PURPOSE: We sought to determine the association between timely receipt of diabetes-related preventive services and the longitudinal pattern of outpatient service use as characterized by a novel taxonomy that prioritized visits based on the Oregon State Prioritized Health Services List. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of mail survey and automated health care data for a population-based sample of patients with diabetes enrolled in a health maintenance organization in Washington State (N = 4,463). Outcomes included American Diabetes Association-recommended preventive services, including regular hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) monitoring, retinal examination, and microalbuminuria screening. Patients with fewer than 8 visits during the 2-year study period were considered infrequent users, while patients with 8 or more visits were classified as lower-priority users if most visits were for conditions of relatively low rank on the Oregon list and as higher-priority users otherwise. RESULTS: After adjustment for social, demographic, and clinical factors, and depression, infrequent users had significantly reduced odds of receiving at least 1 HbA1C test (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.51), retinal examination (OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.63-0.86), and microalbuminuria screening (OR = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.58-0.96) relative to higher-priority users during the previous year. Lower-priority users also had relatively reduced odds of receiving at least 1 HbA(1C) test (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.35-1.01), retinal examination (OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.56-0.84), and microalbuminuria screening (OR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.57-1.09) despite attending a similar mean number of total visits as higher-priority users. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who attend relatively few outpatient visits or who attend more frequent visits for predominantly lower-priority conditions are more likely to receive substandard preventive care for diabetes.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the association between timely receipt of diabetes-related preventive services and the longitudinal pattern of outpatient service use as characterized by a novel taxonomy that prioritized visits based on the Oregon State Prioritized Health Services List. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of mail survey and automated health care data for a population-based sample of patients with diabetes enrolled in a health maintenance organization in Washington State (N = 4,463). Outcomes included American Diabetes Association-recommended preventive services, including regular hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) monitoring, retinal examination, and microalbuminuria screening. Patients with fewer than 8 visits during the 2-year study period were considered infrequent users, while patients with 8 or more visits were classified as lower-priority users if most visits were for conditions of relatively low rank on the Oregon list and as higher-priority users otherwise. RESULTS: After adjustment for social, demographic, and clinical factors, and depression, infrequent users had significantly reduced odds of receiving at least 1 HbA1C test (odds ratio [OR] = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.51), retinal examination (OR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.63-0.86), and microalbuminuria screening (OR = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.58-0.96) relative to higher-priority users during the previous year. Lower-priority users also had relatively reduced odds of receiving at least 1 HbA(1C) test (OR = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.35-1.01), retinal examination (OR = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.56-0.84), and microalbuminuria screening (OR = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.57-1.09) despite attending a similar mean number of total visits as higher-priority users. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who attend relatively few outpatient visits or who attend more frequent visits for predominantly lower-priority conditions are more likely to receive substandard preventive care for diabetes.
Authors: Richard L Kravitz; Ronald M Epstein; Mitchell D Feldman; Carol E Franz; Rahman Azari; Michael S Wilkes; Ladson Hinton; Peter Franks Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-04-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul A Fishman; Michael J Goodman; Mark C Hornbrook; Richard T Meenan; Donald J Bachman; Maureen C O'Keeffe Rosetti Journal: Med Care Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Michaela Schiøtz; Anne Frølich; Allan Krasnik; Warren Taylor; John Hsu Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: J Frank Wharam; Fang Zhang; Emma M Eggleston; Christine Y Lu; Stephen Soumerai; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jennifer E Devoe; Rachel Gold; Patti McIntire; Jon Puro; Susan Chauvie; Charles A Gallia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Karina A Newhall; Kimon Bekelis; Bjoern D Suckow; Daniel J Gottlieb; Adrienne E Farber; Philip P Goodney; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: Vascular Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 1.285
Authors: Christine M Everett; Carolyn T Thorpe; Mari Palta; Pascale Carayon; Valerie J Gilchrist; Maureen A Smith Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 3.929