Anna Beth Barton1, Daniel E Okorodudu2, Hayden B Bosworth3,4, Matthew J Crowley3,5. 1. 1 Richmond Diabetes and Endocrinology, Bon Secours Medical Group , Richmond, Virginia. 2. 2 Endocrinology Service, Guadalupe Regional Medical Center , Seguin, Texas. 3. 3 Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care , Durham VAMC, Durham, North Carolina. 4. 4 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University , Durham, North Carolina. 5. 5 Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Duke University , Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia perpetuate poor cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control. Telemedicine interventions may counter both treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia. INTRODUCTION: We explored why a telemedicine intervention designed to reduce treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia did not improve CVD risk factor control, despite enhancing treatment adherence versus usual care. METHODS: In this analysis of a randomized trial, we studied recipients of the 12-month telemedicine intervention. This intervention comprised two nurse-administered components: (1) monthly self-management education targeting improved treatment adherence; and (2) quarterly medication management facilitation designed to support treatment intensification by primary care (thereby reducing clinical inertia). For each medication management facilitation encounter, we ascertained whether patients met treatment goals, and if not, whether primary care recommended treatment intensification following the encounter. We assessed disease control associated with encounters, where intensification was/was not recommended. RESULTS: We examined 455 encounters across 182 intervention recipients (100% African Americans with type 2 diabetes). Even after accounting for valid reasons for deferring intensification (e.g., treatment nonadherence), intensification was not recommended in 67.5% of encounters in which hemoglobin A1c was above goal, 72.5% in which systolic blood pressure was above goal, and 73.9% in which low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was above goal. In each disease state, treatment intensification was more likely with poorer control. CONCLUSIONS: Despite enhancing treatment adherence, this intervention was unsuccessful in countering clinical inertia, likely explaining its lack of effect on CVD risk factors. We identify several lessons learned that may benefit investigators and healthcare systems.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia perpetuate poor cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control. Telemedicine interventions may counter both treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia. INTRODUCTION: We explored why a telemedicine intervention designed to reduce treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia did not improve CVD risk factor control, despite enhancing treatment adherence versus usual care. METHODS: In this analysis of a randomized trial, we studied recipients of the 12-month telemedicine intervention. This intervention comprised two nurse-administered components: (1) monthly self-management education targeting improved treatment adherence; and (2) quarterly medication management facilitation designed to support treatment intensification by primary care (thereby reducing clinical inertia). For each medication management facilitation encounter, we ascertained whether patients met treatment goals, and if not, whether primary care recommended treatment intensification following the encounter. We assessed disease control associated with encounters, where intensification was/was not recommended. RESULTS: We examined 455 encounters across 182 intervention recipients (100% African Americans with type 2 diabetes). Even after accounting for valid reasons for deferring intensification (e.g., treatment nonadherence), intensification was not recommended in 67.5% of encounters in which hemoglobin A1c was above goal, 72.5% in which systolic blood pressure was above goal, and 73.9% in which low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was above goal. In each disease state, treatment intensification was more likely with poorer control. CONCLUSIONS: Despite enhancing treatment adherence, this intervention was unsuccessful in countering clinical inertia, likely explaining its lack of effect on CVD risk factors. We identify several lessons learned that may benefit investigators and healthcare systems.
Authors: Hannah Beks; Olivia King; Renee Clapham; Laura Alston; Kristen Glenister; Carol McKinstry; Claire Quilliam; Ian Wellwood; Catherine Williams; Anna Wong Shee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Yu-Ting Li; Yi Wang; Xiu-Jing Hu; Jia-Heng Chen; Yun-Yi Li; Qi-Ya Zhong; Hui Cheng; Bedru H Mohammed; Xiao-Ling Liang; Jose Hernandez; Wen-Yong Huang; Harry H X Wang Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Kelsey B Bryant; James P Sheppard; Natalia Ruiz-Negrón; Ian M Kronish; Valy Fontil; Jordan B King; Mark J Pletcher; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Andrew E Moran; Richard J McManus; Brandon K Bellows Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Van C Willis; Kelly Jean Thomas Craig; Yalda Jabbarpour; Elisabeth L Scheufele; Yull E Arriaga; Monica Ajinkya; Kyu B Rhee; Andrew Bazemore Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-01-21