Dunbar, Virginia G.

OBJECTIVE—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. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—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. RESULTS—Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (ΔA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (ΔA1C 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). CONCLUSIONS—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.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether “clinical inertia”—inadequate intensification of therapy by the provider—could contribute to high A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care site. Methods In a prospective observational study, management was compared in the Medical Clinic, a primary care site supervised by general internal medicine faculty, and the Diabetes Clinic, a specialty site supervised by endocrinologists. These municipal hospital clinics serve a common population that is largely African American, poor, and uninsured. Results Four hundred thirty-eight African American patients in the Medical Clinic and 2157 in the Diabetes Clinic were similar in average age, diabetes duration, body mass index, and gender, but A1C averaged 8.6% in the Medical Clinic versus 7.7% in the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Use of pharmacotherapy was less intensive in the Medical Clinic (less use of insulin), and when patients had elevated glucose levels during clinic visits, therapy was less than half as likely to be advanced in the Medical Clinic compared to the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Intensification rates were lower in the Medical Clinic regardless of type of therapy (P < .0001), and intensification of therapy was independently associated with improvement in A1C (P < .001). Conclusions Medical Clinic patients had worse glycemic control, were less likely to be treated with insulin, and were less likely to have their therapy intensified if glucose levels were elevated. To improve diabetes management and glycemic control nationwide, physicians in training and generalists must learn to overcome clinical inertia, to intensify therapy when appropriate, and to use insulin when clinically indicated.

Purpose This study explored patients’ perceptions of barriers to diabetes education among a mostly African American population of adults with diabetes. Methods A survey was conducted among 605 new patients attending an urban outpatient diabetes clinic. The questionnaire gathered information on issues patients believed would adversely affect their ability to learn about diabetes. The type and frequency of education barriers were evaluated, and variables associated with reporting an obstacle were analyzed. Results Average patient age was 50 years, diabetes duration was 5.6 years, body mass index was 32 kg/m2, and hemoglobin A1C was 9.1%. The majority (56%) were women, 89% were African American, and 95% had type 2 diabetes. Most respondents (96%) had received some prior instruction in diabetes care; however, 53% anticipated future difficulties learning about diabetes. The most commonly cited concerns were poor vision (74%) and reading problems (29%). Patients with a perceived barrier to diabetes education were older (P < .001) than were persons without a barrier, and they differed in both employment and educational status (both P < .001). In adjusted analyses, older age, male gender, being disabled, and having an elementary education or less were associated with a significantly increased likelihood of having a barrier to diabetes education, whereas having a college education decreased the odds. Higher hemoglobin A1C levels also tended to be associated with a greater chance of reporting an education barrier (P = .05). Conclusions A substantial number of persons anticipated a barrier to diabetes education. Interventions at multiple levels that address the demographic and socioeconomic obstacles to diabetes education are needed to ensure successful self-management training.