Evaluation of Depression Screening Practices in Comorbid Patients in the Primary Care Setting
2017
- 385Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage385
- Downloads262
- Abstract Views123
Artifact Description
SPECIFIC AIMS: To evaluate the current rates of depression screening using the PHQ-2/9 in patients with comorbid conditions at a single, urban primary care office; to explore barriers to depression screening among providers.METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed on a sample of 188 patients seen between January and June 2017. Patients were equally divided among four comorbid diagnoses- COPD, obesity, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. A provider interview was conducted to identify depression screening barriers and typical treatments regimens.RESULTS: A total of 70.2% of patients had a documented depression screening. Of 67 patients diagnosed with depression, 11.9% had follow up specific to depression, 13.4% had documentation of side effects education, and 19.4% received further mental health services. Among the comorbid groups there was no difference in the rate or degree of depression. Diabetic patients with depression had higher hemoglobin A1C levels than those with diabetes and no depression (p=0.00). Provider interviews identified the following barriers to depression screening: time constraints, difficulty with patients not following up, and lack of access/timeliness for mental health services.CONCLUSION: In this clinic depression screening rates were above the average reported in the literature. Patients with diabetes were found to be at risk for worsening hemoglobin A1C levels with depression. There is a need for increased education regarding medications and timelier follow-up. Barriers still exist in completing screening and initiating treatment and referral to mental health services. An electronic medical record alert would be helpful in reminding providers to screen.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know