Does Screening for Pain Correspond to High Quality Care for Veterans?

Routine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear. To assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors. A cross-sectional visit-based study. One hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients. We used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that “patients want me to ask about pain” and “pain can have negative consequences on patient’s functioning”. Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that “patients are able to rate their pain”. Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain. Despite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening

Implementation of the CALM intervention for anxiety disorders: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Investigators recently tested the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention for anxiety disorders: Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management(CALM) []) in 17 primary care clinics around the United States. Investigators also conducted a qualitative process evaluation. Key research questions were as follows: (1) What were the facilitators/barriers to implementing CALM? (2) What were the facilitators/barriers to sustaining CALM after the study was completed?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Key informant interviews were conducted with 47 clinic staff members (18 primary care providers, 13 nurses, 8 clinic administrators, and 8 clinic staff) and 14 study-trained anxiety clinical specialists (ACSs) who coordinated the collaborative care and provided cognitive behavioral therapy. The interviews were semistructured and conducted by phone. Data were content analyzed with line-by-line analyses leading to the development and refinement of themes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Similar themes emerged across stakeholders. Important facilitators to implementation included the perception of "low burden" to implement, provider satisfaction with the intervention, and frequent provider interaction with ACSs. Barriers to implementation included variable provider interest in mental health, high rates of part-time providers in clinics, and high social stressors of lower socioeconomic-status patients interfering with adherence. Key sustainability facilitators were if a clinic had already incorporated collaborative care for another disorder and presence of onsite mental health staff. The main barrier to sustainability was funding for the ACS.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The CALM intervention was relatively easy to incorporate during the effectiveness trial, and satisfaction was generally high. Numerous implementation and sustainability barriers could limit the reach and impact of widespread adoption. Findings should be interpreted with the knowledge that the ACSs in this study were provided and trained by the study. Future research should explore uptake of CALM and similar interventions without the aid of an effectiveness trial.</p

Standardization of health outcomes assessment for depression and anxiety: recommendations from the ICHOM Depression and Anxiety Working Group

Purpose National initiatives, such as the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program (IAPT), demonstrate the feasibility of conducting empirical mental health assessments on a large scale, and similar initiatives exist in other countries. However, there is a lack of international consensus on which outcome domains are most salient to monitor treatment progress and how they should be measured. The aim of this project was to propose (1) an essential set of outcome domains relevant across countries and cultures, (2) a set of easily accessible patient-reported instruments, and (3) a psychometric approach to make scores from different instruments comparable. Methods: Twenty-four experts, including ten health outcomes researchers, ten clinical experts from all continents, two patient advocates, and two ICHOM coordinators worked for seven months in a consensus building exercise to develop recommendations based on existing evidence using a structured consensus-driven modified Delphi technique. Results: The group proposes to combine an assessment of potential outcome predictors at baseline (47 items: demographics, functional, clinical status, etc.), with repeated assessments of disease-specific symptoms during the treatment process (19 items: symptoms, side effects, etc.), and a comprehensive annual assessment of broader treatment outcomes (45 items: remission, absenteeism, etc.). Further, it is suggested reporting disease-specific symptoms for depression and anxiety on a standardized metric to increase comparability with other legacy instruments. All recommended instruments are provided online (www.ichom.org). Conclusion: An international standard of health outcomes assessment has the potential to improve clinical decision making, enhance health care for the benefit of patients, and facilitate scientific knowledge. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1659-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups

The widespread use of standardized health surveys is predicated on the largely untested assumption that scales constructed from those surveys will satisfy minimum psychometric requirements across diverse population groups. Data from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) were used to evaluate data completeness and quality, test scaling assumptions, and estimate internal-consistency reliability for the eight scales constructed from the MOS SF-36 Health Survey. Analyses were conducted among 3,445 patients and were replicated across 24 subgroups differing in sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis, and disease severity. For each scale, item-completion rates were high across all groups (88% to 95%), but tended to be somewhat lower among the elderly, those with less than a high school education, and those in poverty. On average, surveys were complete enough to compute scales scores for more than 96% of the sample. Across patient groups, all scales passed tests for item-internal consistency (97% passed) and item-discriminant validity (92% passed). Reliability coefficients ranged from a low of 0.65 to a high of 0.94 across scales (median = 0.85) and varied somewhat across patient subgroups. Floor effects were negligible except for the two role disability scales. Noteworthy ceiling effects were observed for both role disability scales and the social functioning scale. These findings support the use of the SF-36 survey across the diverse populations studied and identify population groups in which use of standardized health status measures may or may not be problematic

The Impact of Community Engagement on Health, Social, and Utilization Outcomes in Depressed, Impoverished Populations: Secondary Findings from a Randomized Trial

BackgroundDisparities in depression care exist among the poor. Community Partners in Care (CPIC) compared a community coalition model with technical assistance to improve depression services in under-resourced communities. We examine effects on health, social, and utilization outcomes among the poor and, non-poor depressed, and poor subgroups.MethodsThis study analyzed clients living above (n = 268) and below (n = 750) the federal-poverty level and, among the poor, 3 nonoverlapping subgroups: justice-involved (n = 158), homeless and not justice-involved (n = 298), and other poor (n = 294). Matched programs (n = 93) from health and community sectors were randomly assigned to community engagement and planning (CEP) or resources for services (RS). Primary outcomes were poor mental health-related quality of life and 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores, whereas community-prioritized and utilization outcomes were secondary. Effects were scrutinized using false discovery rate-adjusted P values to account for multiple comparisons.ResultsIn the impoverished group, CEP and RS clients of participating study programs did not differ in primary outcomes, but CEP more than RS improved mental wellness among the depressed poor (unadjusted P = .004) while providing suggestive evidence for other secondary outcomes. Within the poor subgroups, evidence favoring CEP was only suggestive but was strongest among justice-involved clients.ConclusionsA coalition approach to improving outcomes for low-income clients with depression, particularly those involved in the justice system, may offer additional benefits over standard technical assistance programs

Cultural influences on mental health symptoms in a primary care sample of Latinx patients

The present study examines how both between group (i.e., ethnic group membership) and within group cultural factors (i.e., nativity status, age of immigration, and perceived discrimination) may contribute to anxiety and related symptoms in Latinx with anxiety disorders. Baseline data were examined from patients who participated in one of the largest intervention studies for adults with anxiety disorders in primary care settings; 196 Latinx and 568 NLW (non-Latinx White) patients participated. Proportions of anxiety disorders were similar between Latinx and NLWs; however, Latinx, on average, had a greater number of anxiety disorders than NLWs. Levels of anxiety and depression symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, and mental functional impairment were similar between the ethnic groups. Latinx expressed greater somatization and physical functional impairment than NLWs. Among Latinx, perceived discrimination, but not other cultural variables, was predictive of mental health symptoms while controlling for age, gender, education, and poverty. Overall, these findings suggest more similarities than differences in types and levels of anxiety and anxiety-related impairment, with some important exceptions, including greater levels of somatization and physical functional impairment among Latinx patients. Further, perceived discrimination may be an important factor to consider when examining risk for greater symptom burden among Latinx with anxiety

The impact of alcohol use severity on anxiety treatment outcomes in a large effectiveness trial in primary care

ObjectiveThe presence of anxiety disorders is associated with poorer alcohol use disorder treatment outcomes, but little is known about the impact of alcohol use problems on anxiety disorder treatment outcomes despite their high comorbidity. The current study examined the impact of alcohol use symptom severity on anxiety disorder treatment outcomes in a multi-site primary care effectiveness study of anxiety disorder treatment.MethodData came from the Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) effectiveness trial. Participants (N=1004) were randomized to an evidence-based anxiety intervention (including cognitive behavioral therapy and medications) or usual care in primary care. Participants completed measures of alcohol use, anxiety, and depression at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up periods. Patients with alcohol dependence were excluded.ResultsThere were no significant moderating (Treatment Group × Alcohol Use Severity) interactions. The majority of analyses revealed no predictive effects of alcohol use severity on outcome; however, alcohol problems at baseline were associated with somewhat higher anxiety and depression symptoms at the 18-month follow-up.ConclusionsThese data indicate that patients with alcohol problems in primary care can be effectively treated for anxiety disorders. Baseline alcohol problems were associated with some poorer long-term outcomes, but this was evident across CALM and usual care. These findings provide preliminary evidence that there may be no need to postpone treatment of anxiety disorders until alcohol problems are addressed, at least among those who have mild to moderate alcohol problems. Replication with more severe alcohol use disorders is needed

Changes in self-efficacy and outcome expectancy as predictors of anxiety outcomes from the CALM study

Although self-efficacy (SE) and outcome expectancy (OE) have been well researched as predictors of outcome, few studies have investigated changes in these variables across treatments. We evaluated changes in OE and SE throughout treatment as predictors of outcomes in a large sample with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. We hypothesized that increases in SE and OE would predict reductions in anxiety and depression as well as improvement in functioning