OBJECTIVE: Performance measures are tools for assessing quality of care but may be influenced by patient factors. We investigated how currently endorsed performance measures for glycemic control in diabetes may be influenced by case mix composition. We assessed differences in A1C performance measure threshold attainment by case mix factors for A1C >9% and examined how lowering the threshold to A1C >8% or >7% changed these differences. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 843 adults self-reporting diabetes, we computed the mean difference in A1C threshold attainment of >9, >8, and >7% by various case mix factors. The mean difference is the average percentage point difference in threshold attainment for population groups compared with that for the overall population. RESULTS: Diabetes medication was the only factor for which the difference in threshold attainment increased at lower thresholds, with mean differences of 5.7 percentage points at A1C >9% (reference), 10.1 percentage points at A1C >8% (P < 0.05), and 14.1 percentage points at A1C >7% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As 87% of U.S. adults have A1C <9%, a performance measure threshold of >9% will not drive major improvements in glycemic control. Lower thresholds do not exacerbate differences in threshold attainment for most factors. Reporting by diabetes medication use may compensate for heterogeneous case mix when a performance measure threshold of A1C >8% or lower is used.
OBJECTIVE: Performance measures are tools for assessing quality of care but may be influenced by patient factors. We investigated how currently endorsed performance measures for glycemic control in diabetes may be influenced by case mix composition. We assessed differences in A1C performance measure threshold attainment by case mix factors for A1C >9% and examined how lowering the threshold to A1C >8% or >7% changed these differences. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 843 adults self-reporting diabetes, we computed the mean difference in A1C threshold attainment of >9, >8, and >7% by various case mix factors. The mean difference is the average percentage point difference in threshold attainment for population groups compared with that for the overall population. RESULTS:Diabetes medication was the only factor for which the difference in threshold attainment increased at lower thresholds, with mean differences of 5.7 percentage points at A1C >9% (reference), 10.1 percentage points at A1C >8% (P < 0.05), and 14.1 percentage points at A1C >7% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As 87% of U.S. adults have A1C <9%, a performance measure threshold of >9% will not drive major improvements in glycemic control. Lower thresholds do not exacerbate differences in threshold attainment for most factors. Reporting by diabetes medication use may compensate for heterogeneous case mix when a performance measure threshold of A1C >8% or lower is used.
Authors: R R Little; H M Wiedmeyer; J D England; A L Wilke; C L Rohlfing; F H Wians; J M Jacobson; V Zellmer; D E Goldstein Journal: Clin Chem Date: 1992-12 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Sharon H Saydah; Linda S Geiss; Ed Tierney; Stephanie M Benjamin; Michael Engelgau; Frederick Brancati Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Arleen F Brown; Edward W Gregg; Mark R Stevens; Andrew J Karter; Morris Weinberger; Monika M Safford; Tiffany L Gary; Dorothy A Caputo; Beth Waitzfelder; Catherine Kim; Gloria L Beckles Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Loes C Lanting; Inez M A Joung; Johan P Mackenbach; Steven W J Lamberts; Aart H Bootsma Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Patrick J O'Connor; Noni L Bodkin; Judith Fradkin; Russell E Glasgow; Sheldon Greenfield; Edward Gregg; Eve A Kerr; L Gregory Pawlson; Joseph V Selby; John E Sutherland; Michael L Taylor; Carol H Wysham Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 19.112