Advertisement

Impact of Population Management With Direct Physician Feedback on Care of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH12,
  2. Hope E. Hamrick1,
  3. Christine M. Sullivan, RN-C FNP5,
  4. Anil K. Dubey, MD3,
  5. Henry C. Chueh, MD23,
  6. Enrico Cagliero, MD4 and
  7. James B. Meigs, MD, MPH12
  1. 1General Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  2. 2Laboratory of Computer Science, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  3. 3Diabetes Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  4. 4Clinical Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  5. 5Revere HealthCare Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  1. 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.

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.
| Table of Contents
Advertisement