A randomized effectiveness trial of collaborative care for patients with panic disorder in primary care. Improving access to specialist care for remote Aboriginal communities: evaluation of a specialist outreach service. Psychiatric clinics in general practice. Do they reduce admissions? Are specialist outreach clinics for orthodontic consultation effective? A randomised controlled trial. Liaison psychiatry in general practice: the comprehensive collaborative model. Effectiveness of joint consultation sessions of general practitioners and orthopaedic surgeons for locomotor-system disorders. Effects of physician outreach programs on rural-urban differences in breast cancer management. Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression: a randomized trial. Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines. Impact on depression in primary care.
Effectiveness studies have tested interventions to improve quality of care for depression in primary care, but none, to our knowledge, have been completed for panic disorder (PD) in this setting. This study sought to test the clinical effectiveness of PD pharmacotherapy embedded in a disease management framework of "collaborative care" (CC).
                One hundred fifteen patients with PD from 3 primary care clinics were randomized to CC or "usual care" (UC). Patients in CC (n = 57) received educational videotapes and pamphlets; pharmacotherapy with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine; 2 psychiatrist visits and 2 telephone calls in the first 8 weeks; and up to 5 telephone calls between 3 and 12 months' follow-up. Usual care patients (n = 58) were treated by their primary care physician. Telephone assessments of panic, anxiety sensitivity, depression, and disability variables were performed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' follow-up. Adequacy of pharmacotherapy was assessed with an algorithm based on a review of efficacy studies.
                Patients in CC were more likely to receive adequate (type, dose, duration) medication and more likely to adhere to this medication at 3 and 6 months. Random regression analyses showed that CC patients improved significantly more over time compared with UC patients on anxiety, depression, and disability measures, with the greatest effects at 3 and 6 months.
                Compared with UC, CC interventions significantly improved both quality of care and clinical and functional outcomes in primary care PD patients. Clinical differences were greatest in the first 6 months, corresponding to the greater quality of care and the greater intensity of intervention. To identify barriers faced by Aboriginal people from remote communities in the Northern Territory (NT) when accessing hospital-based specialist medical services, and to evaluate the impact of the Specialist Outreach Service (SOS) on these barriers.
                Combined quantitative and qualitative study.
                Remote Aboriginal communities in the "Top End" of the NT, 1993-1999 (spanning the introduction of the SOS in 1997).
                25 remote health practitioners, patients and SOS specialists.
                Numbers of consultations with specialists; average cost per consultation; perceived barriers to accessing hospital-based outpatient care; and perceived impact of specialist outreach on these barriers.
                Perceived barriers included geographic remoteness, poor doctor-patient communication, poverty, cultural differences, and the structure of the health service. Between 1993 and 1999, there were 5,184 SOS and non-SOS outreach consultations in surgical specialties. Intensive outreach practice (as in gynaecology and ophthalmology) increased total consultations by up to 441% and significantly reduced the number of transfers to hospital outpatient clinics (P< 0.001). Average cost per consultation was $277 for SOS consultations, compared with $450 at Royal Darwin Hospital and $357 at the closest regional hospital. Outreach has reduced barriers relating to distance, communication and cultural differences, and potentially bolsters existing primary healthcare services.
                When compared with hospital-based outpatient services alone, outreach is a more accessible, appropriate and efficient method of providing specialist medical services to remote Aboriginal communities in the NT. General-practice-based psychiatric clinics have increased substantially in recent years. We investigated the influence on psychiatric admissions of this style of practice in England over an 18-year period. We utilised data from a previous survey concerned with this type of work (Strathdee & Williams, 1984) and compared them with figures on psychiatric admissions. Parts of the country in which there has been greater development of general-practice-based psychiatric clinics were also those in which there has been a steeper decrease in psychiatric admissions. Further analysis showed this to be due primarily to an effect on admission of non-psychotic patients. To develop outreach clinics for orthodontic consultation and evaluate their costs and effectiveness.
                Single centre randomised controlled trial with random allocation of referred patients to outreach or main base consultation appointments.
                One hospital orthodontic department and three community health centre clinics in Greater Manchester. Subjects 324 patients who were referred for orthodontic treatment.
                The outcome of consultation, the cost and duration of the visit and the consumer's perceptions of the visit.
                There were no differences in outcome of the consultation. While consumer travel costs and the duration of appointments were significantly higher for the main base clinics, these differences were not great. However, consumers preferred to attend an appointment in an outreach clinic.
                There do not appear to be marked advantages or disadvantages in providing consultation appointments for orthodontics in outreach clinics A model of liaison psychiatry in general practice is described and its impact assessed using data from the Nottingham psychiatric case register. The model incorporates a comprehensive network of general practice psychiatric clinics for both psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, associated with mainly informal liaison with general practitioners and others in the primary care team, and a reduction in psychiatric outpatient clinics. Following the introduction of this model, the proportion of new and referred patients seen in primary care settings rose from 1% to 18% in Nottingham over an 8-year period. Over this period admission rates significantly fell in Nottingham compared with the rest of England and evidence is given that the growth of primary care psychiatry contributed significantly to this reduction. Joint consultation sessions between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists to examine patients for whom decisions about referral are difficult are thought to be helpful, but their effects have not been evaluated. In a randomised, controlled trial we studied the effects of joint sessions of GPs and orthopaedic surgeons on referral and intervention rates. During 1.5 years, 12 GPs (in groups of three) held monthly joint consultation sessions with four participating orthopaedic surgeons: patients were seen by one orthopaedic surgeon in the presence of three GPs. Patients were included in the trial if the GP was uncertain about the diagnostic or therapeutic management and if referral was considered; and excluded if referral was urgently necessary or if there was some other clear indication for referral. By a randomised consent design, patients were assigned to joint consultation sessions (n = 144) or a usual-care control group (n = 128). A year later the patients were examined by an independent orthopaedic surgeon. There were significantly fewer referrals (51/144 [35%] vs 87/128 [68%], p < 0.01) and diagnostic actions in the intervention group than in the control group, without negative effects on health or functional status. More patients in the intervention group were symptom-free at 1 year (35% vs 24%, p < 0.05). Joint consultation sessions of GPs and orthopaedic surgeons within the framework of general practice resulted in more efficient care, with better targeted examination, treatment, and referrals. In 1986 to 1987, urban-rural differences in several breast cancer management practices were noted in Illinois data. Several intervention programs for physicians were initiated to improve rural patients' access to state-of-the-art breast cancer management to reduce these differences. This report compares an intensive rural oncology outreach intervention program with a lower intensity physician education program. Medical records from 1986 to 1991 were reviewed on 2,277 breast cancer patients in a 12-county study area. The care received by urban patients was compared with three groups of rural patients: those managed in rural hospitals with intensive oncology outreach programs beginning in 1988 (Rural group 1), and in those rural hospitals with less intensive interventions using an audit with feedback strategy beginning in 1989 (Rural group 2). Rural patients who traveled to one of the urban facilities also were included in the analysis because the less intensive interventions also took place in these facilities, and these patients showed unique patterns of care in the baseline analysis (Rural Group 3). The years 1986 to 1987 constituted the baseline, and 1990 to 1991 constituted the final evaluation period. Chi square and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare the effect of the two types of interventions on changing breast cancer management practices and reducing the urban-rural differences. By the final evaluation period, the high intensity intervention was not more successful in reducing or eliminating the urban-rural differences than the low intensity intervention for many practices. However, often the frequency estimates were higher in Rural Group 1, which received the high intensity intervention. The changes noted in Rural Group 3 were not always the same as in Rural Group 2, even though both received the same low intensity interventions, lending evidence to the observation that travel distance and other nonmedical factors affect the choices of management modalities for these patients. Finally, given the nonrandomized study design, other explanations for the changes could not be ruled out. Despite improvements in the accuracy of diagnosing depression and use of medications with fewer side effects, many patients treated with antidepressant medications by primary care physicians have persistent symptoms.
                A group of 228 patients recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and given antidepressant medication who had either 4 or more persistent major depressive symptoms or a score of 1.5 or more on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression items at 6 to 8 weeks were randomized to a collaborative care intervention (n = 114) or usual care (n = 114) by the primary care physician. Patients in the intervention group received enhanced education and increased frequency of visits by a psychiatrist working with the primary care physician to improve pharmacologic treatment. Follow-up assessments were completed at 1, 3, and 6 months by a telephone survey team blinded to randomization status.
                Those in the intervention group had significantly greater adherence to adequate dosage of medication for 90 days or more and were more likely to rate the quality of care they received for depression as good to excellent compared with usual care controls. Intervention patients showed a significantly greater decrease compared with usual care controls in severity of depressive symptoms over time and were more likely to have fully recovered at 3 and 6 months.
                A multifaceted program targeted to patients whose depressive symptoms persisted 6 to 8 weeks after initiation of antidepressant medication by their primary care physician was found to significantly improve adherence to antidepressants, satisfaction with care, and depressive outcomes compared with usual care. To compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention in patients with depression in primary care with the effectiveness of "usual care" by the primary care physician.
                A randomized controlled trial among primary care patients with major depression or minor depression.
                Over a 12-month period a total of 217 primary care patients who were recognized as depressed by their primary care physicians and were willing to take antidepressant medication were randomized, with 91 patients meeting criteria for major depression and 126 for minor depression.
                Intervention patients received increased intensity and frequency of visits over the first 4 to 6 weeks of treatment (visits 1 and 3 with a primary care physician, visits 2 and 4 with a psychiatrist) and continued surveillance of adherence to medication regimens during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment. Patient education in these visits was supplemented by videotaped and written materials.
                Primary outcome measures included short-term (30-day) and long-term (90-day) use of antidepressant medication at guideline dosage levels, satisfaction with overall care for depression and antidepressant medication, and reduction in depressive symptoms.
                In patients with major depression, the intervention group had greater adherence than the usual care controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (75.5% vs 50.0%; P < .01), were more likely to rate the quality of the care they received for depression as good to excellent (93.0% vs 75.0%; P < .03), and were more likely to rate antidepressant medications as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (88.1% vs 63.3%; P < .01). Seventy-four percent of intervention patients with major depression showed 50% or more improvement on the Symptom Checklist-90 Depressive Symptom Scale compared with 43.8% of controls (P < .01), and the intervention patients also demonstrated a significantly greater decrease in depression severity over time compared with controls (P < .004). In patients with minor depression, the intervention group had significantly greater adherence than controls to adequate dosage of antidepressant medication for 90 days or more (79.7% vs 40.3%; P < .001) and more often rated antidepressant medication as helping somewhat to helping a great deal (81.8% vs 61.4%; P < .02). However, no significant differences were found between the intervention and control groups in the percentage of patients who were satisfied with the care they received for depression (94.4% vs 89.3%), in the percentage who experienced a 50% or more decrease in depressive symptoms, or in the decrease of depressive symptoms over time.
                A multifaceted intervention consisting of collaborative management by the primary care physician and a consulting psychiatrist, intensive patient education, and surveillance of continued refills of antidepressant medication improved adherence to antidepressant regimens in patients with major and with minor depression. It improved satisfaction with care and resulted in more favorable depressive outcomes in patients with major, but not minor, depression.
This review supports the hypothesis that specialist outreach can improve access, outcomes and service use, especially when delivered as part of a multifaceted intervention. The benefits of simple outreach models in urban non-disadvantaged settings seem small. There is a need for good comparative studies of outreach in rural and disadvantaged settings where outreach may confer most benefit to access and health outcomes.