OBJECTIVE: Population-level strategies may improve primary care for diabetes. We designed a controlled study to assess the impact of population management versus usual care on metabolic risk factor testing and management in patients with type 2 diabetes. We also identified potential patient-related barriers to effective diabetes management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used novel clinical software to rank 910 patients in a diabetes registry at a single primary care clinic and thereby identify the 149 patients with the highest HbA(1c) and cholesterol levels. After review of the medical records of these 149 patients, evidence-based guideline recommendations regarding metabolic testing and management were sent via e-mail to each intervention patient's primary care provider (PCP). Over a 3-month follow-up period, we assessed changes in the evidence-based management of intervention patients compared with a matched cohort of control patients receiving usual care at a second primary care clinic affiliated with the same academic medical center. RESULTS: In the intervention cohort, PCPs followed testing recommendations more often (78%) than therapeutic change recommendations (36%, P = 0.001). Compared with the usual care control cohort, population management resulted in a greater overall proportion of evidence-based guideline practices being followed (59 vs. 45%, P = 0.02). Most intervention patients (62%) had potential barriers to effective care, including depression (35%), substance abuse (26%), and prior nonadherence to care plans (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Population management with clinical recommendations sent to PCPs had a modest but statistically significant impact on the evidence-based management of diabetes compared with usual care. Depression and substance abuse are prevalent patient-level adherence barriers in patients with poor metabolic control.
OBJECTIVE: Population-level strategies may improve primary care for diabetes. We designed a controlled study to assess the impact of population management versus usual care on metabolic risk factor testing and management in patients with type 2 diabetes. We also identified potential patient-related barriers to effective diabetes management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used novel clinical software to rank 910 patients in a diabetes registry at a single primary care clinic and thereby identify the 149 patients with the highest HbA(1c) and cholesterol levels. After review of the medical records of these 149 patients, evidence-based guideline recommendations regarding metabolic testing and management were sent via e-mail to each intervention patient's primary care provider (PCP). Over a 3-month follow-up period, we assessed changes in the evidence-based management of intervention patients compared with a matched cohort of control patients receiving usual care at a second primary care clinic affiliated with the same academic medical center. RESULTS: In the intervention cohort, PCPs followed testing recommendations more often (78%) than therapeutic change recommendations (36%, P = 0.001). Compared with the usual care control cohort, population management resulted in a greater overall proportion of evidence-based guideline practices being followed (59 vs. 45%, P = 0.02). Most intervention patients (62%) had potential barriers to effective care, including depression (35%), substance abuse (26%), and prior nonadherence to care plans (18%). CONCLUSIONS: Population management with clinical recommendations sent to PCPs had a modest but statistically significant impact on the evidence-based management of diabetes compared with usual care. Depression and substance abuse are prevalent patient-level adherence barriers in patients with poor metabolic control.
Authors: Julie Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; Neil A Solomon; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Paul A Nutting; Diane K King; Candace C Nelson; Gary Cutter; Bridget Gaglio; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Holly Whitesides; Hilarea Amthauer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adrian H Zai; Richard W Grant; Greg Estey; William T Lester; Carl T Andrews; Ronnie Yee; Elizabeth Mort; Henry C Chueh Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Charles D MacLean; Benjamin Littenberg; Michael Gagnon; Mimi Reardon; Paul D Turner; Cy Jordan Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Richard W Grant; Jonathan S Wald; Eric G Poon; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Tejal K Gandhi; Lynn A Volk; Blackford Middleton Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: William T Lester; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Richard W Grant; Henry C Chueh; Michael J Barry; Steven J Atlas Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-12-11 Impact factor: 4.497