Assessing depression severity using the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework depression indicators: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundDepression is a major cause of chronic ill-health and is managed in primary care. Indicators on depression severity assessment were introduced into the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in 2006 and 2009. QOF is a pay-forperformance scheme and indicators should have evidence to support their use; potential unintended consequences should also have been considered. AimTo review the effectiveness of routine assessment of depression severity using structured tools in primary care, and to determine the views of GPs and patients regarding their use. DesignSystematic review. MethodStudies were identified by searching electronic databases; study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment were carried out by one reviewer, with checks from other authors and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) tables completed for included effectiveness studies. ResultsEight studies met the eligibility criteria. There was very low-quality evidence that assessing severity in a structured way at diagnosis using a validated tool led to interventions that were appropriate to the severity of depression. Patients and GPs had different perceptions of the assessment of depression at diagnosis, with patients being more positive. GPs highlighted unintended consequences. There was low-quality evidence that structured assessment at follow-up led to increased rates of remission and response, but changes to management were not seen. Patients used this assessment to measure their own response to treatment. ConclusionAny estimate of the effect of structured assessment of depression severity in UK general practice is uncertain. GPs consider routine use of questionnaires as incentivised by the QOF has unintended consequences, which could adversely affect patient care.

Explaining the variation between practices in the duration of new antidepressant treatment: a database cohort study in primary care

“…Practices which elected to code a higher proportion of patients with depression are likely to have engaged in more assertive follow up of patients to complete these and it is possible that this led to continued treatment. While these indicators have recently been withdrawn because of a lack of evidence of effectiveness, 25 the results of this study suggest that incentivising assertive followup alone may have improved treatment for patients with depression.…”

Depression as a culture-bound syndrome: implications for primary care

“…However this does not always confer benefit on our patients. The systematic review by Shaw and colleagues published in this issue 10 concludes that the introduction of clinical performance indicators in the UK for assessing depression severity has had little impact on GP management of depression, or on subsequent remission or treatment response.…”

Conformance to Depression Process Measures of Medicare Part B Beneficiaries in Primary Care Settings

“…19 A systematic review of primary care in the United Kingdom found no evidence that assessing depression severity using a structured tool and subsequent treatment based on that assessment resulted in better outcomes. 33 Organizations promoting depression screening, such as Medicare, should consider integrating incentives for screening and high-leverage activities 34 (e.g., care coordination, team-based care). For older adults, especially those with multimorbidity, choosing measures that may meet their preferences may be a better goal than widespread screening, 35 especially if, as found in the current study, a large proportion of repeated screening is being conducted in individuals who are not reporting symptoms of depression.…”