McMahon, Anne-Marie

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the need for practice-wide quality improvement to support evidence-based type 2 diabetes screening for women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) receiving primary care. We sought to add the diagnosis of GDM to the problem list of women who did not have it at baseline. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We identified all women in our practice with a history of GDM diagnosed between 2002 and 2023, quantified the proportion with GDM documented in their problem list, and examined patient- and clinician-level factors associated with having GDM appropriately documented at baseline. RESULTS We identified 203 women with GDM receiving primary care within internal medicine. Of the 203 women, 73 (35.0%) did not have GDM documented in their problem list. Of those without GDM included on the problem list, 52% were overdue for type 2 diabetes screening compared with 41% of those with GDM documented before our intervention. We found race, parity, and previous abnormal glycemic laboratory test results to be highly predictive of whether the history of GDM was on patients’ problem list. Upon completion of our intervention, we successfully achieved a 100% documentation rate for GDM diagnosis for women who previously lacked documentation in their problem list. CONCLUSION This work paves the way for targeted interventions aimed at improving care for women with a history of GDM, including delivery of interventions and education to prevent the onset of an appropriate clinical screening for type 2 diabetes.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy that carries lasting risks. For women who have a history of GDM, the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases by 50 to 60%. To monitor and prevent the development of T2DM, guidelines suggest screening those with a history of GDM at 6-weeks and 3-years post-delivery. For patients with abnormal lab results at the 6-week mark, it is advised to complete lab work sooner, at the 1-year mark. Data suggests that these guidelines are not being followed globally, and most do not receive adequate screening for T2DM. Methods: A retroactive chart review of 203 women between 18 and 55 years old with a past medical history significant for GDM was conducted to determine if patients with GDM completed screening for T2DM at 6-week, 1-year, and 3-year timestamps post-delivery. Patient demographics (age, race, ethnicity, language), clinical characteristics (body mass index), provider gender, and whether prediabetes or T2DM developed were recorded. Patients who did not complete the required follow-up received educational materials via the online portal system, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) screening tests were ordered. Results: Ninety days post-intervention, 38 patients (50%) completed the HbA1c screening test, which exceeded our goal of a 5% improvement. Age and BMI 1-year postpartum were found to be significant factors in whether a patient completed HbA1c screening, with 16/18 (89%) completing screening with a healthy BMI 1-year postpartum (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25.0) but only 11/41 (27%) completing screening for patients under 40 years with an unhealthy BMI 1-year postpartum. Of the 38 patients who completed HbA1c screening, 9 (23.7%) had abnormal screening results. Conclusion: Follow-up surveillance for T2DM among women with a history of GDM is poor. Electronic health records can be used to identify and rectify gaps in care. Dissemination of standardized educational materials and electronic order entry for patients improved screening between the handoff from obstetrics to primary care.