Barriers to Improving Primary Care of Depression: Perspectives of Medical Group Leaders

Using clinical trials, researchers have demonstrated effective methods for treating depression in primary care, but improvements based on these trials are not being implemented. This might be because these improvements require more systematic organizational changes than can be made by individual physicians. We interviewed 82 physicians and administrative leaders of 41 medical groups to learn what is preventing those organizational changes. The identified barriers to improving care included external contextual problems (reimbursement, scarce resources, and access to/communication with specialty mental health), individual attitudes (physician and patient resistance), and internal care process barriers (organizational and condition complexity, difficulty standardizing and measuring care). Although many of these barriers are challenging, we can overcome them by setting clear priorities for change and allocating adequate resources. We must improve primary care of depression if we are to reduce its enormous adverse social and economic impacts

Assessing Organizational Readiness for Depression Care Quality Improvement: Relative Commitment and Implementation Capability

Background: Depression is a major cause of morbidity and cost in primary care patient populations. Successful depression improvement models, however, are complex. Based on organizational readiness theory, a practice’s commitment to change and its capability to carry out the change are both important predictors of initiating improvement. We empirically explored the links between relative commitment (i.e., the intention to move forward within the following year) and implementation capability. Methods: The DIAMOND initiative administered organizational surveys to medical and quality improvement leaders from each of 83 primary care practices in Minnesota. Surveys preceded initiation of activities directed at implementation of a collaborative care model for improving depression care. To assess implementation capability, we developed composites of survey items for five types of organizational factors postulated to be collaborative care barriers and facilitators. To assess relative commitment for each practice, we averaged leader ratings on an identical survey question assessing practice priorities. We used multivariable regression analyses to assess the extent to which implementation capability predicted relative commitment. We explored whether relative commitment or implementation capability measures were associated with earlier initiation of DIAMOND improvements. Results: All five implementation capability measures independently predicted practice leaders’ relative commitment to improving depression care in the following year. These included the following: quality improvement culture and attitudes (p = 0.003), depression culture and attitudes (p \u3c0.001), prior depression quality improvement activities (p \u3c0.001), advanced access and tracking capabilities (p = 0.03), and depression collaborative care features in place (p = 0.03). Higher relative commitment (p = 0.002) and prior depression quality improvement activities appeared to be associated with earlier participation in the DIAMOND initiative. Conclusions: The study supports the concept of organizational readiness to improve quality of care and the use of practice leader surveys to assess it. Practice leaders’ relative commitment to depression care improvement may be a useful measure of the likelihood that a practice is ready to initiate evidence-based depression care changes. A comprehensive organizational assessment of implementation capability for depression care improvement may identify specific barriers or facilitators to readiness that require targeted attention from implementers

The Effects of Patient-Centered Depression Care on Patient Satisfaction and Depression Remission

Background: While health systems are striving for patient-centered care, they have little evidence to guide them on how to engage patients in their care, or how this may affect patient experiences and outcomes. Objective: To explore which specific patient-centered aspects of care were best associated with depression improvement and care satisfaction. Methods: Design - observational. Setting - 83 primary care clinics across Minnesota. Subjects - Primary care patients with new prescriptions for antidepressants for depression were recruited from 2007 to 2009. Outcome measures - Patients completed phone surveys regarding demographics and self-rated health status and depression severity at baseline and 6 months. Patient centeredness was assessed via a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Differences in rates of remission and satisfaction between positive and negative responses for each care process were evaluated using chi-square tests. Results: At 6 months, 37% of 792 patients ages 18–88 achieved depression remission, and 79% rated their care as good-to-excellent. Soliciting patient preferences for care and questions or concerns, providing treatment plans, utilizing depression scales and asking about suicide risk were patient centered measures that were positively associated with depression remission in the unadjusted model; these associations were mildly weakened after adjustment for depression severity and health status. Nearly all measures of patient centeredness were positively associated with care ratings. Conclusion: The patient centeredness of care influences how patients experience and rate their care. This study identified specific actions providers can take to improve patient satisfaction and depression outcomes

Clinician Burnout and Satisfaction with Resources in Caring for Complex Patients

Objective: To describe primary care clinicians\u27 self-reported satisfaction, burnout and barriers for treating complex patients. Methods: We conducted a survey of 1554 primary care clinicians in 172 primary care clinics in 18 health care systems across 8 states prior to the implementation of a collaborative model of care for patients with depression and diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. Results: Of the clinicians who responded to the survey (n=709; 46%), we found that a substantial minority (31%) were experiencing burnout that was associated with lower career satisfaction (P\u3c.0001) and lower satisfaction with resources to treat complex patients (P\u3c.0001). Less than 50% of clinicians rated their ability to treat complex patients as very good to excellent with 21% rating their ability as fair to poor. The majority of clinicians (72%) thought that a collaborative model of care would be very helpful for treating complex patients. Conclusions: Burnout remains a problem for primary care clinicians and is associated with low job satisfaction and low satisfaction with resources to treat complex patients. A collaborative care model for patients with mental and physical health problems may provide the resources needed to improve the quality of care for these patients

Variation in Quality of Diabetes Care at the Levels of Patient, Physician, and Clinic

Introduction: We studied variance in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values among adults with diabetes to identify variation in quality of diabetes care at the levels of patient, physician, and clinic, and to identify which levels contribute the most to variation and which variables at each level are related to quality of diabetes care. Methods: Study subjects were 120 primary care physicians and their 2589 eligible adult patients with diabetes seen at 18 clinics. The dependent variable was HbA1c values recorded in clinical databases. Multivariate hierarchical models were used to partition variation in HbA1c values across the levels of patient, physician, or clinic and to identify significant predictors of HbA1c at each level. Results: More than 95% of variance in HbA1c values was attributable to the patient level. Much less variance was seen at the physician and clinic level. Inclusion of patient and physician covariates did not substantially change this pattern of results. Intensification of pharmacotherapy (t = −7.40, P \u3c .01) and patient age (t = 2.10, P \u3c .05) were related to favorable change in HbA1c. Physician age, physician specialty, number of diabetes patients per physician, patient comorbidity, and clinic assignment did not predict change in HbA1c value. The overall model with covariates explained 11.8% of change in HbA1c value over time. Conclusion: These data suggest that most variance in HbA1c values is attributable to patient factors, although physicians play a major role in some patient factors (e.g., intensification of medication). These findings may lead to more effective care-improvement strategies and accountability measures

Recruiting medical groups for research: relationships, reputation, requirements, rewards, reciprocity, resolution, and respect

BACKGROUND: In order to conduct good implementation science research, it will be necessary to recruit and obtain good cooperation and comprehensive information from complete medical practice organizations. The goal of this paper is to report an effective example of such a recruitment effort for a study of the organizational aspects of depression care quality. METHODS: There were 41 medical groups in the Minnesota region that were eligible for participation in the study because they had sufficient numbers of patients with depression. We documented the steps required to both recruit their participation in this study and obtain their completion of two questionnaire surveys and two telephone interviews. RESULTS: All 41 medical groups agreed to participate and consented to our use of confidential data about their care quality. In addition, all 82 medical directors and quality improvement coordinators completed the necessary questionnaires and interviews. The key factors explaining this success can be summarized as the seven R's: Relationships, Reputation, Requirements, Rewards, Reciprocity, Resolution, and Respect. CONCLUSION: While all studies will not have all of these factors in such good alignment, attention to them may be important to other efforts to add to our knowledge of implementation science

The DIAMOND Initiative: Implementing Collaborative Care for Depression in 75 Primary Care Clinics

Background: The many randomized trials of the collaborative care model for improving depression in primary care have not described the implementation and maintenance of this model. This paper reports how and the degree to which collaborative care process changes were implemented and maintained for the 75 primary care clinics participating in the DIAMOND Initiative (Depression Improvement Across Minnesota–Offering a New Direction). Methods: Each clinic was trained to implement seven components of the model and participated in ongoing evaluation and facilitation activities. For this study, assessment of clinical process implementation was accomplished via completion of surveys by the physician leader and clinic manager of each clinic site at three points in time. The physician leader of each clinic completed a survey measure of the presence of various practice systems prior to and one and two years after implementation. Clinic managers also completed a survey of organizational readiness and the strategies used for implementation. Results: Survey response rates were 96% to 100%. The systems survey confirmed a very high degree of implementation (with large variation) of DIAMOND depression practice systems (mean of 24.4 ± 14.6%) present at baseline, 57.0 ± 21.0% at one year (P = \u3c0.0001), and 55.9 ± 21.3% at two years. There was a similarly large increase (and variation) in the use of various quality improvement strategies for depression (mean of 29.6 ± 28.1% at baseline, 75.1 ± 22.3% at one year (P = \u3c0.0001), and 74.6 ± 23.0% at two years. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that under the right circumstances, primary care clinics that are prepared to implement evidence-based care can do so if financial barriers are reduced, effective training and facilitation are provided, and the new design introduces the specific mental models, new care processes, and workers and expertise that are needed. Implementation was associated with a marked increase in the number of improvement strategies used, but actual care and outcomes data are needed to associate these changes with patient outcomes and patient-reported care

Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement: Does It Require Information From Patients?

Purpose: Since collecting outcome measure data from patients can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject to memory and nonresponse bias, we sought to learn whether outcomes important to patients can be obtained from data in the electronic health record (EHR) or health insurance claims. Methods: We previously identified 21 outcomes rated important by patients who had advanced imaging tests for back or abdominal pain. Telephone surveys about experiencing those outcomes 1 year after their test from 321 people consenting to use of their medical record and claims data were compared with audits of the participants’ EHR progress notes over the time period between the imaging test and survey completion. We also compared survey data with algorithmically extracted data from claims files for outcomes for which data might be available from that source. Results: Of the 16 outcomes for which patients’ survey responses were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes for back pain and 3 for abdominal pain had kappa scores above a very modest level of ≥ 0.2 for chart audit of EHR data and none for algorithmically obtained EHR/claims data. Of the other 5 outcomes for which claims data were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes from patient surveys and 3 outcomes from chart audits had kappa scores ≥ 0.2. Conclusions: For the types of outcomes studied here, medical record or claims data do not provide an adequate source of information except for a few outcomes where patient reports may be less accurate