four views of a depression quality improvement qi intervention l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention:

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 51

Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention: . Qualitative Description, QI Findings, Economic Data and Trial Results QUERI National Meeting, Dec 2008. What is TIDES? (Translating Initiatives in Depression into Effective Solutions).

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
four views of a depression quality improvement qi intervention

Four Views of a Depression Quality Improvement (QI) Intervention:

Qualitative Description, QI Findings, Economic Data and Trial Results

QUERI National Meeting, Dec 2008

what is tides translating initiatives in depression into effective solutions
What is TIDES?(Translating Initiatives in Depression into Effective Solutions)
  • 1990’s: Researchers tested depression care improvement models
    • Collaborative care with care management necessary and sufficient (over 36 high quality randomized trials)
  • 2000: TIDES = Can VA implement collaborative care as part of routine care?
    • VISN leadership were decision-makers
  • 2006: TIDES part of national VA rollout
tides is an evidence based quality improvement project
TIDES is An Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Project
  • Design based on successive Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles (PDSA)
    • Starting point for PDSA’s is evidence from the literature
    • VISN leaders decided on general program features through an expert panel process
    • Regional and local team-based quality improvement process was flexible and variable
qualitative and quantitative evaluations of tides
Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluations of TIDES
  • A series of projects with PI’s/CoPIs including
    • Ed Chaney, Fen Liu (Seattle)
    • JoAnn Kirchner, Rick Owen, Mona Ritchie (Little Rock)
    • John Williams (Durham)
    • Lisa Rubenstein, Becky Yano, Jackie Fickel, Susan Vivell (GLA)
  • Clinical Leaders Randy Petzel, Mike Davies, Cathy Henderson, Clyde Parkis, Susan McCutcheon, Skye McDougal, Ken Clark, Ron Norby, and many others
queri water pipeline

















































Revise Guidelines






Care Model




Implementation Science

Implementation Policy


this session
This Session
  • Presentations:
    • Jackie Fickel—Initial TIDES sites at baseline
    • Fen Liu---Key aspects of implementation and their costs
    • Ed Chaney—The story of a randomized trial
    • Lisa Rubenstein—TIDES QI data
  • Discussion:
    • Do different views of the elephant enrich understanding?
    • Implications of TIDES for VA and for your work?
clinic level usual care for depression in primary care settings

Clinic-level Usual Care for Depression in Primary Care Settings

Jacqueline Fickel, PhD, Elizabeth Yano, PhD, Louise Parker, PhD, Lisa Rubenstein, MD

--VA Sepulveda HSR&D Center of Excellence

QUERI National Meeting, December 11, 2008

clinic level assessment
Clinic-level Assessment
  • Usual care process
  • Concordance with evidence-based guidelines
  • Barriers
  • Cross-sectional observation prior to a multi-site intervention: collaborative care model for depression in primary care clinics
  • Case comparison strategy
  • 10 VA primary care clinics, from 3 networks
  • In-depth, semi-structured interviews with 22 clinical leaders
  • Supplemental descriptive, organizational structure data, for context
results general similarities across sites but also particular processes specific to each clinic
Results: General similarities across sites, but also particular processes specific to each clinic
  • Usual care processes
    • 3 clinics rarely diagnosed or treated depression
  • Differences from guidelines
    • Assessment limited, informal diagnostic methods and decisions for locus of care, treatment options mostly pharmacologic
  • Barriers to appropriate management of patients with depression in PC
    • Zero to six barriers cited per clinic
how research team can work with clinic staff
How research team can work with clinic staff
  • Care process, especially whether already diagnosing and/or treating depression in primary care
  • Awareness of barriers
  • Nature of barriers
  • Define individual clinics’ situations prior to QI interventions
  • Insights regarding how to tailor interventions
  • Keep in mind for insights on interpretation of evaluation results
organizational cost of quality improvement for depression

Organizational Cost of Quality Improvement for Depression

Chuan-Fen Liu, PhD MPH

VA Norwest HSR&D Center of Excellence

December 11, 2008

  • Document implementation timelines
  • Estimate organization cost of implementing TIDES models
study design
Study Design
  • Cross-sectional descriptive analysis from April 2000 to June 2004
  • Study Sites: 7 TIDES intervention clinics
  • QI participants: clinical and technical expert support teams
  • Activities included: communications, meetings, protocols and materials development, training, and other activities to facilitate the process
  • Activities excluded: usual patient care, evaluation and research, Human Subjects Review
  • Data Sources: project records and surveys

Phases of Quality Improvement Process

First Contact


Expert Panel Date




TIDES1 Implementation Date



Routine Care


Practice Engagement


6 months

6 months



1Date of first patient referral

preparation and design phases
Preparation and Design Phases
  • The length of design phase decreased with the order of initiation across VISNs: 20 months; 19 months; 12 months
  • Clinical partners contributed more people, but less time
  • As planned, clinical partners served as decision makers, the technical expert team carried out the majority of the labor
  • Creation of a successful depression care model required significant resources
depression quality improvement through the lens of a randomized clinical trial

Depression Quality Improvement Through the Lens of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Intent to Treat Versus Treating the IntentEdmund Chaney PhD Northwest HSR&D COE

QUERI National Meeting, Dec 2008

what was waves well being among veterans enhancement study
What was WAVES?(Well-being Among Veterans Enhancement Study)

Site level randomized trial of TIDES

In each of 3 early adopter VISNs two small to medium sized CBOCs were randomized to TIDES and one to usual care.

Subject Recruitment:

Population-based research telephone depression screening

Identified consenting depressed patients were referred to DCM at TIDES sites

TIDES was implemented as QI at each site and was stable prior to WAVES referrals

waves design
WAVES Design

Designed to test treatment adherence

Antidepressant use and psychotherapy visits assessed based on administrative data at 7 months

Health outcomes were assessed by survey at 7 months (72% completion)

waves results
WAVES Results

Significantly increased antidepressant use, adherence

Non-significant improvement in overall appropriate care

Adherent to medications (MPR > .8) or at least 4 MHS visits

No significant improvement in depression symptoms or functional status

what happened trials vs qi
What Happened? Trials vs. QI

Delayed start due to IRB: TIDES close to capacity when WAVES started

Plan: TIDES Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles with no more than 50 patients prior to WAVES start

Primary care provider-referred patients “competed” with research nurse-referred patients

Research patients received lower priority

Primary care provider experience level affected effectiveness of the model

Few WAVES PCP’s were experienced


Intervention Sites373 patients

DCM Assessment62%(n=232)

WAVES Referral Outcome (Triage)

No Assessment38%(n=141)

PC Mean DCM Contacts2.9(n=152)SD=1.0

MH Mean DCM Contacts1.8 (n=80)SD=0.7

Mean DCM Contacts1.357%(n=80)SD=0.5


Note: MH patients are those who were in Mental Health Care when referred to TIDES.

what happened regional differences
What Happened: Regional Differences

One of three VISNs had a weaker program

Patient health and adherence outcomes significantly worse for this VISN (p < .05)

Little VISN Director level back-up

Care manager turnover with inadequate replacement

lessons from waves trials may not reflect real world implementation
Lessons from WAVES: Trials May Not Reflect Real World Implementation

Real world interventions are implemented through some type of quality improvement method

Interventions only sustain if integrated into organization’s real world activities

Difficult to use trials to study QI implementation without distortion

Trial can’t capture some strong determinants of real world program functioning

E.g., primary care provider preferences and experience determine use of the treatment model

lessons from waves trials reflect outcome determinants
Lessons from WAVES: Trials Reflect Outcome Determinants

The outcome impacts of weakness in one of three VISNS

Shows program is sensitive to leadership & turnover

Effects of TIDES on a representative sample

Shows importance of assessing who is getting the program

Can enable fine-tuning of factors such as provider engagement

what when why and how are essential for implementation research
What, When, Why and How are Essential for Implementation Research

SQUIRE criteria codify reporting

Multiple methods are necessary

E.g., TIDES QI Registry, site readiness data helped to interpret WAVES outcome

Distinctions between QI Implementation and effectiveness research need to be better understood

tides quality improvement findings patient care and outcomes

TIDES Quality Improvement Findings: Patient Care and Outcomes

Lisa V. Rubenstein, MD, MSPH

QUERI National Meeting, Dec 2008

purpose of tides qi data
Purpose of TIDES QI Data
  • Assess
    • Patient safety and effectiveness for those referred to the model
    • Adherence to evidence-based DCM model
    • Focus for improvement
    • Assess quality variations across clinics
  • Develop TIDES performance measures
what is this data
What is This Data?
  • Many possible names
    • Formative evaluation
    • Quality improvement
    • Patient safety
  • What it isn’t: Comparative Effectiveness
  • Care managers trained to
    • Administer PHQ-9 in standardized way
    • Record panel management & results on a log
    • Transfer log data to Excel
  • Excel spreadsheets (de-identified) sent to research team for analysis
  • Spans 1/2002 to 9/2004 (21 months)
    • Crosses many PDSA cycles
results 1 enrollment f u
Results #1: Enrollment & F/U
  • Among 858 pts referred to TIDES, 738 (87%) were eligible for initial assessment
    • 24 refused (2.8%)
    • 86 could not be contacted (10%)
    • 10 misc. (e.g., too sick) (1%)
  • Of 738 eligibles, 86% (636) got a full initial assessment by the DCM
    • 81% of these (516) completed 6 mos.PHQ f/u
2 depression symptom outcomes
#2: Depression Symptom Outcomes
  • PHQ 9 > 10 = probable major depression
  • PHQ 9 < 5 = probably no significant depression
  • Baseline PHQ 9 mean = 12.2
  • F/u PHQ 9 at 24 weeks = 7.4


    • Mean pre-post drop in PHQ 9 = 5.8 points
3 mean phq change referral type tides vs waves
#3: Mean PHQ Change: Referral Type (TIDES vs WAVES)
  • P=.002, controlling for baseline PHQ, VISN, pt complexity, interactions
  • Interactions not significant (VISN, pt complexity)
4 mean phq change visns includes tides and waves pts
#4: Mean PHQ Change: VISNs (includes TIDES and WAVES pts)
  • P=.02, controlling for referral type, pt complexity, int.
  • No significant interactions (referral type, pt complexity)
5 contact new referrals promptly
#5:Contact New Referrals Promptly
  • 81% enrolled within 1 month (48% in 1 wk)
    • TIDES referral: 81 % enrolled in 1 month
    • WAVES referral: 74% enrolled in 1 month
    • VISN #1: 91%
    • VISN #2: 81%
    • VISN #3: 78%
6 enrollment and f u calls
#6: Enrollment and f/u calls
  • Mean enrollment calls/pt = 3.7
    • TIDES and WAVES were equivalent
  • Proportion of pts completing adequate TIDES care (at least 4 treatment contacts) was significantly lower for WAVES-referred pts (p = .01)
    • Pts receiving at least 4 calls had significantly better outcomes (p < .05)
tides qi formative findings reach
TIDES QI Formative Findings: Reach
  • Reach:
    • Clinics varied from 46% to 100% of clinicians who referred to TIDES at least once; 0% to 36% who referred at least 10 pts
  • Sustainability:
    • Least ready site performed, but did not sustain (in a favorable VISN)
    • Most ready site did not perform or sustain (in an unfavorable VISN)
could we have predicted success
Could We Have Predicted Success?
  • VISN effects seemed to trump individual site effects (positive and negative)
    • “Most ready” site from Fickel data was in the lowest performing VISN
    • “Least ready” site was in the best performing VISN
  • Care managers were at the VISN level
    • Lowest VISN leadership support linked to lowest care manager support
  • TIDES was safe and effective for the majority of those referred to it
    • TIDES model performance echoes literature
  • TIDES QI measures show progress and room for improvement
    • QI measures for evidence-based depression care models is critical
  • Assessment of site and VISN readiness may help future TIDES-Type implementation
questions for discussion
  • Do these four different views of TIDES enrich your understanding of the program?
  • What are the implications of what you’ve heard for your own work