Elizabeth R Pfoh1, Isabel Janmey2, Amit Anand3, Kathryn A Martinez4, Irene Katzan5, Michael B Rothberg4. 1. Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Pfohe@ccf.org. 2. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Center for Behavioral Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Cerebrovascular Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unless implementation of systematic depression screening is associated with timely treatment, quality measures based on screening are unlikely to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of integrating systematic depression screening with clinical decision support on depression identification and treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective pre-post study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a primary care visit within a large integrated health system in 2016 were included. Adults diagnosed with depression in 2015 or prior to their initial primary care visit in 2016 were excluded. INTERVENTION: Initiation of systematic screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) which began in mid-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Depression diagnosis was based on ICD codes. Treatment was defined as (1) antidepressant prescription, (2) referral, or (3) evaluation by a behavioral health specialist. We used an adjusted linear regression model to identify whether the percentage of visits with a depression diagnosis was different before versus after implementation of systematic screening. An adjusted multilevel regression model was used to evaluate the association between screening and odds of treatment. KEY RESULTS: Our study population included 259,411 patients. After implementation, 59% of patients underwent screening. Three percent scored as having moderate to severe depression. The rate of depression diagnosis increased by 1.2% immediately after systematic screening (from 1.7 to 2.9%). The percent of patients with diagnosed depression who received treatment within 90 days increased from 64% before to 69% after implementation (p < 0.01) and the adjusted odds of treatment increased by 20% after implementation (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing systematic depression screening within a large health care system led to high rates of screening and increased rates of depression diagnosis and treatment.
BACKGROUND: Unless implementation of systematic depression screening is associated with timely treatment, quality measures based on screening are unlikely to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of integrating systematic depression screening with clinical decision support on depression identification and treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective pre-post study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a primary care visit within a large integrated health system in 2016 were included. Adults diagnosed with depression in 2015 or prior to their initial primary care visit in 2016 were excluded. INTERVENTION: Initiation of systematic screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) which began in mid-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Depression diagnosis was based on ICD codes. Treatment was defined as (1) antidepressant prescription, (2) referral, or (3) evaluation by a behavioral health specialist. We used an adjusted linear regression model to identify whether the percentage of visits with a depression diagnosis was different before versus after implementation of systematic screening. An adjusted multilevel regression model was used to evaluate the association between screening and odds of treatment. KEY RESULTS: Our study population included 259,411 patients. After implementation, 59% of patients underwent screening. Three percent scored as having moderate to severe depression. The rate of depression diagnosis increased by 1.2% immediately after systematic screening (from 1.7 to 2.9%). The percent of patients with diagnosed depression who received treatment within 90 days increased from 64% before to 69% after implementation (p < 0.01) and the adjusted odds of treatment increased by 20% after implementation (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing systematic depression screening within a large health care system led to high rates of screening and increased rates of depression diagnosis and treatment.
Authors: Robin R Whitebird; Leif I Solberg; Karen L Margolis; Stephen E Asche; Michael A Trangle; Arthur P Wineman Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2013-03-20
Authors: Erika L Crable; Catherine A Fullerton; Rachel M Henke; Andriana Hohlbauch; Nicholas Cummings Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Rebecca C Rossom; Leif I Solberg; Emily D Parker; A Lauren Crain; Robin Whitebird; Michael Maciosek; Beth Molitor; Michael Trangle; Jürgen Unützer Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Yuhua Bao; George S Alexopoulos; Lawrence P Casalino; Thomas R Ten Have; Julie M Donohue; Edward P Post; Bruce R Schackman; Martha L Bruce Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2011-06
Authors: Wayne J Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Michael Von Korff; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette J Ludman; Bessie Young; Do Peterson; Carolyn M Rutter; Mary McGregor; David McCulloch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hendrika J Luijendijk; Julia F van den Berg; Marieke J H J Dekker; Hendrik R van Tuijl; Wim Otte; Filip Smit; Albert Hofman; Bruno H C Stricker; Henning Tiemeier Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2008-12
Authors: Albert L Siu; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Linda Ciofu Baumann; Karina W Davidson; Mark Ebell; Francisco A R García; Matthew Gillman; Jessica Herzstein; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Melissa I Franco; Erin M Staab; Mengqi Zhu; Alexandra Knitter; Wen Wan; Robert Gibbons; Lisa Vinci; Sachin Shah; Daniel Yohanna; Nancy Beckman; Neda Laiteerapong Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Maria E Garcia; Ladson Hinton; John Neuhaus; Mitchell Feldman; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Leah S Karliner Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-08-01