Unlocking the diagnosis of depression in primary care: Which key symptoms are GPs using to determine diagnosis and severity?

OBJECTIVE: Diagnosing depression in primary care settings is challenging. Patients are more likely to present with somatic symptoms, and typically with mild depression. Use of assessment scales is variable. In this context, it is uncertain how general practitioners (GPs) determine the severity of depressive illness in clinical practice. The aim of the current paper was to identify which symptoms are used by GPs when diagnosing depression and when determining severity. METHOD: A total of 1760 GPs participated in the RADAR Program, an educational program focusing on the diagnosis and management of clinical depression. GPs identified a maximum of four patients whom they diagnosed with depression and answered questions regarding their diagnostic decision-making process for each patient. RESULTS: Overall, assessment of depression severity was influenced more by somatic symptoms collectively than emotional symptoms. Suicidal thoughts, risk of self-harm, lack of enjoyment and difficulty with activities were amongst the strongest predictors of a diagnosis of severe depression. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions are threefold: (1) collectively, somatic symptoms are the most important predictors of determining depression severity in primary care; (2) GPs may equate risk of self-harm with suicidal intent; (3) educational initiatives need to focus on key depressive subtypes derived from emotional, somatic and associated symptoms.

Severity alone should no longer determine therapeutic choice in the management of depression in primary care: findings from a survey of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depression in primary care remains suboptimal for reasons that are complex and multifactorial. Typically GPs have to make difficult decisions in limited time and therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the management of depression of varying severity and the factors associated with treatment choices. METHOD: Nested within a primary care educational initiative we conducted a survey of 1760 GPs. The GPs each identified four patients with clinical depression whom they had treated recently and then answered questions regarding their diagnosis and management of each patient. RESULTS: Comorbid anxiety, sadness and decreased concentration appeared to direct the management of depression toward psychological therapy, whereas comorbid pain and a patient's overall functioning, such as the ability to do simple everyday activities, directed the initiation of pharmacological treatment. The use of antidepressants with a broader spectrum of actions (acting on multiple neurotransmitters) increased from mild to severe depression, whereas this did not occur with the more selective agents. SSRIs were prescribed more frequently compared with all other antidepressants, irrespective of depression severity. LIMITATIONS: GPs chose the RADAR programme and therefore they were potentially more likely to have an interest in mental health compared to GPs who did not participate. CONCLUSIONS: GPs do not appear to be determining pharmacological treatment based on depression subtype and specificity, but rather on the basis of the total number of symptoms and overall severity. While acknowledging important differences between primary care and specialist practice, it is suggested that guidelines to assist GPs in matching treatment to depression subtype may be of practical assistance in decision-making, and the delivery of more effective treatments.