David C Aron1,2, Chin-Lin Tseng3, Orysya Soroka3, Leonard M Pogach4,5. 1. Medical Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Research Service, Department of Veterans Affairs-New Jersey Healthcare System, East Orange, NJ, USA. 4. Office of Specialty Care Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey School of Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if changes in overtreatment rates were associated with changes in undertreatment rates. DESIGN: Pre-test/post-test study used cross-sectional administrative data from calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2016. SETTING: The Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diabetes at risk for hypoglycemia (n = 171 875 and 166 703 in 2013 and 2016, respectively). INTERVENTION: Observational study of extant initiatives to reduce overtreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overtreatment rate of diabetes defined at the proportion of patients in the group at high risk for hypoglycemia with A1c < 7.0%. Undertreatment defined as A1C > 9%. RESULTS: There was marked variation in overtreatment rates; for A1c < 7%, overtreatment rates ranged from 26.4% to 58.2% and 26.2% to 49.2% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±standard deviation (SD)) facility-level overtreatment rates fell from 40.3 (±5.3)% in 2013 to 37.75 (±4.70)% in 2016 (P < 0.001, paired t-test). Facility undertreatment rates ranged from 5.8% to 16.9% and 6.8% to 18.7% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±SD) undertreatment rate rose from 10.3 (±2.2)% in 2013 to 11.0 (±2.4)% in 2016 (P ≤ 0.001, paired t-test). However, change at individual facilities ranged from a decrease of 4.6% to an increase of 7.2%. Within year correlations were stronger than between year correlations. Overtreatment defined as A1c < 7 in this population inversely correlated strongly with undertreatment (r = -0.653, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Promotion of overtreatment reduction may be associated with an increase in undertreatment in patients with diabetes. Unintended consequence should be considered when implementing and evaluating quality measures and systems should include balancing measures to identify potential unintended harms. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care 2018.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if changes in overtreatment rates were associated with changes in undertreatment rates. DESIGN: Pre-test/post-test study used cross-sectional administrative data from calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2016. SETTING: The Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diabetes at risk for hypoglycemia (n = 171 875 and 166 703 in 2013 and 2016, respectively). INTERVENTION: Observational study of extant initiatives to reduce overtreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overtreatment rate of diabetes defined at the proportion of patients in the group at high risk for hypoglycemia with A1c < 7.0%. Undertreatment defined as A1C > 9%. RESULTS: There was marked variation in overtreatment rates; for A1c < 7%, overtreatment rates ranged from 26.4% to 58.2% and 26.2% to 49.2% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±standard deviation (SD)) facility-level overtreatment rates fell from 40.3 (±5.3)% in 2013 to 37.75 (±4.70)% in 2016 (P < 0.001, paired t-test). Facility undertreatment rates ranged from 5.8% to 16.9% and 6.8% to 18.7% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±SD) undertreatment rate rose from 10.3 (±2.2)% in 2013 to 11.0 (±2.4)% in 2016 (P ≤ 0.001, paired t-test). However, change at individual facilities ranged from a decrease of 4.6% to an increase of 7.2%. Within year correlations were stronger than between year correlations. Overtreatment defined as A1c < 7 in this population inversely correlated strongly with undertreatment (r = -0.653, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Promotion of overtreatment reduction may be associated with an increase in undertreatment in patients with diabetes. Unintended consequence should be considered when implementing and evaluating quality measures and systems should include balancing measures to identify potential unintended harms. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care 2018.
Authors: Christopher P Bonafide; Rui Xiao; Amanda C Schondelmeyer; Amy R Pettit; Patrick W Brady; Christopher P Landrigan; Courtney Benjamin Wolk; Zuleyha Cidav; Halley Ruppel; Naveen Muthu; Nathaniel J Williams; Enrique Schisterman; Canita R Brent; Kimberly Albanowski; Rinad S Beidas Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-10-21 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: David C Mohr; Libin Zhang; Julia C Prentice; Richard E Nelson; Donglin Li; Erin Pleasants; Paul R Conlin Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2022-07