The Partners in Care Approach to Ethics Outcomes in Quality Improvement Programs for Depression

by Jodi Halpern, Megan Dwight-Johnson, Jeanne Miranda, Kenneth B. Wells

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

OBJECTIVE: Patient centeredness and equity are major quality goals, but little is known about how these goals are affected by efforts to improve the quality of care. The authors describe an approach to addressing these goals in a randomized trial of quality improvement for depressed primary care patients.

METHODS: For four ethics goals (autonomy, distributive justice, beneficence, and avoiding harm), the authors identify intervention features, study measures, and hypotheses implemented in Partners in Care, a randomized trial of two quality improvement interventions, relative to usual care and summarize published findings pertinent to these outcomes.

RESULTS: To implement an ethics framework, modifications were required in study design and in measures and analysis plans, particularly to address the autonomy and justice goals. Extra resources were needed for sample recruitment, for intervention and survey materials, and to fund an ethics coinvestigator. The interventions were associated with improvements in all four ethics areas. Patients who received the interventions were significantly more likely to receive the treatment they had indicated at baseline as their preferred treatment (autonomy goal). Intervention-associated benefits occurred more rapidly among sicker patients and extended to patients from ethnic minority groups, resulting in a reduction in ethnic-group disparities in health outcomes relative to usual care (distributive justice goal). The interventions were associated with improved quality of care and health outcomes (beneficence goal) and with reduced use of long-term minor tranquilizers (goal of avoiding harm).

CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to explicitly address ethics outcomes in quality improvement programs for depression, but substantial marginal resources may be required. Nevertheless, interventions so modified can increase a practice’s ability to realize ethics goals.

Reprinted with permission from Psychiatric Services, Vol. 55, No. 5, May 2004, pp. 532-539. Copyright © 2004 American Psychiatric Association.

Originally published in: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 55, No. 5, May 2004, pp. 532-539.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.