» Articles » PMID: 19192365

Recorded Quality of Care for Depression in General Practice: an Observational Study

Overview
Journal Br J Gen Pract
Specialty Public Health
Date 2009 Feb 5
PMID 19192365
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Depression is a leading cause of disease and disability internationally, and is responsible for many primary care consultations. Little is known about the quality of primary care for depression in the UK.

Aim: To determine the prevalence of good-quality primary care for depression, and to analyse variations in quality by patient and practice characteristics.

Design Of Study: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Eighteen general practices in England.

Method: Medical records were examined for 279 patients. The percentage of eligible participants diagnosed with depression who received the care specified by each of six quality indicators in 2002 and 2004 was assessed. Associations between quality achievement and age, sex, patient deprivation score, timepoint, and practice size were estimated using logistic regression.

Results: There was very wide variation in achievement of different indicators (range 1-97%). Achievement was higher for indicators referring to treatment and follow-up than for indicators referring to history taking. Achievement of quality indicators was low overall (37%). Quality did not vary significantly by patient or practice characteristics.

Conclusion: There is substantial scope for improvement in the quality of primary care for depression, if the highest achievement rates could be matched for all indicators. Given the lack of variation by practice characteristics, system-level and educational interventions may be the best ways to improve quality. The equitable distribution of quality by patient deprivation score is an important achievement that may be challenging to maintain as quality improves.

Citing Articles

Determining Patient Panel Size in Primary Care: A Meta-Narrative Review.

Abu Dabrh A, Farah W, McLeod H, Biazar P, Mohabbat A, Munipalli B J Prim Care Community Health. 2025; 16:21501319251321294.

PMID: 39976555 PMC: 11843711. DOI: 10.1177/21501319251321294.


Practice list size, workforce composition and performance in English general practice: a latent profile analysis.

Kayira A, Painter H, Mathur R, Ford J BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):207.

PMID: 38862906 PMC: 11165807. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02462-w.


Care pathways for people with major depressive disorder: a European Brain Council Value of Treatment study.

Strawbridge R, McCrone P, Ulrichsen A, Zahn R, Eberhard J, Wasserman D Eur Psychiatry. 2022; :1-21.

PMID: 35703080 PMC: 9280921. DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.28.


Does practice size matter? Review of effects on quality of care in primary care.

Ng C, Ng K Br J Gen Pract. 2013; 63(614):e604-10.

PMID: 23998840 PMC: 3750799. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X671588.


Health care costs before and after diagnosis of depression in patients with unexplained pain: a retrospective cohort study using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database.

Reed C, Hong J, Novick D, Lenox-Smith A, Happich M Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 5:37-47.

PMID: 23355787 PMC: 3552476. DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s38323.


References
1.
Thomas C, Morris S . Cost of depression among adults in England in 2000. Br J Psychiatry. 2003; 183:514-9. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.183.6.514. View

2.
Freeman G, Horder J, Howie J, Hungin A, Hill A, Shah N . Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context. BMJ. 2002; 324(7342):880-2. PMC: 101402. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.880. View

3.
Hamilton W, Round A, Sharp D, Peters T . The quality of record keeping in primary care: a comparison of computerised, paper and hybrid systems. Br J Gen Pract. 2004; 53(497):929-33. PMC: 1314745. View

4.
Weich S, Nazareth I, Morgan L, King M . Treatment of depression in primary care. Socio-economic status, clinical need and receipt of treatment. Br J Psychiatry. 2007; 191:164-9. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.032219. View

5.
Mant J, Hicks N . Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1995; 311(7008):793-6. PMC: 2550793. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.793. View