PURPOSE: Many intervention studies have found that flow sheet use improves patient care by drawing attention to a particular medical condition or needed preventive service and encouraging an immediate response from the health care professional; however, there are no studies examining how often flow sheets are used for diabetes in primary care practice. We assessed the relationship between diabetes flow sheet use and diabetes patient care outcomes in the everyday practice of primary care. METHODS: We abstracted the medical records of 1,016 patients with diabetes seen at 54 New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania family practices participating in a quality improvement trial. The use of diabetes flow sheets was noted for each medical record. Scores for adherence to evidence-based diabetes guidelines in terms of assessment, treatment, and target attainment were determined on 100-point scales, with higher scores indicating better adherence. Generalized linear models were used to determine associations between use of diabetes flow sheets and adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: Diabetes flow sheets were used in 23% of the medical records of patients with diabetes. Use of flow sheets was associated with better mean guideline adherence scores for the assessment of diabetes (55.38 vs 50.13, P = .02) and the treatment of diabetes (79.59 vs 74.71, P = .004), but not for the attainment of intermediate diabetes outcome targets (hemoglobin A(1c) level, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes flow sheets can be used to promote better adherence to guidelines when it comes to assessing and treating diabetes. Additional research is needed to explore patient and physician variables that mediate the relationship between use of diabetes flow sheets and intermediate outcome targets for diabetes.
PURPOSE: Many intervention studies have found that flow sheet use improves patient care by drawing attention to a particular medical condition or needed preventive service and encouraging an immediate response from the health care professional; however, there are no studies examining how often flow sheets are used for diabetes in primary care practice. We assessed the relationship between diabetes flow sheet use and diabetespatient care outcomes in the everyday practice of primary care. METHODS: We abstracted the medical records of 1,016 patients with diabetes seen at 54 New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania family practices participating in a quality improvement trial. The use of diabetes flow sheets was noted for each medical record. Scores for adherence to evidence-based diabetes guidelines in terms of assessment, treatment, and target attainment were determined on 100-point scales, with higher scores indicating better adherence. Generalized linear models were used to determine associations between use of diabetes flow sheets and adherence to guidelines. RESULTS:Diabetes flow sheets were used in 23% of the medical records of patients with diabetes. Use of flow sheets was associated with better mean guideline adherence scores for the assessment of diabetes (55.38 vs 50.13, P = .02) and the treatment of diabetes (79.59 vs 74.71, P = .004), but not for the attainment of intermediate diabetes outcome targets (hemoglobin A(1c) level, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS:Diabetes flow sheets can be used to promote better adherence to guidelines when it comes to assessing and treating diabetes. Additional research is needed to explore patient and physician variables that mediate the relationship between use of diabetes flow sheets and intermediate outcome targets for diabetes.
Authors: Christine K Stroebel; Reuben R McDaniel; Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Paul A Nutting; Kurt C Stange Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2005-08
Authors: Ronald T Ackermann; Theodore J Thompson; Joseph V Selby; Monika M Safford; Mark Stevens; Arleen F Brown; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karissa A Hahn; Pamela A Ohman Strickland; Jennifer L Hamilton; John G Scott; Tara A Nazareth; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Carol M Mangione; Robert B Gerzoff; David F Williamson; W Neil Steers; Eve A Kerr; Arleen F Brown; Beth E Waitzfelder; David G Marrero; R Adams Dudley; Catherine Kim; William Herman; Theodore J Thompson; Monika M Safford; Joe V Selby Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-07-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sharon M Weyer; Nancy Konrad; Diane Esola; Meredith A Goodwin; Kurt C Stange; Susan A Flocke Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: A John Orzano; Pamela Ohman Strickland; Alfred F Tallia; Shawna Hudson; Bijal Balasubramanian; Paul A Nutting; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Jesse C Crosson; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Eric Shaw; A John Orzano; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kevin A Kerber; Timothy P Hofer; William J Meurer; A Mark Fendrick; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Jeffrey I Mechanick; Albert E Marchetti; Caroline Apovian; Alexander Koglin Benchimol; Peter H Bisschop; Alexis Bolio-Galvis; Refaat A Hegazi; David Jenkins; Enrique Mendoza; Miguel Leon Sanz; Wayne Huey-Herng Sheu; Patrizio Tatti; Man-Wo Tsang; Osama Hamdy Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Ronald A Hankey; Lindsay K Decker; Stephen S Cha; Robert A Greenes; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2014-08-25
Authors: Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Kathy L MacLaughlin; Petra M Casey; Thomas M Kastner; Michael R Henry; Ronald A Hankey; Steve G Peters; Robert A Greenes; Christopher G Chute; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2014-10-15