Impact of Population Management With Direct Physician Feedback on Care of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
- Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH12,
- Hope E. Hamrick1,
- Christine M. Sullivan, RN-C FNP5,
- Anil K. Dubey, MD3,
- Henry C. Chueh, MD23,
- Enrico Cagliero, MD4 and
- James B. Meigs, MD, MPH12
- 1General Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 2Laboratory of Computer Science, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 3Diabetes Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 4Clinical Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- 5Revere HealthCare Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
- Address correspondence and reprint requests to Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH, General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford St., 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail: rgrant{at}partners.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE—Population-level strategies may improve primary care for diabetes. We designed a controlled study to assess the impact of population management versus usual care on metabolic risk factor testing and management in patients with type 2 diabetes. We also identified potential patient-related barriers to effective diabetes management.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We used novel clinical software to rank 910 patients in a diabetes registry at a single primary care clinic and thereby identify the 149 patients with the highest HbA1c and cholesterol levels. After review of the medical records of these 149 patients, evidence-based guideline recommendations regarding metabolic testing and management were sent via e-mail to each intervention patient’s primary care provider (PCP). Over a 3-month follow-up period, we assessed changes in the evidence-based management of intervention patients compared with a matched cohort of control patients receiving usual care at a second primary care clinic affiliated with the same academic medical center.
RESULTS—In the intervention cohort, PCPs followed testing recommendations more often (78%) than therapeutic change recommendations (36%, P = 0.001). Compared with the usual care control cohort, population management resulted in a greater overall proportion of evidence-based guideline practices being followed (59 vs. 45%, P = 0.02). Most intervention patients (62%) had potential barriers to effective care, including depression (35%), substance abuse (26%), and prior nonadherence to care plans (18%).
CONCLUSIONS—Population management with clinical recommendations sent to PCPs had a modest but statistically significant impact on the evidence-based management of diabetes compared with usual care. Depression and substance abuse are prevalent patient-level adherence barriers in patients with poor metabolic control.
- ADA, American Diabetes Association
- EMR, electronic medical record
- FTE, full-time equivalent
- PCP, primary care provider
Footnotes
-
A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.
-
- Accepted April 18, 2003.
- Received November 12, 2002.
- DIABETES CARE











