Kenneth B. Wells

OBJECTIVE: Quality improvement programs for depression can improve outcomes, but the utility of including patients with subthreshold depression in quality improvement programs is unclear. The authors examined 57-month effects of quality improvement on clinical outcomes and mental health care utilization of primary care patients with depressive disorder and subthreshold depression. METHOD: In a group-level, randomized, controlled trial, 46 primary care clinics were randomly assigned to provide usual care or care with a quality improvement intervention that included provider training and other resources for either medication management (medications quality improvement) or evidence-based psychotherapy (therapy quality improvement). Among 1,356 enrolled depressed patients, 991 completed the 57-month follow-up interview (604 patients with depressive disorder and 387 with subthreshold depression). Outcomes measured at 57 months were presence of probable depressive disorder, unmet need for appropriate care (untreated probable disorder), and mental health care utilization in the prior 6 months. RESULTS: Among patients with subthreshold depression at baseline, those seen in clinics with quality improvement programs with special resources for therapy were less likely to have probable depressive disorder and unmet need for care at follow-up, compared with those seen in clinics that provided usual care. Among patients with depressive disorder at baseline, those seen in clinics with quality improvement programs with special resources for medication management were less likely to have unmet need for care at follow-up, compared with those seen in clinics that provided usual care. Patients with subthreshold depression at baseline seen in clinics with a quality improvement intervention were less likely at follow-up to have had a mental health visit (in primary care or specialty care, depending on the intervention) in the prior 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to usual care, quality improvement interventions improved 57-month outcomes (probable depression, unmet need, or both) for primary care patients with depressive disorder and subthreshold depression and lowered use of mental health visits for those with subthreshold depression. The results highlight the feasibility and utility of including patients with subthreshold depression in such programs.

OBJECTIVE: Recent policy has focused on documenting and reducing ethnic disparities in availability and quality of health care. The authors examined differences by ethnic status in unmet need for alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health treatment. METHOD: Data were from a follow-up survey of adult respondents to a 1996–1997 national survey. Non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, and Hispanics were compared in access to alcoholism and drug abuse treatment and mental health care (primary or specialty), unmet need for care, satisfaction with care, and use of active treatment for alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health problems in the prior 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 31.9% of whites, 28.1% of African Americans, and 30.1% of Hispanics had some alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health care, mostly in primary care. Among those with perceived need, compared to whites, African Americans were more likely to have no access to alcoholism, drug abuse, or mental health care (25.4% versus 12.5%), and Hispanics were more likely to have less care than needed or delayed care (22.7% versus 10.7%). Among those with need, whites were more likely than Hispanics or African Americans to be receiving active alcoholism, drug abuse, or mental health treatment (37.6% versus 22.4%–25.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The authors document greater unmet need for alcoholism and drug abuse treatment and mental health care among African American and Hispanics relative to whites. New policies are needed to improve access to and quality of alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health treatment across diverse populations.

To evaluate the process and quality of care for primary care patients with depression under managed care organizations. Surveys of 1204 outpatients with depression at the time of and after a visit to 1 of 181 primary care clinicians from 46 primary care clinics in 7 managed care organizations. Patients had depressive symptoms in the previous 30 days, with or without a 12-month depressive disorder by diagnostic interview. Process indicators were depression counseling, mental health referral, or psychotropic medication management at index visit and the use of appropriate antidepressant medication during the last 6 months. Of patients with depressive disorder and recent symptoms, 29% to 43% reported a depression-specific process of care in the index visit, and 35% to 42% used antidepressant medication in appropriate dosages in the prior 6 months. Patients with depressive disorders rather than symptoms only and those with comorbid anxiety had higher rates of depression-specific processes and quality of care (P < .005). Recurrent depression, suicidal ideation, and alcohol abuse were not uniquely associated with such rates. Patients visiting for old problems or checkups received more depression-specific care than those with new problems or unscheduled visits. The 7 managed care organizations varied by a factor of 2-fold in rates of depression counseling and appropriate anti-depressant use. Rates of process and quality of care for depression as reported by patients are moderate to low in managed primary care practices. Such rates are higher for patients with more severe forms of depression or with comorbid anxiety, but not for those with severe but "silent" symptoms like suicide ideation. Visit context factors, such as whether the visit is scheduled, affect rates of depression-specific care. Rates of care for depression are highly variable among managed care organizations, emphasizing the need for process monitoring and quality improvement for depression at the organizational level.

DEPRESSION is associated with limitations in multiple domains of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), defined as perceptions of daily functioning and well-being in physical, social, and psychological domains, that equal or exceed those associated with most common chronic medical conditions, such as arthritis or diabetes.^1-4 Yet, levels of detection and treatment for depression in managed care, primary care settings remain moderate at best.^5-9 One factor that could contribute to low treatment rates is the perception of patients that recovery from depression is a relatively low priority relative to recovery from common medical conditions that are physically limiting. In this article, we compare both HRQOL and utility for current health of primary care patients with depression or chronic medical conditions.

This paper describes a study design that blends health services and clinical research approaches to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatments and of quality improvement for depression in primary care, managed care practices. Six managed care organizations in Los Angeles (Calif.), San Antonio (Tex.), San Luis Valley (Colo.), Twin Cities (Minn.), and Columbia (Md.) participated. Primary care clinics were randomized to one of two quality improvement interventions or care as usual. Interventions included patient and provider education, nurse-assisted patient assessment, and resources to support appropriate medication management or access to cognitive behavioral therapy. Practices implemented the interventions with study support. Providers and patients selected treatment. Patients with depressive symptoms regardless of comorbidities were eligible. Over 27,000 primary care patients visiting the practices of 181 primary care clinicians were screened for depression, 14% were potentially eligible, and 1356 enrolled into the 2-year longitudinal study. Enrollees were similar to eligibles, but usual care clinic patients tended to be less severely depressed than intervention clinic patients, partly due to clinic staff enthusiasm. The result of the study showed that studying treatment effects and quality improvement in nonacademic settings is feasible, but requires relaxation of design features of experiments that protect internal validity. The trade-off between certainty of causal inference and generalizability to usual care conditions is discussed. The strengths and limitations of this study design are compared to those of clinical trials and recent clinical effectiveness studies.