Richard W Grant1, John B Buse, James B Meigs. 1. General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. rgrant@partners.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess both standard and novel diabetes quality measures in a national sample of U.S. academic medical centers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2002. It involved 30 U.S. academic medical centers, which contributed data from 44 clinics (27 primary care clinics and 17 diabetes/endocrinology clinics). For 1,765 eligible adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with at least two clinic visits in the 24 months before 10 January 2002, including one visit in the 6 months before 10 January 2002, we assessed measurement and control of HbA(1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol and corresponding medical regimen changes at the most recent clinic visit. RESULTS: In this ethnically and economically diverse cohort, annual testing rates were very high (97.4% for HbA(1c), 96.6% for blood pressure, and 87.6% for total cholesterol). Fewer patients were at HbA(1c) goal (34.0% <7.0%) or blood pressure goal (33.0% <130/80 mmHg) than lipid goals (65.1% total cholesterol <200 mg/dl, 46.1% with LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl). Only 10.0% of the cohort met recommended goals for all three risk factors. At the most recent clinic visit, 40.4% of patients with HbA(1c) concentrations above goal underwent adjustment of their corresponding regimens. Among untreated patients, few with elevated blood pressure (10.1% with blood pressure >130/80 mmHg) or elevated LDL cholesterol (5.6% with LDL >100 mg/dl) were started on corresponding therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes were no less likely to be intensified than patients with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of risk factor testing do not necessarily translate to effective metabolic control. Low rates of medication adjustment among patients with levels above goal suggest a specific and novel target for quality improvement measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To assess both standard and novel diabetes quality measures in a national sample of U.S. academic medical centers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2002. It involved 30 U.S. academic medical centers, which contributed data from 44 clinics (27 primary care clinics and 17 diabetes/endocrinology clinics). For 1,765 eligible adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with at least two clinic visits in the 24 months before 10 January 2002, including one visit in the 6 months before 10 January 2002, we assessed measurement and control of HbA(1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol and corresponding medical regimen changes at the most recent clinic visit. RESULTS: In this ethnically and economically diverse cohort, annual testing rates were very high (97.4% for HbA(1c), 96.6% for blood pressure, and 87.6% for total cholesterol). Fewer patients were at HbA(1c) goal (34.0% <7.0%) or blood pressure goal (33.0% <130/80 mmHg) than lipid goals (65.1% total cholesterol <200 mg/dl, 46.1% with LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl). Only 10.0% of the cohort met recommended goals for all three risk factors. At the most recent clinic visit, 40.4% of patients with HbA(1c) concentrations above goal underwent adjustment of their corresponding regimens. Among untreated patients, few with elevated blood pressure (10.1% with blood pressure >130/80 mmHg) or elevated LDL cholesterol (5.6% with LDL >100 mg/dl) were started on corresponding therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes were no less likely to be intensified than patients with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of risk factor testing do not necessarily translate to effective metabolic control. Low rates of medication adjustment among patients with levels above goal suggest a specific and novel target for quality improvement measurement.
Authors: R W Grant; E Cagliero; A K Dubey; C Gildesgame; H C Chueh; M J Barry; D E Singer; D M Nathan; J B Meigs Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Jinan B Saaddine; Michael M Engelgau; Gloria L Beckles; Edward W Gregg; Theodore J Thompson; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Peter Gaede; Pernille Vedel; Nicolai Larsen; Gunnar V H Jensen; Hans-Henrik Parving; Oluf Pedersen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dan R Berlowitz; Arlene S Ash; Elaine C Hickey; Mark Glickman; Robert Friedman; Boris Kader Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Judith Belle Brown; Stewart B Harris; Susan Webster-Bogaert; Stephen Wetmore; Catherine Faulds; Moira Stewart Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: K M Venkat Narayan; James P Boyle; Theodore J Thompson; Stephen W Sorensen; David F Williamson Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tarissa Beatrice Zanata Petry; Pedro Paulo Caravatto; Fernando Quirino Pechy; Jose Luis Lopes Correia; Catia Cristina Lorenzi Guerbali; Regina Marcelina da Silva; João Eduardo Salles; Ricardo Cohen Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Nicolas Rodondi; Tiffany Peng; Andrew J Karter; Douglas C Bauer; Eric Vittinghoff; Simon Tang; Daniel Pettitt; Eve A Kerr; Joe V Selby Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Andrew J Karter; Patrick J O'Connor; Heather Morris; Julie A Schmittdiel; Scott Ratliff; Katherine M Newton; Marsha A Raebel; Ram D Pathak; Abraham Thomas; Melissa G Butler; Kristi Reynolds; Beth Waitzfelder; John F Steiner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.128