An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7. Diabetes care from diagnosis: effects of training in patient-centred care on beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of primary care professionals. Multifaceted support to improve clinical decision making in diabetes care: a randomized controlled trial in general practice. Randomised controlled trial of patient centred care of diabetes in general practice: impact on current wellbeing and future disease risk. The Diabetes Care From Diagnosis Research Team. A randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve the care given in general practice to Type II diabetic patients: patient outcomes and professional ability to change behaviour. An intervention to overcome clinical inertia and improve diabetes mellitus control in a primary care setting: Improving Primary Care of African Americans with Diabetes (IPCAAD) 8. A nurse-coaching intervention for women with type 2 diabetes. Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System: a randomized controlled trial. A practical randomized trial to improve diabetes care.
Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes.
                A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient's visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both.
                Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (deltaA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (deltaA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001).
                Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings. In a randomised trial, general practitioners and nurses in 21 practices were trained in patient-centred consulting and use of materials for people with Type 2 diabetes (GPs 0.5 days; nurses 1.5 days; two optional follow-up half-days). Twenty practices formed the comparison group. Professional beliefs, attitudes and behaviour were measured (pre-trial, close-of-course and end-of-trial), supported by patient reports of nurse behaviour (141 trained: 108 comparison patients, 1 year after diagnosis). A total of 49 practice nurses responded (29 trained; 20 comparison). Trained nurses rated relative importance of patient-centred to professional-centred care as greater than comparison nurses. Trained nurses became less keen on the approach during the trial, and perceived time constraints persisted. Patients diagnosed later in the study were less likely to recognise intervention materials. Trained nurses rated delivery of important aspects of care and satisfaction with style of care as lower than comparison nurses, but patients were more positive about delivery of care from trained than comparison nurses. Although nurses rated patient-centred care as important, whether or not they had been trained as part of the trial, the short, generalizable training programme significantly reduced nurse perceptions of their ability to deliver it. Nonetheless, patients reported that important aspects of diabetes care were delivered more if their nurses had been trained in patient-centred consulting. This raises issues concerning measurement scales completed by trained professionals. To evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve the clinical decision making of general practitioners (GPs) for patients with diabetes. To identify practice characteristics which predict success.
                Cluster randomized controlled trial with 124 practices and 185 GPs in The Netherlands. The intervention group received feedback reports and support from a facilitator; the control group received no special attention. Outcome measures were the compliance rates with evidence-based recommendations pertaining to discussion of body weight control, discussion of problems with medication, blood pressure measurement, foot examination, eye examination, initiating anti-diabetic medication or increasing the dosage in cases of uncontrolled blood glucose, and scheduling a follow-up appointment.
                The GPs reported on their clinical decision making in 1410 consultations with Type 2 diabetic patients at baseline and 1449 consultations after the intervention period. The intervention resulted in statistically significant improvement for two of the seven outcome measures: foot examination (odds ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.19-2.39) and eye examination (1.52; 1.07-2.16). Discussion of problems with medication showed a near significant trend towards increased benefit for the intervention group (1.52; 0.99-2.32). Practice characteristics were not found to be related to the success of the intervention.
                Feedback reports with support from facilitators appear to increase rates of foot examination and eye examination in general practice. Alternative interventions should be explored to improve the pursuit of metabolic control by GPs. To assess the effect of additional training of practice nurses and general practitioners in patient centred care on the lifestyle and psychological and physiological status of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.
                Pragmatic parallel group design, with randomisation between practice teams to routine care (comparison group) or routine care plus additional training (intervention group); analysis at one year, allowing for practice effects and stratifiers; self reporting by patients on communication with practitioners, satisfaction with treatment, style of care, and lifestyle.
                41 practices (21 in intervention group, 20 in comparison group) in a health region in southern England.
                250/360 patients (aged 30-70 years) diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and completing follow up at one year (142 in intervention group, 108 in comparison group).
                1.5 days' group training for the doctors and nurses-introducing evidence for and skills of patient centred care and a patient held booklet encouraging questions.
                Quality of life, wellbeing, haemoglobin A1c and lipid concentrations, blood pressure, body mass index (kg/m2).
                Compared with patients in the C group, those in the intervention group reported better communication with the doctors (odds ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.3) and greater treatment satisfaction (1.6; 1.1 to 2.5) and wellbeing (difference in means (d) 2.8; 0.4 to 5.2). However, their body mass index was significantly higher (d=2.0; 0.3 to 3.8), as were triglyceride concentrations (d=0.4 mmol/l; 0.07 to 0.73 mmol/l), whereas knowledge scores were lower (d=-2.74; -0.23 to -5.25). Differences in lifestyle and glycaemic control were not significant.
                The findings suggest greater attention to the consultation process than to preventive care among trained practitioners; those committed to achieving the benefits of patient centred consulting should not lose the focus on disease management. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of training in a patient-centred intervention for GPs and practice nurses on outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes.
                We carried out a randomized controlled trial within general practices as the basis for randomization and a before-and-after design for measures of patient outcome. A parallel process study examined the use of the method by professionals. The study was carried out in 29 general practices in South Glamorgan who had participated for at least 2 years in a local scheme of audit and CME in relation to Type II diabetes care. The subjects were 252 Type II diabetic patients recruited by 15 experimental and 14 control practices. The main outcome measures were changes in glycosylated haemoglobin, patient satisfaction with care and treatment, functional health status and professional ability to apply the intervention.
                Professionals adopted the innovative method with enthusiasm, but after 2 years only 19% continued to apply the method systematically. The trial was, therefore, unable to demonstrate significant biochemical or functional improvements. This highlights the need to understand the factors associated with professional uptake and subsequent ability to sustain changes in behaviour.
                The efficacy of this behavioural intervention remains unproved, despite its acceptability to professional staff. Detailed and prolonged development and testing of behavioural interventions is an essential first step before embarking on randomized controlled trials which involve complex behavioural changes in professionals or patients. Although clinical trials have shown that proper management of diabetes can improve outcomes, and treatment guidelines are widespread, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in the United States are rising. Since process measures are improving, poor glycemic control may reflect the failure of health care providers to intensify diabetes therapy when indicated--clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions aimed at health care provider behavior could overcome this barrier and improve glycemic control.
                In a 3-year trial, 345 internal medicine residents were randomized to be controls or to receive computerized reminders providing patient-specific recommendations at each visit and/or feedback on performance every 2 weeks. When glucose levels exceeded 150 mg/dL (8.33 mmol/L) during visits of 4038 patients, health care provider behavior was characterized as did nothing, did anything (any intensification of therapy), or did enough (if intensification met recommendations).
                At baseline, residents did anything for 35% of visits and did enough for 21% of visits when changes in therapy were indicated, and there were no differences among intervention groups. During the trial, intensification increased most during the first year and then declined. However, intensification increased more in the feedback alone and feedback plus reminders groups than for reminders alone and control groups (P<.001). After 3 years, health care provider behavior in the reminders alone and control groups returned to baseline, whereas improvement with feedback alone and feedback plus reminders groups was sustained: 52% did anything, and 30% did enough (P<.001 for both vs the reminders alone and control groups). Multivariable analysis showed that feedback on performance contributed independently to intensification and that intensification contributed independently to fall in HbA1c (P<.001 for both).
                Feedback on performance given to medical resident primary care providers improved provider behavior and lowered HbA1c levels. Similar approaches may aid health care provider behavior and improve diabetes outcomes in other primary care settings. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the efficacy of a 6-month nurse-coaching intervention that was provided after diabetes education for women with type 2 diabetes.
                In this pilot study, 53 women were randomized to the nurse-coaching intervention or a standard care control condition. The nurse-coaching intervention consisted of 5 individualized sessions and 2 follow-up phone calls over 6 months. The nurse-coaching sessions included educational, behavioral, and affective strategies. Data were collected on physiologic adaptation (hemoglobin A1c [A1C] and body mass index [BMI]), self-management (dietary and exercise), psychosocial adaptation (diabetes-related distress and integration), and treatment satisfaction at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
                Women in the treatment group demonstrated better diet self-management, less diabetes-related distress, better integration, and more satisfaction with care, and had trends of better exercise self-management and BMI. The A1C levels improved in both groups at 3 months, yet the difference between the groups was not significant. Attendance at nurse-coaching sessions was 96%.
                This nurse-coaching intervention demonstrates promise as a means of improving self-management and psychosocial outcomes in women with type 2 diabetes. We evaluated automated telephone disease management (ATDM) with telephone nurse follow-up as a strategy for improving diabetes treatment processes and outcomes in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics. We also compared the results with those of a prior ATDM trial conducted in a county health care system.
                A total of 272 VA patients with diabetes using hypoglycemic medications were randomized. During the 1-year study period, intervention patients received biweekly ATDM health assessment and self-care education calls, and a nurse educator followed up with patients based on their ATDM assessment reports. Telephone surveys were used to measure patients' self-care, symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Outpatient service use was evaluated using electronic databases and self-reports, and glycemic control was measured by HbA1c and serum glucose testing.
                At 12 months, intervention patients reported more frequent glucose self-monitoring and foot inspections than patients receiving usual care and were more likely to be seen in podiatry and diabetes specialty clinics. Intervention patients also were more likely than control patients to have had a cholesterol test. Among patients with baseline HbA1c levels > or =8%, mean end-point values were lower among intervention patients than control patients (8.7 vs. 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.04). Among intervention and control patients with baseline values > or =9%, mean end-point values were 9.1 and 10.2%, respectively (P = 0.04). At follow-up, intervention patients reported fewer symptoms of poor glycemic control than control patients and greater satisfaction with their health care.
                This intervention improved the quality of VA diabetes care. Intervention effects for most end points replicated findings from the prior county clinic trial, although intervention-control differences in the current study were smaller because of the relatively good self-care and health status among the current study's enrollees. There is a well-documented gap between diabetes care guidelines and the services received by patients in almost all health care settings. This project reports initial results from a computer-assisted, patient-centered intervention to improve the level of recommended services received by patients from a wide variety of primary care providers.
                Eight hundred eighty-six patients with type 2 diabetes under the care of 52 primary care physicians participated in the Diabetes Priority Program. Physicians were stratified and randomized to intervention or control conditions and evaluated on 2 primary outcomes: number of recommended laboratory screenings and recommended patient-centered care activities completed. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Problem Areas in Diabetes scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scale, and the RE-AIM framework was used to evaluate potential for dissemination.
                The program was well-implemented and significantly improved both number of recommended laboratory assays (3.4 vs 3.1; P <.001) and patient-centered aspects of diabetes care patients received (3.6 vs 3.2; P <.001) compared to those in randomized control practices. Activities that were increased most were foot exams (follow-up rates of 80% vs 52%; P <.003) and nutrition counseling (76% vs 52%; P <.001).
                Patients are very willing to participate in a brief computer-assisted intervention that is effective in enhancing quality of diabetes care. Staff in primary care offices can consistently deliver an intervention of this nature, but most physicians were unwilling to participate in this translation research study.
Multifaceted professional interventions can enhance the performance of health professionals in managing patients with diabetes. Organisational interventions that improve regular prompted recall and review of patients (central computerised tracking systems or nurses who regularly contact the patient) can also improve diabetes management. The addition of patient-oriented interventions can lead to improved patient health outcomes. Nurses can play an important role in patient-oriented interventions, through patient education or facilitating adherence to treatment.