Analysing UK clinicians' understanding of cognitive symptoms in major depression: A survey of primary care physicians and psychiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction occurs in depression and can persist into remission. It impacts on patient functioning but remains largely unrecognised, unmonitored and untreated. We explored understanding of cognitive dysfunction in depression among UK clinicians. METHODS: A multi-step consultation process. Step 1: a multi-stakeholder steering committee identified key themes of burden, detection and management of cognitive dysfunction in depression, and developed statements on each to explore understanding and degree of agreement among clinicians. Step 2: 100 general practitioners (GPs) and 100 psychiatrists indicated their level of agreement with these statements. Step 3: the steering committee reviewed responses and highlighted priority areas for future education and research. RESULTS: There was agreement that clinicians are not fully aware of cognitive dysfunction in depression. Views of the relationship between cognitive dysfunction and other depressive symptom severities was not consistent with the literature. In particular, there was a lack of recognition that some cognitive dysfunction can persist into remission. There was understandable uncertainty around treatment options, given the current limited evidence base. However, it was recognised that cognitive dysfunction is an area of unmet need and that there is a lack of objective tests of cognition appropriate for depressed patients that can be easily implemented in the clinic. LIMITATIONS: Respondents are likely to be 'led' by the direction of the statements they reviewed. The study did not involve patients and carers. CONCLUSIONS: UK clinicians should undergo training regarding cognitive dysfunction in depression, and further research is needed into its assessment, treatment and monitoring.

Performance characteristics of a methodology to quantify adverse events over time in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance characteristics of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool (GTT) to determine its reliability for tracking local and national adverse event rates. DATA SOURCES: Primary data from 2008 chart reviews. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study in a stratified random sample of 10 North Carolina hospitals. Hospital-based (internal) and contract research organization-hired (external) reviewers used the GTT to identify adverse events in the same 10 randomly selected medical records per hospital in each quarter from January 2002 through December 2007. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION: Interrater and intrarater reliability was assessed using κ statistics on 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively, of selected medical records. Additionally, experienced GTT users reviewed 10 percent of records to calculate internal and external teams' sensitivity and specificity. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eighty-eight to 98 percent of the targeted 2,400 medical records were reviewed. The reliability of the GTT to detect the presence, number, and severity of adverse events varied from κ=0.40 to 0.60. When compared with a team of experienced reviewers, the internal teams' sensitivity (49 percent) and specificity (94 percent) exceeded the external teams' (34 and 93 percent), as did their performance on all other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The high specificity, moderate sensitivity, and favorable interrater and intrarater reliability of the GTT make it appropriate for tracking local and national adverse event rates. The strong performance of hospital-based reviewers supports their use in future studies.