Comparative effectiveness of standard versus patient-centered collaborative care interventions for depression among African Americans in primary care settings: the BRIDGE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of standard and patient-centered, culturally tailored collaborative care (CC) interventions for African American patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 months of follow-up. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Twenty-seven primary care clinicians and 132 African American patients with MDD in urban community-based practices in Maryland and Delaware. STUDY DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial with patient-level, intent-to-treat analyses. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Patients completed screener and baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month interviews to assess depression severity, mental health functioning, health service utilization, and patient ratings of care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients in both interventions showed statistically significant improvements over 12 months. Compared with standard, patient-centered CC patients had similar reductions in depression symptom levels (-2.41 points; 95 percent confidence interval (CI), -7.7, 2.9), improvement in mental health functioning scores (+3.0 points; 95 percent CI, -2.2, 8.3), and odds of rating their clinician as participatory (OR, 1.48, 95 percent CI, 0.53, 4.17). Treatment rates increased among standard (OR = 1.8, 95 percent CI 1.0, 3.2), but not patient-centered (OR = 1.0, 95 percent CI 0.6, 1.8) CC patients. However, patient-centered CC patients rated their care manager as more helpful at identifying their concerns (OR, 3.00; 95 percent CI, 1.23, 7.30) and helping them adhere to treatment (OR, 2.60; 95 percent CI, 1.11, 6.08). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered and standard CC approaches to depression care showed similar improvements in clinical outcomes for African Americans with depression; standard CC resulted in higher rates of treatment, and patient-centered CC resulted in better ratings of care.

Electronic clinical decision support for management of depression in primary care: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of an electronic clinical decision support tool for management of depression in primary care. METHOD: This prospective study was conducted in a national network of ambulatory practices over a 1-year period (October 2007-October 2008). A clinical decision support tool was embedded into the electronic health record of 19 primary care practices with 119 providers. The main components included (1) the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), with 9 questions paralleling the 9 DSM-IV criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder; (2) a suicide assessment form; and (3) brief patient and provider education. Use of each component was tracked in the electronic health record. Providers completed baseline and postintervention surveys regarding their depression management practices and their perceptions of the clinical decision support tool. RESULTS: According to electronic health record tracking, the PHQ-9 form was used in 45.6% of the 16,052 adult patients with depression and in 73.7% of the 1,422 patients with new depression. The suicide assessment form was used in 62.0% of patients with possible suicidality. Education modules were rarely used. From before to after the study, providers reported increased use of standardized tools for depression diagnosis (47% to 80%, P < .001) and monitoring (27% to 85%, P < .001). The majority of providers reported often using the PHQ-9 and suicide forms and felt them to be very helpful in patient care, with 85% planning to continue their use after the study. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic health record-based clinical decision support tool was extensively used and perceived as very helpful for assessment of patients' symptoms but not for provider education. These findings can help guide national efforts incorporating clinical decision support for quality improvement.

Using electronic health record-based tools to screen for bipolar disorder in primary care patients with depression.

PURPOSE: National guidelines recommend screening all persons with depression for bipolar disorder (BPD); one way to facilitate screening is through the use of electronic health records (EHRs). This study examined the impact of an EHR-based screening and decision support tool on diagnosis and treatment of BPD among patients diagnosed with depression in primary care offices. METHODS: This nonrandomized, controlled trial was conducted in a national network of offices using EHRs. The intervention included a screening instrument and other tools for diagnosis and management of BPD, which were embedded into the EHR. This instrument automatically activated when a patient with a diagnosis of depression but no diagnosis of BPD was seen in the office. The primary outcomes were the rates of new diagnoses of BPD and prescription of new BPD medications during the 6-month study period (April to October 2009). RESULTS: Twenty-one offices with 75 clinicians and 8355 adult patients with depression composed the intervention group, whereas 17 offices with 81 clinicians and 8799 adult patients with depression served as the comparison group. The screening tool was used with 47.5% of intervention patients, of whom 2.5% scored at high or very high risk for BPD. Intervention patients were more likely than comparison patients to be newly diagnosed with BPD (1.11% vs. 0.36%; P < .01) and be prescribed new BPD medications (1.85% vs. 1.19%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that EHR-based tools can be useful for screening and management of BPD for patients with depression in primary care offices.

Impact of EHR-based clinical decision support on adherence to guidelines for patients on NSAIDs: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Electronic health records (EHRs) with clinical decision support hold promise for improving quality of care, but their impact on management of chronic conditions has been mixed. This study examined the impact of EHR-based clinical decision support on adherence to guidelines for reducing gastrointestinal complications in primary care patients on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in a national network of primary care offices using an EHR and focused on patients taking traditional NSAIDs who had factors associated with a high risk for gastrointestinal complications (a history of peptic ulcer disease; concomitant use of anticoagulants, anti-platelet medications [including aspirin], or corticosteroids; or an age of 75 years or older). The offices were randomized to receive EHR-based guidelines and alerts for high-risk patients on NSAIDs, or usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received guideline-concordant care during the 1-year study period (June 2007-June 2008), defined as having their traditional NSAID discontinued (including a switch to a lower-risk medication), having a gastroprotective medication coprescribed, or both. RESULTS: Participants included 27 offices with 119 clinicians and 5,234 high-risk patients. Intervention patients were more likely than usual care patients to receive guideline-concordant care (25.4% vs 22.4%, adjusted odds ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.42). For individual high-risk groups, patients on low-dose aspirin were more likely to receive guideline-concordant care with the intervention vs usual care (25.0% vs 20.8%, adjusted odds ratio = 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.62), but there was no significant difference for patients in other high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed only a small impact of EHR-based clinical decision support for high-risk patients on NSAIDs in primary care offices. These results add to the growing literature about the complexity of EHR-based clinical decision support for improving quality of care.

An electronic medical record-based intervention to improve quality of care for gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) and atypical presentations of GERD.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in primary care but is often underdiagnosed and untreated. GERD can also present with atypical symptoms like chronic cough and asthma, and physicians may be unaware of this presentation. We aimed to implement and evaluate an intervention to improve diagnosis and treatment for GERD and atypical GERD in primary care. METHOD: This was a randomised controlled trial in primary care office practice using a national network of US practices (the Medical Quality Improvement Consortium - MQIC) that share the same electronic medical record (EMR). Thirteen offices with 53 providers were randomised to the intervention of EMR-based prompts and education, and 14 offices with 66 providers were randomised to the control group totalling over 67 000 patients and examining outcomes of GERD diagnosis and appropriate treatment. RESULTS: Among patients who did not have GERD at baseline, new diagnoses of GERD increased significantly in the intervention group (3.1%) versus the control group (2.3%) (P<0.01). This remained significant after controlling for clustering with an odds of diagnosis of 1.33 (95% CI 1.13-1.56) for the intervention group. For patients with atypical symptoms, those in the intervention group had both higher odds of being diagnosed with GERD (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.41-2.88) and of being treated for GERD (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.83) than those in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: GERD diagnosis and treatment in primary care, particularly among patients with atypical symptoms, can be improved through the use of an EMR-based tool incorporating decision support and education. However, significant room for improvement exists in use of appropriate treatment.

Antidepressant medication use for primary care patients with and without medical comorbidities: a national electronic health record (EHR) network study.

BACKGROUND: Because comorbid depression can complicate medical conditions (eg, diabetes), physicians may treat depression more aggressively in patients who have these conditions. This study examined whether primary care physicians prescribe antidepressant medications more often and in higher doses for persons with medical comorbidities. METHODS: This secondary data analysis of electronic health record data was conducted in the Centricity Health Care User Research Network (CHURN), a national network of ambulatory practices that use a common outpatient electronic health record. Participants included 209 family medicine and general internal medicine providers in 40 primary care CHURN offices in 17 US states. Patients included adults with a new episode of depression that had been diagnosed during the period October 2006 through July 2007 (n = 1513). Prescription of antidepressant medication and doses of antidepressant medication were compared for patients with and without 6 comorbid conditions: diabetes, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. RESULTS: 20.7% of patients had at least one medical comorbidity whereas 5.8% had multiple comorbidities. Overall, 77% of depressed patients were prescribed antidepressant medication. After controlling for age and sex, patients with multiple comorbidities were less likely to be prescribed medication (adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96), but there was no significant difference by individual comorbidities. Patients with cerebrovascular disease were less likely to be prescribed a full dose of medication (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88), but there were no differences for other comorbidities or for multiple comorbidities, and there was no difference for any comorbidities in the prescription of minimally effective doses. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with new episodes of depression who present to a primary care practice are not treated more aggressively if they have medical comorbidities. In fact, patients with multiple comorbidities are treated somewhat less aggressively.

Medical student exposure to components of the patient-centered medical home during required ambulatory clerkship rotations: implications for education.

PURPOSE: To determine the extent to which third-year medical students are exposed to elements of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) during required family medicine (FM) clerkships and how this exposure varies among a sample of medical schools. METHOD: In 2008, the authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 104 ambulatory teaching practices that host required third-year FM clerkship students from nine U.S. medical schools. Descriptive statistics characterized learning settings and the status of PCMH features, and generalized linear mixed models examined variation among medical schools (as the 104 clinics were nested within nine medical schools). RESULTS: Participating schools captured data on 104 eligible clerkship sites (44%). These practices were primarily community-based, single-specialty clinics (n = 48; 46%), and more than half (n = 55; 53%) were part of integrated health systems. Electronic health records (EHRs) were in place in 60 (58%), and no significant difference existed in EHR use according to medical school, despite up to a 10-fold variation from school to school in other PCMH features. Among sites with EHRs, 8 (14%) did not allow access to medical students. Preceptor attitudes about how practice transformation and new information technology are affecting the quality of medical education differ widely from site to site. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care transformation toward the PCMH is already well under way in a national sample of FM teaching sites, and this transformation is having important effects on medical student education.

Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home.

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Prospects for rebuilding primary care using the patient-centered medical home.

Existing research suggests that models of enhanced primary care lead to health care systems with better performance. What the research does not show is whether such an approach is feasible or likely to be effective within the U.S. health care system. Many commentators have adopted the model of the patient-centered medical home as policy shorthand to address the reinvention of primary care in the United States. We analyze potential barriers to implementing the medical home model for policy makers and practitioners. Among others, these include developing new payment models, as well as the need for up-front funding to assemble the personnel and infrastructure required by an enhanced non-visit-based primary care practice and methods to facilitate transformation of existing practices to functioning medical homes.

A cluster randomized trial of standard quality improvement versus patient-centered interventions to enhance depression care for African Americans in the primary care setting: study protocol NCT00243425.

BACKGROUND: Several studies document disparities in access to care and quality of care for depression for African Americans. Research suggests that patient attitudes and clinician communication behaviors may contribute to these disparities. Evidence links patient-centered care to improvements in mental health outcomes; therefore, quality improvement interventions that enhance this dimension of care are promising strategies to improve treatment and outcomes of depression among African Americans. This paper describes the design of the BRIDGE (Blacks Receiving Interventions for Depression and Gaining Empowerment) Study. The goal of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two interventions for African-American patients with depression--a standard quality improvement program and a patient-centered quality improvement program. The main hypothesis is that patients in the patient-centered group will have a greater reduction in their depression symptoms, higher rates of depression remission, and greater improvements in mental health functioning at six, twelve, and eighteen months than patients in the standard group. The study also examines patient ratings of care and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment for depression. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 36 primary care clinicians and 132 of their African-American patients with major depressive disorder were recruited into a cluster randomized trial. The study uses intent-to-treat analyses to compare the effectiveness of standard quality improvement interventions (academic detailing about depression guidelines for clinicians and disease-oriented care management for their patients) and patient-centered quality improvement interventions (communication skills training to enhance participatory decision-making for clinicians and care management focused on explanatory models, socio-cultural barriers, and treatment preferences for their patients) for improving outcomes over 12 months of follow-up. DISCUSSION: The BRIDGE Study includes clinicians and African-American patients in under-resourced community-based practices who have not been well-represented in clinical trials to improve depression care. The patient-centered and culturally targeted approach to depression care is a relatively new one that has not been tested in most previous studies. The study will provide evidence about whether patient-centered accommodations improve quality of care and outcomes to a greater extent than standard quality improvement strategies for African Americans with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00243425.