Profiles of quality of outpatient care among individuals with mental disorders based on survey and administrative data

Abstract

AbstractRationaleThough it is crucial to contribute to patient recovery through access, diversity, continuity and regularity of outpatient care, still today most of these are deemed nonoptimal. Identifying patient profiles based on outpatient service use and quality of care indicators might help formulate more personalized interventions and reduce adverse outcomes.Aims and ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify profiles of individuals with mental disorders (MDs) patterned after their outpatient care use and quality of care received, and to link those profiles to individual characteristics and subsequent outcomes.MethodsA cohort of 5669 individuals with MDs was considered based on data from the 2013–2014 and 2015–2016 Canadian Community Health Survey, which were linked to administrative data from the Quebec health insurance registry. Latent class analysis generated profiles based on service use over the 12 months preceding each respondent's interview, and comparative analyses were used to associate profiles with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and health outcomes over the three following months.ResultsFour profiles were identified. Profile 1 (P‐1) was labelled ‘Low service use’; P‐2 ‘Moderate general practitioner (GP) care and continuity and regularity of care’; P‐3 ‘High GP care, continuity and regularity of care, and low psychiatrist care’; and P‐4 ‘High psychiatrist care and regularity of care, and low GP care’. Profiles 3 and 4 (~50% of the cohort) were provided with better care, but showed worse outcomes, mainly acute care use due to more complex conditions and unmet needs. Profiles 1 and 2 had better outcomes as they showed fewer risk factors such as being younger and having better social conditions.ConclusionIntensity, diversity and regularity of care were higher in profiles with more complex MDs, chronic physical illnesses, and worse perceived health conditions. Adapting specific interventions for each profile, such as assertive community treatment or intensive case management for Profile 4, is recommended.