on PHQ-8 measured depression score at the 12-week follow-up: DEV vs control, -0.2 (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.8); IMCP vs control,  0.9 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.9). Among nondepressed patients, clinician-reported antidepressant prescribing in the DEV and IMCP groups was noninferior to control (mean percentage point difference [PPD]: DEV vs control, -2.2 [90% CI, -8.0 to 3.49], P = .0499 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control, -3.3 [90% CI, -9.1 to 2.4], P = .02 for noninferiority); patient-reported antidepressant recommendation did not achieve noninferiority (mean PPD: DEV vs control,  0.9 [90% CI, -4.9 to 6.7], P = .23 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control,  0.3 [90% CI, -5.1 to 5.7], P = .16 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A tailored IMCP increased clinician recommendations for antidepressant drugs, a mental health referral, or both among depressed patients but had no effect on mental health at the 12-week follow-up. The possibility that the IMCP and DEV increased patient-reported clinician recommendations for an antidepressant drug among nondepressed patients could not be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01144104.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults

These Practice Guidelines for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults mark a transition in the American Psychiatric Association’s Practice Guidelines. Since the publication of the 2011 Institute of Medicine report Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, there has been an increasing focus on using clearly defined, transparent processes for rating the quality of evidence and the strength of the overall body of evidence in systematic reviews of the scientific literature. These guidelines were developed using a process intended to be consistent with the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (2011), the Principles for theDevelopment of Specialty Society Clinical Guidelines of the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (2012), and the requirements of the Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality (AHRQ) for inclusion of a guideline in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Parameters used for the guidelines’ systematic review are included with the full text of the guidelines; the development process is fully described in a document available on the APA website: http:// www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Practice/APA-GuidelineDevelopment-Process–updated-2011-.pdf. To supplement the expertise of members of the guideline work group, we used a “snowball” survey methodology to identify experts on psychiatric evaluation and solicit their input on aspects of the psychiatric evaluation that they saw as likely to improve specific patient outcomes (Yager 2014). Results of this expert survey are included with the full text of the practice guideline.

The psychiatric assessment and brief intervention program: Partnering with primary care providers

Objective To present the structure and outcomes to date for the Psychiatric Assessment and Brief Intervention (PABI), a pilot program developed at University of California, San Francisco, to improve access of primary care patients to mental health services. PABI offers diagnostic evaluations and brief (up to 3 months) evidence-based treatment, including pharmacologic management and psychotherapy, to medical patients 18 years of age and older. Core PABI features are ensuring prompt access, actively partnering with patients and referring providers, and coordinating seamless transitions of care. Methods Demographic and clinical variables and outcome indicators were collected for all patients seen in PABI from October 2015 to June 2017. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze the data. Results During the study period, 139 patients (54% women, mean [SD] age of 48.2 [17.5] years) with a mean of 2 DSM-5 psychiatric diagnoses each (range, 1-5) were seen. Mean time to access was 8 days, with a mean length of stay in the program of 11 weeks. Compared to baseline, final behavioral health measure scores showed significant improvement: the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score decreased by 5.9 points (95% CI, 4.6-7.2), and the mean 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score was 4.4 points lower (95% CI, 3.2-5.6; both P values < .0001). Conclusions This brief psychiatric treatment program provides prompt access to quality mental health care for patients with medical comorbidities. Results to date suggest that this program leads to significantly improved clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to determine its long-term sustainability and generalizability.