Citations

OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of a multicomponent organizational intervention can produce significant change in diabetes care and outcomes in community primary care practices. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This was a group-randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the practical effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention (TRANSLATE) in 24 practices. The intervention included implementation of an electronic diabetes registry, visit reminders, and patient-specific physician alerts. A site coordinator facilitated previsit planning and a monthly review of performance with a local physician champion. The principle outcomes were the percentage of patients achieving target values for the composite of systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mmHg, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl, and A1C <7.0% at baseline and 12 months. Six process measures were also followed. RESULTS—Over 24 months, 69,965 visits from 8,405 adult patients with type 2 diabetes were recorded from 238 health care providers in 24 practices from 17 health systems. Diabetes process measures increased significantly more in intervention than in control practices, giving net increases as follows: foot examinations 35.0% (P < 0.0.001); annual eye examinations 25.9% (P < 0.001); renal testing 28.5% (P < 0.001); A1C testing 8.1%(P < 0.001); blood pressure monitoring 3.5% (P = 0.05); and LDL testing 8.6% (P < 0.001). Mean A1C adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidity decreased significantly in intervention practices (P < 0.02). At 12 months, intervention practices had significantly greater improvement in achieving recommended clinical values for SBP, A1C, and LDL than control clinics (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS—Introduction of a multicomponent organizational intervention in the primary care setting significantly increases the percentage of type 2 diabetic patients achieving recommended clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE—The aim of this study was to determine personal characteristics and preferences that affect decision making (decisional attributes) in patients with diabetes. In particular, we were interested in relating these attributes to the choice of using aspirin to reduce cardiovascular risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a cross-sectional survey (70% response rate) of 206 diabetic patients (median age, 63 years; 42% women; 91% completed high school; median HbA1c, 8%) attending a tertiary care diabetes clinic. Patients answered a 42-question survey exploring decisional attributes. Medical records provided the source of clinical information. We evaluated sociodemographic, clinical, and decisional predictors of aspirin use. We also conducted a multivariable analysis with aspirin use as a dependent variable. RESULTS—Sixty-seven percent of patients surveyed used aspirin. Patients using aspirin were at higher risk of cardiovascular disease (odds ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–2.1), knew more about the benefits of aspirin (1.9, 1.4–2.6) and less about the risks of aspirin (1.4, 1.2–1.8), and were more certain about using aspirin (0.5, 0.3–0.8) than patients not using aspirin. Patients using aspirin placed a higher value on preventing cardiovascular events than on avoiding the side effects of aspirin. Patients perceived that their diabetes provider and the American Diabetes Association had greater influence on their decision to use aspirin than family members or other patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS—The decisional attributes of patients with diabetes are associated with aspirin use. Decisional attributes may be the target of research and interventions to reduce underutilization to levels consistent with patient preferences.