Rebecca C Rossom1, Leif I Solberg2, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez2, A Lauren Crain2, Arne Beck3, Robin Whitebird4, Russell E Glasgow5. 1. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA rebecca.c.rossom@healthpartners.com. 2. HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA. 4. School of Social Work, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN, USA. 5. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While health systems are striving for patient-centered care, they have little evidence to guide them on how to engage patients in their care, or how this may affect patient experiences and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To explore which specific patient-centered aspects of care were best associated with depression improvement and care satisfaction. METHODS: Design: observational. SETTING: 83 primary care clinics across Minnesota. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients with new prescriptions for antidepressants for depression were recruited from 2007 to 2009. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed phone surveys regarding demographics and self-rated health status and depression severity at baseline and 6 months. Patient centeredness was assessed via a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Differences in rates of remission and satisfaction between positive and negative responses for each care process were evaluated using chi-square tests. RESULTS: At 6 months, 37% of 792 patients ages 18-88 achieved depression remission, and 79% rated their care as good-to-excellent. Soliciting patient preferences for care and questions or concerns, providing treatment plans, utilizing depression scales and asking about suicide risk were patient-centered measures that were positively associated with depression remission in the unadjusted model; these associations were mildly weakened after adjustment for depression severity and health status. Nearly all measures of patient centeredness were positively associated with care ratings. CONCLUSION: The patient centeredness of care influences how patients experience and rate their care. This study identified specific actions providers can take to improve patient satisfaction and depression outcomes.
BACKGROUND: While health systems are striving for patient-centered care, they have little evidence to guide them on how to engage patients in their care, or how this may affect patient experiences and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To explore which specific patient-centered aspects of care were best associated with depression improvement and care satisfaction. METHODS: Design: observational. SETTING: 83 primary care clinics across Minnesota. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients with new prescriptions for antidepressants for depression were recruited from 2007 to 2009. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed phone surveys regarding demographics and self-rated health status and depression severity at baseline and 6 months. Patient centeredness was assessed via a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Differences in rates of remission and satisfaction between positive and negative responses for each care process were evaluated using chi-square tests. RESULTS: At 6 months, 37% of 792 patients ages 18-88 achieved depression remission, and 79% rated their care as good-to-excellent. Soliciting patient preferences for care and questions or concerns, providing treatment plans, utilizing depression scales and asking about suicide risk were patient-centered measures that were positively associated with depression remission in the unadjusted model; these associations were mildly weakened after adjustment for depression severity and health status. Nearly all measures of patient centeredness were positively associated with care ratings. CONCLUSION: The patient centeredness of care influences how patients experience and rate their care. This study identified specific actions providers can take to improve patient satisfaction and depression outcomes.
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Edward H Wagner; Judith Schaefer; Lisa D Mahoney; Robert J Reid; Sarah M Greene Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Leif I Solberg; A Lauren Crain; Michael V Maciosek; Jürgen Unützer; Kris A Ohnsorg; Arne Beck; Lisa Rubenstein; Robin R Whitebird; Rebecca C Rossom; Pamela B Pietruszewski; Benjamin F Crabtree; Kenneth Joslyn; Andrew Van de Ven; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lisa A Cooper; Junius J Gonzales; Joseph J Gallo; Kathryn M Rost; Lisa S Meredith; Lisa V Rubenstein; Nae-Yuh Wang; Daniel E Ford Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Audrey L Jones; Maria K Mor; Gretchen L Haas; Adam J Gordon; John P Cashy; James H Schaefer; Leslie R M Hausmann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Enric Aragonès; Diego Palao; Germán López-Cortacans; Antonia Caballero; Narcís Cardoner; Pilar Casaus; Myriam Cavero; José Antonio Monreal; Víctor Pérez-Sola; Miquel Cirera; Maite Loren; Eva Bellerino; Catarina Tomé-Pires; Laura Palacios Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; Sheila Dunn; Angel Foster; Sherry L Grace; Courtney R Green; Nazilla Khanlou; Fiona A Miller; Donna E Stewart; Simone Vigod; Frances C Wright Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Courtney Benjamin Wolk; Rinad S Beidas; Briana S Last; Alison M Buttenheim; Anne C Futterer; Cecilia Livesey; Jeffrey Jaeger; Rebecca E Stewart; Megan Reilly; Matthew J Press; Maryanne Peifer Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Alaor Ernst Schein; Amanda Gemelli; Bruna de Fátima Oliveira Wey; Sarah Galatto Cancillier; Kristian Madeira Journal: Rev Bras Med Trab Date: 2022-06-30