OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality of care for cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related risk factors for patients diagnosed with and without mental disorders. METHODS: We identified all patients included in the fiscal year 2005 (FY05) VA External Peer Review Program's (EPRP) national random sample of chart reviews for assessing quality of care for CVD-related conditions. Using the VA's National Psychosis Registry and the National Registry for Depression, we assessed whether patients had received diagnoses of serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychoses) or depression during FY05. Using multivariable logistic regression and generalized estimating equation analyses, we assessed patient and facility factors associated with receipt of guideline concordant care for hypertension (total N = 24,016), hyperlipidemia (N = 46,430), and diabetes (N = 10,943). RESULTS: Overall, 70% had good blood pressure control, 90% received a cholesterol (hyperlipidemia) screen, 77% received a retinal exam for diabetes, and 63% received recommended renal tests for diabetes. After adjustment, compared to patients without SMI or depression, patients with SMI were less likely to be assessed for CVD risk factors, notably hyperlipidemia (OR = 0.58; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive recommended follow-up assessments for diabetes: foot exam (OR = 0.68; p < 0.001), retinal exam (OR = 0.65; p < 0.001), or renal testing (OR = 0.64; p < 0.001). Patients with depression were also significantly less likely to receive adequate quality of care compared to non-psychiatric patients, although effects were smaller than those observed for patients with SMI. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care for major chronic conditions associated with premature CVD-related mortality is suboptimal for VA patients with SMI, especially for procedures requiring care by a specialist.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We compared the quality of care for cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related risk factors for patients diagnosed with and without mental disorders. METHODS: We identified all patients included in the fiscal year 2005 (FY05) VA External Peer Review Program's (EPRP) national random sample of chart reviews for assessing quality of care for CVD-related conditions. Using the VA's National Psychosis Registry and the National Registry for Depression, we assessed whether patients had received diagnoses of serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychoses) or depression during FY05. Using multivariable logistic regression and generalized estimating equation analyses, we assessed patient and facility factors associated with receipt of guideline concordant care for hypertension (total N = 24,016), hyperlipidemia (N = 46,430), and diabetes (N = 10,943). RESULTS: Overall, 70% had good blood pressure control, 90% received a cholesterol (hyperlipidemia) screen, 77% received a retinal exam for diabetes, and 63% received recommended renal tests for diabetes. After adjustment, compared to patients without SMI or depression, patients with SMI were less likely to be assessed for CVD risk factors, notably hyperlipidemia (OR = 0.58; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive recommended follow-up assessments for diabetes: foot exam (OR = 0.68; p < 0.001), retinal exam (OR = 0.65; p < 0.001), or renal testing (OR = 0.64; p < 0.001). Patients with depression were also significantly less likely to receive adequate quality of care compared to non-psychiatricpatients, although effects were smaller than those observed for patients with SMI. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care for major chronic conditions associated with premature CVD-related mortality is suboptimal for VA patients with SMI, especially for procedures requiring care by a specialist.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Hagop S Akiskal; Minnie Ames; Howard Birnbaum; Paul Greenberg; Robert M A Hirschfeld; Robert Jin; Kathleen R Merikangas; Gregory E Simon; Philip S Wang Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Edward P Post; Mark S Bauer; John E Zeber; Laurel A Copeland; Chester B Good; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Sarah L Krein; C Raymond Bingham; John F McCarthy; Allison Mitchinson; Jonathan Payes; Marcia Valenstein Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Mark S Bauer; Xiaoyan Han; Gretchen L Haas; Patrick Elder; Chester B Good; Mujeeb Shad; Joseph Conigliaro; Harold Pincus Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Edward P Post; Agnes Nossek; Elif Sonel; Larry J Drill; Susan Cooley; Mark S Bauer Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Marc De Hert; Johan Detraux; Ruud van Winkel; Weiping Yu; Christoph U Correll Journal: Nat Rev Endocrinol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 43.330
Authors: Jennifer S Albrecht; Jon Mark Hirshon; Richard Goldberg; Patricia Langenberg; Hannah R Day; Daniel J Morgan; Angela C Comer; Anthony D Harris; Jon P Furuno Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Saul Blecker; Yiyi Zhang; Daniel E Ford; Eliseo Guallar; Susan Dosreis; Donald M Steinwachs; Lisa B Dixon; Gail L Daumit Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Nancy E Morden; Ethan M Berke; Deborah E Welsh; John F McCarthy; Todd A Mackenzie; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amy M Kilbourne; Margretta Bramlet; Michelle M Barbaresso; Kristina M Nord; David E Goodrich; Zongshan Lai; Edward P Post; Daniel Almirall; Lilia Verchinina; Sonia A Duffy; Mark S Bauer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 2.226