Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
EDUCATION UPDATE BLOGS
Dr. Lloyd I. Sederer: February 2012 Archives

February 2012 Archives

Depression and Primary Care

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
Depression is an arch enemy if you suffer from one of many chronic, physical illnesses. It appears all the time, as an unwelcome intruder, in people with diabetes, heart and lung diseases, cancer, Parkinson’s disease and asthma. It impairs our ability to recover from these, and other, medical problems. Depression escalates health care spending for other medical disorders unless it is detected and treated.

Consider this: Depressed patients are at twice the risk of developing cardiac and artery disease (CAD) and stroke. They are four times more likely to die within 6 months after a myocardial infarction (MI or heart attack). They are three times more likely to be non-compliant with treatment – a reflection of how the illness diminishes our ability to or interest in taking care of ourselves as well as its harmful effects on the body’s stress response, immunity and hormones. As a result, those people, for example, with diabetes and depression average four times greater health expenditures. Individuals with major depression make an average of twice as many visits to their primary care physicians as do nondepressed patients – though not for their depression but for a myriad of other symptoms which are explainable when the depression is uncovered.

Goodness, these are troubling statistics. This state of affairs is not because there are bad doctors (though there are some of those just like in any profession). It is because depression has not yet gained a needed foothold in the standard operations of every primary care doctor's office. We have not yet begun to screen for depression and set as a clinical standard the proven ways of effectively detecting and treating depression in general medical care settings. 

Primary care practices have become the principal sites of medical care where adults with common mental health problems in this country (and throughout the world) go for care. These individuals seldom announce they are there for a mental condition. But good medical practice will readily reveal it. Moreover, most patients prefer to have their health and mental health care delivered in one place, by the same team of clinicians. This is called integrated health and mental health care. 

Depression also will hurt you at work. It reduces the productivity of our businesses through absenteeism and presenteeism (showing up but not being able to do much). Data from the “National Expenditures for Mental Health and Substance Abuse (MHSA) Treatment” indicates that the U.S. spent $104 billion on mental health and substance abuse treatment in 2001. In 2005 total spending on mental health and substance abuse services was $135 billion. While depression clearly has a significant economic impact on society, the estimated total costs of depression in the US (in 2001) were $44 billion, in 1990 dollars. However, the majority (72%) of costs incurred by society are indirect costs in the form of reduced productivity, absenteeism, and mortality – not the direct costs of care. Medical care costs (inpatient emergency and outpatient medical and/or psychiatric care) comprised only 25% and medications were only approximately 3% of overall costs. In other words, it costs more to NOT treat depression than it does to treat it.

Depression is today the leading cause of disability (by Years of Life Lost, YLLs) and the 3rd leading contributor to the global burden of disease (DALYs 2008). Projections are that by 2030 neuropsychiatric disorders will be the leading contributor to the global burden of disease (these conditions include depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, epilepsy, alcohol and drug use disorders, Alzheimer's and other dementias, Parkinson's, MS, PTSD, OCD, and panic disorder). 

Moreover, depression is highly associated with suicide. Estimates are that as many as 90% of completed suicides occur in people with an active mental disorder, depression in particular. An estimated 60% of people over 55 years old who took their lives were in a primary care doctor’s office in the month before their death: otherwise known as a missed opportunity to detect and intervene.

What About Quality of Care For Depression in Primary Care Today?
The answer is short and troubling: The quality is poor.

• Less than half the people with depression are properly diagnosed
• Less than half of those get any treatment.
• In total, one in eight (1/8) people with depression receive “minimally adequate care” (defined by minimal therapy visits and/or appropriate medications).
Yet treatment is effective: As many as 75% of individuals with depression will improve with appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing monitoring.

What Can Be Done?

A lot. In fact, a very specific approach to treating depression in primary care can achieve remarkably beneficial effects. This approach is well represented by the “Collaborative Care” model developed by the University of Washington. The success of Collaborative Care has been studied and now replicated in 40 (!) studies, including
in rural areas as well as in ethnically diverse and impoverished populations. The core elements of Collaborative Care are:

• Screening for depression (and in some instances other mental and alcohol and drug disorders): this involves the use of a screening tool that provides a depression score that improves when the condition improves.
The PHQ-9 is an example of a depression measurement tool.
• Measurement-based, stepped care: The abnormal score, once the diagnosis is established (the doctor, not the test, makes the diagnosis), is followed over time. Evidence-based depression care paths direct the treatment. If a defined care path is not followed or does not result in improvement then changes in treatment are made.
• An ‘activated’ patient: Patient education and engagement in their own wellbeing is an essential component.
• A care manager: The discipline of this person is far less important than their unrelenting attention to helping a patient engage and remain in treatment and self-care.
• Psychiatric consultation to the primary care physician: This means an active, weekly review of cases that do not improve, not waiting for the PCP to call.
• Training of clinical and administrative staff.
• Ongoing performance measurement and quality improvement of the delivery of integrated care.

In December, 2010, a game changing article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Wayne Katon and colleagues. This article showed that the collaborative care approach not only improved depression, it significantly improved blood pressure, diabetes control and lipid levels. For patients and doctors, this is the Holy Grail: an approach that benefits health and mental health! 

Doctors are good learners. If they need to do something they will learn to do it. If you measure their performance they learn how to do it even better. We see that with rates of immunization, mammography, reducing surgical complications, and evidence-based treatment of a host of common and serious diseases like diabetes, asthma, and heart disease. But general medical physicians have yet to tackle depression (even though it is ubiquitous in their practice) because it has not been systematically measured and monitored. 

Collaborative Care can be done. It will take clear standards of care, training, and ongoing quality improvement. Not doing it carries a price we cannot afford: human suffering, morbidity and mortality, as well as great family and economic burden. At first, leadership medical groups will need to show it can be done. Then others will find the determination and the ways to follow-suit.

Work Underway in New York State

A  collaboration between the NYS Department of Health and the NYS Office of Mental Health is underway to progressively implement Collaborative Care in primary care settings. ‘Early adopters’ will identify how to succeed and demonstrate that patients and providers can take pride in their achievements. These state agencies will seek the aid of the University of Washington and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement to provide training in Collaborative Care and to scale it up across NYS Stand by for more information that will emerge in the months ahead on this initiative to integrate health and mental (behavioral) health. 

Conclusion

There was a time when you or a loved one would have gone to a family doctor and you would not have had your blood pressure measured. A time when we did not measure blood sugar (much less the ongoing measure of glucose control, the hemoglobin A1c), or cholesterol. A time when care paths were places to walk in shaded glens, not treatment protocols. Not so today.

Some day we will look back and wonder how we did not measure and treat depression, and other behavioral health disorders, in primary care? We are starting on the transformation road now. It will be uphill and bumpy. So is all change.

A legendary, if notorious, character said: “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.” He was Niccolo Machiavelli; he lived in the 1500s. Times may have changed, but not what it takes to get something done.

But it was Mahatma Gandhi who said in a more recent century, “…first they ignore you, then they laugh at you. then they fight you, then you win.

Originally Published by Mental Health News in Spring 2012 Vol. 14.

The DSM-5: Will it Work in Clinical Practice?

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
The debate rages on about DSM-5, the latest diagnostic manual of psychiatric disorders due for release next year by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

Arguments abound about what disorders should be included (and what should be listed within each respective disorder, like autism or psychosis) and what should not be included; what is science and what is opinion (when kindly considered "opinion"); what stigmatizing dangers may exist from diagnosis; and the sheer volume of conditions that will find their way into the printed pages of this manual. Conspiracy theories, favorite headline grabbers, claim that the APA is in bed with Pharma companies. Others see a psychiatrist cabal that seeks wheelbarrows of money from the sales of this next edition.

A diagnostic manual of mental disorders cannot be eluded. Clinicians need specific ways of declaring what they observe to be one condition or another so they can speak to each other and to patients and families. Researchers need reliable diagnoses to study whether treatments work, and the course and prognosis of diseases. Every insurance entity, including Medicare, Medicaid, United, Aetna, BC/BS, Kaiser and countless others, requires a diagnosis for payment -- just as they do for heart and neurological conditions, asthma, diabetes, cancers and all the other maladies that impact the human race. International classifications of diseases, as well, must harmonize with the DSM to inform global public health practices and research. The DSM is not going away.

As the winds of controversy swirl something is going on that you might want to know about, and that might -- might -- settle some of the contention. The APA is field testing the DSM draft to see how it works. Now that's a good idea.

The DSM-5 Field Trials

The draft DSM-5 is being tested in real-world clinical settings. Two studies will examine how the diagnostic criteria work with those who will actually use and be impacted by DSM-5, namely patients and clinicians.

The first, and larger, of the two field trials involves 11 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the United States and Canada. These sites were selected from 65 applicants based on their capabilities to recruit and study a diverse group of participants (e.g., children, adults, and seniors as well as ethnicities). This trial will allow the APA to compare the prevalence (rates of a condition in a population) of the disorders among AMC patients who would be given a DSM-IV diagnosis with those who would be given a similar diagnosis using the new criteria in the DSM-5.

The second type of field test involves Routine Clinical Practice Settings (RCPs). This DSM field trail will specifically examine small group or solo practices. The field work will involve a random selection of general adult psychiatrists and specialists in geriatric, child/adolescent and addiction psychiatry, and those that consult to medical colleagues as well as psychologists, advanced practice psychiatric nurses, licensed counselors, licensed marriage and family therapists, and licensed clinical social workers. This study will especially focus on how feasible and useful are the new criteria as well as the manual's measures of severity of illness.

The field trials will concentrate on conditions that are new (e.g., autism spectrum disorder), or that are significantly different than the preceding manuals (e.g., personality disorders), as well as conditions at the forefront of public concern such as post traumatic stress disorder. The field trial participants, however, will have all the new, proposed criteria for their use and input.

In addition to the proposed diagnostic criteria, the field trials will assess "severity measures" and cross-cutting symptom lists (new to the manual). Participants will use a severity rating scale and measures for a clinician to record symptoms such as anxiety, depressed mood, substance use, or difficulties with sleep or attention that occur across a wide variety of diagnostic conditions. In everyday practice clinicians see people, for example, with depression who also suffer with anxiety, or individuals with bipolar disorder or PTSD who have insomnia. The field trials will assess whether the severity measures and symptom lists provide useful information and capture clinical change over time, which is essential to how clinicians determine response to treatments.

Previous DSM III and IV field trials did not ensure that participating clinicians were not affiliated with the manual's development; in fact, previous field trials were done by the experts who drafted the manual. The current DSM-5 field trials also use a larger and more diverse sample of participating clinicians and patients. These actions were taken to help to reduce bias and improve the generalizability of the findings. Patients and clinicians also have an unprecedented voice in shaping the proposed manual and its measures.

What happens then?

The results of the field trials will be reported at the APA annual meeting this May and shared with professional and consumer groups for their feedback. Reports will also be published in peer-reviewed scientific publications. The field trials and feedback received from patients, consumer advocacy groups, and the public will inform further revisions to diagnostic criteria or severity and symptom measures.

There has been a lot of smoke from the DSM fires. The field trials should help all concerned see through the smoke and into the embers of advancing the complex and continuous process of improving what we know about diagnosis in psychiatry.

Originally Published by the Huffington Post on February 6, 2012

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leadership

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
I have had a lot of jobs, maybe more than most people of even my vintage. In the workplace, as well as in other domains, my basic premise is that leadership is earned. It is not granted by role or rite of passage. Once achieved, leadership is not sustainable without continuous proof of concept: what did you do today, or at least yesterday? In other words, leaders must demonstrate their value in a ceaseless and tireless way. For physicians, in a world dominated by administrators and insurance plans, our leadership may best be rendered through what is called “expert authority”—where a physician’s unique and extensive knowledge of diseases and therapeutics, and of human nature, serves as the basis of his or her authority and the platform for leading.

Expert authority, like the leadership it seeks to exercise, must be earned. It is earned by having the capacity to know what works medically and why; translating the complex into the comprehensible; speaking clearly and concisely and in language meaningful to others; having the emotional intelligence to understand and respond to the concerns of others, particularly patients and families; and working well in teams and being able “to manage your boss.”

Be grateful to those who do good work. Find opportunities to thank them and enable them to shine. Find ways for them to do more. Don’t be afraid to push people; they usually need it. When you do, make sure that you let them know you believe in them, and then support them. Don’t be afraid to set high standards; no one I know has died of hard work.

Measure, measure, measure. Establish metrics that are understandable to your mother. Because when your efforts meet the undying forces of clotted interests, as they surely will, you will need to prove that what you are doing is working. Then despite any criticism that is raining down on your efforts, you can resolutely point to the evidence that what you are doing is working (and kindly acknowledge their concerns).

Enjoy the journey. The Spanish have an expression: se hace camino al andar—the road is made by walking it. You will be surprised by where you go and by the places you will discover, in yourself and in the community you call work.


Originally Published by Psychiatric Services in February 2, 2012
Enhanced by Zemanta
Since I am a physician in a medical world generally led by administrators and driven by insurance plans, I believe in what is called “expert authority.”
A doctor is singularly equipped with knowledge of diseases and their treatments and, ideally, a compassionate comprehension of human nature. Yet his or her leadership is not apt to be by executive order but by “expert” authority.
So I offer the following list (with all due deference to Mr. Letterman) for physicians, especially those working in health care organizations – from today’s clinics to tomorrow’s accountable care organizations.

My top 10 "David Letterman" physician leadership list

10. Know where you want the work to go, how and why. Be unsparingly lucid and repetitive about what you are trying to achieve since not everyone will be able to read your mind.

9. Read a lot. Not just in your specialty or only in medicine.

8. Learn to write. Start with email, which should exemplify clarity and economy of words. Graduate to memos. Learn the art of the two-page concept paper; then the one pager. Then graduate to papers, or blogs or whatever avenues you have to reach your desired audience. Write about what you are doing, since there is no time to write about anything else. Write with others when you can, since that will improve your thinking and writing.

7. Learn public speaking. Learn how to fashion a concise message and how to deliver it. Articulate every word and project your voice as a way of respecting your audience. No one should have to strain to listen to you. They have to hear you in order to comprehend.

6. Find mentors you admire and want to emulate. They will provide the ideals you need and embody your psychological and professional development.

5. Be a team player and stay with good bosses and rewarding work environments as long as possible, since they won’t happen very often. Learn to “manage your boss."

4. Remember that job satisfaction for professionals, in general, is less about money and more about mission, (expert) authority, desirable colleagues, a learning work environment, quality of life (including family and friends) and pride in achieving results.

3. Be a change agent, an innovator. Don’t wait for others. Restlessly look for what can be improved and how you can make that happen.

2. Change jobs. It has been said that "change is a tonic." Change usually will happen to you, but if it doesn’t, find ways to take on new tasks or jobs, in different settings, with different people and demands.

1.Try not to have work totally dominate your life – like I do.

Being effective as a physician and as a health care professional has changed since the days I trained. Yet a trustworthy physician’s capabilities of knowledge, experience, respect and humanity are ageless. While you may not be able to predict where the work will take you, you can enjoy the ride. You may be pleasantly amazed by the people, places and work you will discover on the path our profession provides.


Originally Published by the American College of Physician Executives on Feb. 10, 2012.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Casinos for Kids

  |   Comments   |   Bookmark and Share
You can hear the sounds of excitement from afar -- before you see the vast well of games and the legions of children (and adults) swarming around the scores of hyperbolic machines with brilliant flashing lights and swelling sounds that rival modern atonal music. You have arrived at a casino for kids.

Of course, they are not called casinos. I am not sure what they are called -- and it doesn't matter. It's what they deliver -- not what they are named -- that counts. Look around. Is there a window? A clock? A rectangular wall? Nope. You are in a rounded cocoon without boundaries of any sort that might ground the visitor in reality. A number of business franchises have made these settings ubiquitous and highly successful, in this and other countries.

Addiction traditionally was defined as "a chronic, relapsing disease characterized by compulsive drug seeking and abuse and by long-lasting changes in the brain," by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Scientists have come to understand addiction as not confined to alcohol and drugs. Broader definitions of what produces addiction are necessary to account for the variety of compulsive behaviors in youth and adults that, like drug and alcohol abuse, persist despite harmful consequences. While gambling certainly occurs without compulsiveness or harm, just as drinking does, both carry the risk of addiction. Some predictable percentage of people who use or gamble will escalate to the uncontrolled behaviors that cause profound distress and disruption in their lives as well as that of their families and communities. The need to manage these addictive behaviors has produced not only AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) but also GA (Gamblers Anonymous).

The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, has written that there is good evidence for non-substance induced addictions. Dr. Volkow wrote the brain is:

"... composed of a finite number of circuits for ... rewarding desirable experiences ... So it is almost by necessity that we'll find significant overlaps in the circuits that mediate various forms of compulsive behaviors. We have yet to work out the details and the all important differences, but it stands to reason that there will be many manifestations of what we can call diseases of addiction. Thus, addiction to sex, gambling, alcohol, illicit drugs, shopping, video games, etc. all result from some degree of dysfunction in the ability of the brain to properly process what is salient, accurately predict and value reward, and inhibit emotional reactivity or deleterious behavior."

In casinos for kids, in addition to the games there are drinks and food everywhere you turn: high-sugar and high-fat foods, including huge glasses of sugary beverages, nachos and potato skins in which cheese and bacon swim, sour cream like it was running water, and chicken and buffalo wings as plentiful as kudzu. These foods fuel the brain and body for the high intensity, electronic world of video games (and the few retro toss-the-ball games embedded among the digital delights). These are foods that antecede (and later accompany) the nicotine and alcohol that youth will graduate to further stimulate the reward centers of the brain.

There is also the paper gaming tickets of varying values in casinos for kids. Youth and adult players buy these at a gazebo located at the very center of the well of machines so there is never far to walk to convert paper money for valueless paper that lets you play. The tickets are paper versions of gambling chips, of course. There is a store at the rear where wads of tickets can be exchanged for stuffed toys of every color in the rainbow. The machines are programmed to let some win, some of the time, just like in any casino. But make no mistake: The house always wins.

Brilliant, I thought. The gaming (gambling) industry has developed and propagated youth gaming centers, gambling prep schools if you will, which can serve as gateways to adult casinos and breeding grounds for compulsive gambling. I'll bet that the rates of compulsive gambling and video game addiction will increase in the years to come. In fact, I'll give you odds.

Originally published in The Huffington Post on January, 24 2012.

Visit my website www.askdrlloyd.com for questions you want answered, reviews, commentary and stories.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Education Update, Inc. All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2011.