Literature DB >> 23369766

Expansion of electronic health record-based screening, prevention, and management of diabetes in New York City.

Jeanine Albu1, Nancy Sohler, Brenda Matti-Orozco, Jordan Sill, Daniel Baxter, Gary Burke, Edwin Young.   

Abstract

To address the increasing burden of diabetes in New York City, we designed 2 electronic health records (EHRs)-facilitated diabetes management systems to be implemented in 6 primary care practices on the West Side of Manhattan, a standard system and an enhanced system. The standard system includes screening for diabetes. The enhanced system includes screening and ensures close patient follow-up; it applies principles of the chronic care model, including community-clinic linkages, to the management of patients newly diagnosed with diabetes and prediabetes through screening. We will stagger implementation of the enhanced system across the 6 clinics allowing comparison, through a quasi-experimental design (pre-post difference with a control group), of patients treated in the enhanced system with similar patients treated in the standard system. The findings could inform health system practices at multiple levels and influence the integration of community resources into routine diabetes care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23369766      PMCID: PMC3562173          DOI: 10.5888/pcd10.120148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis        ISSN: 1545-1151            Impact factor:   2.830


Introduction

Significant progress has been made in controlling type 2 diabetes and its complications in primary care settings through the application of the chronic care model (CCM) (1–3). Evidence that CCM modifications to primary care practice can prevent type 2 diabetes is limited (4–6). Screening high-risk patients to detect diabetes and prediabetes was cost-effective (7–9), and prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes through adoption of appropriate lifestyle changes and pharmacologic interventions has been successful in experimental settings (10). However, ongoing challenges in translating this evidence into primary care practice include the identification of appropriate target populations and the difficulty of incorporating time- and resource-intensive lifestyle interventions into routine clinical care (6). Although community and peer support systems have proven effective in preventing many chronic diseases (11,12), rigorous evaluations of integrated health care systems and community linkages for preventing type 2 diabetes are lacking (13). Six clinics in a primary care network in New York City, 3 of which are federally qualified health centers, have established an evidence-based diabetes management system grounded in CCM principles in the context of developing a patient-centered medical home in each clinic (14). As defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a patient-centered medical home is a health care setting that facilitates partnerships between patients and their physicians through the use of registries, information technology, and health information exchange. Our study will examine a standard and an enhanced diabetes management system. The standard system, already implemented, includes an electronic health records (EHR)-based, targeted screening program that is aimed at detecting previously undiagnosed diabetes (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] > 6.5%) and prediabetes (HbA1c 5.7%–6.4%). The enhanced diabetes management system is designed to facilitate the management of patients identified through the screening program as having diabetes or prediabetes. The enhanced system, which extends components of the CCM including community–clinic linkages to patient management, will be added to the standard system. The staggered implementation of the enhanced system across the 6 target clinics will allow comparisons of participant outcomes in the enhanced versus standard clinics through a quasi-experimental design (pre–post difference with a control group) by retrospective analyses of the data extracted from the EHR. The primary objective of these analyses is to test 3 hypotheses: first, that patients with newly diagnosed diabetes or prediabetes who will be exposed to the enhanced system will be more likely than patients exposed to the standard system to experience a reduction in HbA1c levels over 12 months; second, that any reductions in HbA1c levels observed in patients in the enhanced system will be sustained over a follow-up period of 30 months; and third, that patients in clinics adopting the enhanced system will be retained longer in appropriate health care than those in the standard system.

Study Population

Patients seen in the 6 primary care clinics of the New York City health care system included in our study receive care that includes diabetes screening and management as determined by their health care provider. All patients who visit these clinics over a 6-month baseline period, are at least 18 years of age, and have not been previously diagnosed with diabetes are eligible for our study (15). Through an EHR-facilitated screening system (9,16,17), patients we identify as at risk for diabetes by American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria (16) are referred for HbA1c tests. Those patients determined to have prediabetes (HbA1c 5.7–6.4%) or new-onset diabetes (HbA1c >6.5%) will be included in the study sample (15,16,18). All 6 clinics have patient populations with roughly similar sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Study Design

All 6 clinics incorporated the standard diabetes management system over the first 6 months of 2012. Two clinics have been selected to start implementing the enhanced system within the following 6 months (from July through December 2012). For 12 months following implementation, these 2 clinics will use the enhanced system with all patients, while the remaining 4 clinics continue to use the standard system) until month 15 when they will also implement the enhanced system (Figure). We will follow all patients who meet study criteria and visit any of the 6 study clinics during the 6-month baseline period for a minimum of 30 months.
Figure

Data activities timeline and clinical activities timeline for standard diabetes management system and enhanced diabetes management system.

Data activities timeline and clinical activities timeline for standard diabetes management system and enhanced diabetes management system. Follow-up care in the standard system conforms to recommendations for diabetes prevention and management (16); that is, patients with newly diagnosed diabetes are prescribed treatment and asked to return to the clinics every 3 to 6 months to monitor progress. We will advise patients newly diagnosed with prediabetes of their diagnosis; advise them of ADA-recommended lifestyle changes (5) via an office visit, a telephone call, or mail; and ask them to return within 12 months to assess progress in reducing HbA1c levels. The enhanced system, in addition to the standard-system practices, fully incorporates CCM principles specific to the management of prediabetes. It addresses 1) care delivery and clinical information systems redesign (prediabetes-structured templates, planned visits, feedback on performance and point-of-care delivery prompts such as prediabetes order sets to ensure recommended clinical care); 2) decision support (education of physicians and ancillary staff in applying evidence-based prevention and treatment); and 3) patient self-management support (use of culturally appropriate tools, systematic referrals to established diabetes prevention programs in the community, and an inventory of available free or low-cost existing community resources that facilitate management of diabetes and prediabetes through lifestyle changes) (19,20). In the enhanced clinics, this self-management support system will also be available for patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. Patients with newly diagnosed prediabetes will be asked to return to the clinic within 6 months to monitor progress. To ensure minimal losses to follow-up for our study, the staff in all 6 clinics will be instructed to contact all patients newly diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes to ask them to return to clinic yearly.

Data Analysis

We will conduct retrospective analyses on routine clinical data extracted from the EHR (Appendix). We will perform both intent-to-treat analysis and an as-treated analysis. Mixed-effects models accounting for clustering of patients within clinics will be used in our analyses. Our primary outcome, percentage change in HbA1c, will test our primary hypothesis that reduction in HbA1c observed at 12 months following initiation of the enhanced system in the selected clinics will be greater than reduction in HbA1c during the same period in the standard clinics. We will compare baseline HbA1c values to the average of HbA1c values obtained during the 12-month follow-up period. We will use this same outcome to test our second hypothesis, that observed HbA1c improvements in the enhanced clinics will be sustained over 30 months. To test our third hypothesis, that patients in clinics adopting the enhanced system will have greater retention in the health care system during the 12-month follow-up period than those exposed to the standard system, we will assess number of visits to a primary care physician and number of HbA1c tests performed. This will be a natural experiment; therefore, we anticipate some differences in the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants across clinics. We will use propensity score-matching (21) to adjust for these differences, selecting from a wide array of patient measures in the EHR, including demographics, insurance coverage, clinical diagnoses, laboratory tests results, and information on use of health care services.

Outcomes

This study will examine the effectiveness of an enhanced system for the management of newly diagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in participants identified through targeted screening in a primary care setting. This enhanced system will fully incorporate most components of the CCM (1,2) and as such, will involve policy changes at more than 1 level; however, its focus will be observation of the potential benefits of EHR in screening and monitoring outcomes and practice patterns (22). At the same time, this approach will involve a modest lifestyle change that leverages community-based resources. Evidence is mixed for the efficacy of EHR-based interventions in improving care for patients already diagnosed with diabetes (23,24). The use of EHR for diabetes screening and prevention may improve outcomes, because each primary care visit can be considered an opportunity for immediate intervention (25). If the outcomes of our analyses are positive, attribution of an EHR effect independent of other components of the intervention could be addressed in future studies. Our study will be among the first to address whether it is possible to prevent diabetes in a large urban population by implementing an approach that is initiated during routine clinical practices and maintained over time by patients. A successful outcome could prompt health systems, health plans, and public insurers to adopt policies such as changes in reimbursement and reallocation of resources to facilitate prevention and early control of diabetes in primary care practices. In addition, it could prompt key players in the community (public agencies, business leaders, social organizations) to adopt and support policies aimed at developing and sustaining effective and affordable lifestyle intervention programs and at maintaining strong clinic–community linkages.
  22 in total

1.  Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer; Edward H Wagner; Kevin Grumbach
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-10-09       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Adapting the Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle intervention for delivery in the community: the YMCA model.

Authors:  Ronald T Ackermann; David G Marrero
Journal:  Diabetes Educ       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.140

3.  Evaluation of the Heart To Heart Project: lessons from a community-based chronic disease prevention project.

Authors:  R M Goodman; F C Wheeler; P R Lee
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  1995 Jul-Aug

4.  Implementing the chronic care model for improvements in diabetes care and education in a rural primary care practice.

Authors:  Linda M Siminerio; Gretchen Piatt; Janice C Zgibor
Journal:  Diabetes Educ       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.140

Review 5.  Weight management through lifestyle modification for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: rationale and strategies. A statement of the American Diabetes Association, the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition.

Authors:  Samuel Klein; Nancy F Sheard; Xavier Pi-Sunyer; Anne Daly; Judith Wylie-Rosett; Karmeen Kulkarni; Nathaniel G Clark
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.045

6.  The cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes. CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Study Group, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-25       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Different strategies for screening and prevention of type 2 diabetes in adults: cost effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Clare L Gillies; Paul C Lambert; Keith R Abrams; Alex J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper; Ron T Hsu; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-21

8.  Evaluation of a diabetes management system based on practice guidelines, integrated care, and continuous quality management in a Federal State of Germany: a population-based approach to health care research.

Authors:  Ulrike Rothe; Gabriele Müller; Peter E H Schwarz; Martin Seifert; Hildebrand Kunath; Rainer Koch; Sybille Bergmann; Ulrich Julius; Stefan R Bornstein; Markolf Hanefeld; Jan Schulze
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2008-03-10       Impact factor: 19.112

9.  Type 2 diabetes prevention in the "real world": one-year results of the GOAL Implementation Trial.

Authors:  Pilvikki Absetz; Raisa Valve; Brian Oldenburg; Heikki Heinonen; Aulikki Nissinen; Mikael Fogelholm; Vesa Ilvesmäki; Martti Talja; Antti Uutela
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-06-22       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  How much might achievement of diabetes prevention behaviour goals reduce the incidence of diabetes if implemented at the population level?

Authors:  R K Simmons; A-H Harding; R W Jakes; A Welch; N J Wareham; S J Griffin
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 10.122

View more
  7 in total

1.  A technology-based quality innovation to identify undiagnosed hypertension among active primary care patients.

Authors:  Michael K Rakotz; Bernard G Ewigman; Menaka Sarav; Ruth E Ross; Ari Robicsek; Chad W Konchak; Thomas F Gavagan; David W Baker; David J Hyman; Kenneth P Anderson; Christopher M Masi
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Evaluating diabetes health policies using natural experiments: the natural experiments for translation in diabetes study.

Authors:  Ronald T Ackermann; O Kenrik Duru; Jeanine B Albu; Julie A Schmittdiel; Stephen B Soumerai; James F Wharam; Mohammed K Ali; Carol M Mangione; Edward W Gregg
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 3.  Rational use of electronic health records for diabetes population management.

Authors:  Emma M Eggleston; Michael Klompas
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.810

4.  Prospective EHR-based clinical trials: the challenge of missing data.

Authors:  Hadi Kharrazi; Chenguang Wang; Daniel Scharfstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Feasibility and impact of implementing a private care system's diabetes quality improvement intervention in the safety net: a cluster-randomized trial.

Authors:  Rachel Gold; Christine Nelson; Stuart Cowburn; Arwen Bunce; Celine Hollombe; James Davis; John Muench; Christian Hill; Meena Mital; Jon Puro; Nancy Perrin; Greg Nichols; Ann Turner; MaryBeth Mercer; Victoria Jaworski; Colleen Howard; Emma Abiles; Amit Shah; James Dudl; Wiley Chan; Jennifer DeVoe
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  An Interrupted Time Series Analysis to Determine the Effect of an Electronic Health Record-Based Intervention on Appropriate Screening for Type 2 Diabetes in Urban Primary Care Clinics in New York City.

Authors:  Jeanine B Albu; Nancy Sohler; Rui Li; Xuan Li; Edwin Young; Edward W Gregg; Dennis Ross-Degnan
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 7.  Introductory Overview of the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 2.0 (NEXT-D2) Network: Examining the Impact of US Health Policies and Practices to Prevent Diabetes and Its Complications.

Authors:  O Kenrik Duru; Carol M Mangione; Hector P Rodriguez; Dennis Ross-Degnan; J Frank Wharam; Bernard Black; Abel Kho; Nathalie Huguet; Heather Angier; Victoria Mayer; David Siscovick; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Lizheng Shi; Elizabeth Nauman; Edward W Gregg; Mohammed K Ali; Pamela Thornton; Steven Clauser
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.810

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.