Nathaniel A Sowa1, Philip Jeng1, Amy M Bauer1, Joseph M Cerimele1, Jürgen Unützer1, Yuhua Bao1, Lydia Chwastiak1. 1. Dr. Sowa, Dr. Bauer, Dr. Cerimele, Dr. Unützer, and Dr. Chwastiak are with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. Mr. Jeng and Dr. Bao are with the Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Cornell University Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether psychiatric case review was associated with depression medication modification in a large implementation program of collaborative care for depression in safety-net primary care clinics. METHODS: Registry data were examined from an implementation of the collaborative care model in Washington State. A total of 14,960 adults from 178 primary care clinics who initiated care between January 1, 2008, and September 30, 2014, and who had a baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score of 10 or higher were included. Rates of psychiatric case reviews and receipt of new depression medications were extracted from the registry for all patients and for a subset of patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment (did not achieve a PHQ-9 score of less than 10 or a reduction in PHQ-9 score of 50% or more, compared with baseline). RESULTS: One-half of patients received a new depression medication. Psychiatric case review in any given month was associated with a doubling of the probability of receiving a new medication in the following month. Among patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment, a psychiatric case review during weeks 8-12 was associated with a higher rate of receipt of new medications during weeks 8-16 or weeks 8-20. CONCLUSIONS: In a collaborative care program, psychiatric case review was associated with higher rates of subsequent receipt of a new depression medication. This finding supports the importance of psychiatric case review in reducing clinical inertia in collaborative care treatment of depression.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether psychiatric case review was associated with depression medication modification in a large implementation program of collaborative care for depression in safety-net primary care clinics. METHODS: Registry data were examined from an implementation of the collaborative care model in Washington State. A total of 14,960 adults from 178 primary care clinics who initiated care between January 1, 2008, and September 30, 2014, and who had a baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score of 10 or higher were included. Rates of psychiatric case reviews and receipt of new depression medications were extracted from the registry for all patients and for a subset of patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment (did not achieve a PHQ-9 score of less than 10 or a reduction in PHQ-9 score of 50% or more, compared with baseline). RESULTS: One-half of patients received a new depression medication. Psychiatric case review in any given month was associated with a doubling of the probability of receiving a new medication in the following month. Among patients who did not improve by eight weeks of treatment, a psychiatric case review during weeks 8-12 was associated with a higher rate of receipt of new medications during weeks 8-16 or weeks 8-20. CONCLUSIONS: In a collaborative care program, psychiatric case review was associated with higher rates of subsequent receipt of a new depression medication. This finding supports the importance of psychiatric case review in reducing clinical inertia in collaborative care treatment of depression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Collaborative care; Depression; clinical inertia; safety net
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Wayne Katon; Christopher M Callahan; John W Williams; Enid Hunkeler; Linda Harpole; Marc Hoffing; Richard D Della Penna; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Elizabeth H B Lin; Patricia A Areán; Mark T Hegel; Lingqi Tang; Thomas R Belin; Sabine Oishi; Christopher Langston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth H B Lin; Michael Von Korff; Paul Ciechanowski; Do Peterson; Evette J Ludman; Carolyn M Rutter; Malia Oliver; Bessie A Young; Jochen Gensichen; Mary McGregor; David K McCulloch; Edward H Wagner; Wayne J Katon Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Ya-Fen Chan; Erin Hafer; Jessica Knaster; Anne Shields; Diane Powers; Richard C Veith Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Janine Archer; Peter Bower; Simon Gilbody; Karina Lovell; David Richards; Linda Gask; Chris Dickens; Peter Coventry Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-10-17
Authors: Christianne L Roumie; Tom A Elasy; Kenneth A Wallston; Susan Pratt; Robert A Greevy; Xulei Liu; Vincent Alvarez; Robert S Dittus; Theodore Speroff Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2007-05
Authors: Jess G Fiedorowicz; Lisa Brown; James Li; Sagar V Parikh; Boadie W Dunlop; Brent P Forester; Richard C Shelton; Michael E Thase; Matthew Macaluso; Kunbo Yu; John F Greden Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 2021-11-03
Authors: Christopher J Miller; Kevin N Griffith; Kelly Stolzmann; Bo Kim; Samantha L Connolly; Mark S Bauer Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Olivia E Bogucki; Mark D Williams; Leif I Solberg; Rebecca C Rossom; Craig N Sawchuk Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Mark S Bauer; Christopher J Miller; Bo Kim; Robert Lew; Kelly Stolzmann; Jennifer Sullivan; Rachel Riendeau; Jeffery Pitcock; Alicia Williamson; Samantha Connolly; A Rani Elwy; Kendra Weaver Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-03-01