Medication intensification in diabetes in rural primary care: a cluster-randomised effectiveness trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a provider-based intervention to improve medication intensification among patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Effectiveness cluster-randomised trial. Baseline and follow-up cross-sections of diabetes physicians\u27 patients. SETTING: Eleven U.S. Southeastern states, 2006-2008. PARTICIPANTS: 205 Rural primary care physicians, 95 completed the study. INTERVENTION: Multicomponent interactive intervention including web-based continuing medical education (CME), performance feedback and quality improvement tools. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Medication intensification, a dose increase of an existing medication or the addition of a new class of medication for glucose, blood pressure and lipids control on any of the three most recent office visits. RESULTS: Of 364 physicians attempting to register, 102 were randomised to the intervention and 103 to the control arms; 95 physicians (intervention, n=48; control, n=47) provided data on their 1182 of their patients at baseline (intervention, n=715; control, n=467) and 945 patients at follow-up (intervention, n=479; control, n=466). For A1c control, medication intensification increased in both groups (intervention, pre 26.4% vs post 32.6%, p=0.022; control, pre 24.8% vs post 31.1%, p=0.033) (intervention, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.37; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.76; control, AOR 1.41 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.89)); however, we observed no incremental benefit solely due to the intervention (group-by-time interaction, p=0.948). Among patients with the worst glucose control (A1c \u3e9%), intensification increased in both groups (intervention, pre 34.8% vs post 62.5%, p=0.002; control, pre 35.7% vs post 61.4%, p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: A wide-reach, low-intensity, web-based interactive multicomponent intervention had no significant incremental effect on medication intensification for control of glucose, blood pressure or lipids for patients with diabetes of physicians practising in the rural Southeastern USA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00403091

Estimating and Reporting on the Quality of Inpatient Stroke Care by Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers

Background—Reporting of quality indicators (QIs) in Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers is complicated by estimation error caused by small numbers of eligible patients per facility. We applied multilevel modeling and empirical Bayes (EB) estimation in addressing this issue in performance reporting of stroke care quality in the Medical Centers. Methods and Results—We studied a retrospective cohort of 3812 veterans admitted to 106 Medical Centers with ischemic stroke during fiscal year 2007. The median number of study patients per facility was 34 (range, 12–105). Inpatient stroke care quality was measured with 13 evidence-based QIs. Eligible patients could either pass or fail each indicator. Multilevel modeling of a patient's pass/fail on individual QIs was used to produce facility-level EB-estimated QI pass rates and confidence intervals. The EB estimation reduced interfacility variation in QI rates. Small facilities and those with exceptionally high or low rates were most affected. We recommended 8 of the 13 QIs for performance reporting: dysphagia screening, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale documentation, early ambulation, fall risk assessment, pressure ulcer risk assessment, Functional Independence Measure documentation, lipid management, and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. These QIs displayed sufficient variation across facilities, had room for improvement, and identified sites with performance that was significantly above or below the population average. The remaining 5 QIs were not recommended because of too few eligible patients or high pass rates with little variation. Conclusions—Considerations of statistical uncertainty should inform the choice of QIs and their application to performance reporting

Multiple uncontrolled conditions and blood pressure medication intensification: an observational study

Abstract Background Multiple uncontrolled medical conditions may act as competing demands for clinical decision making. We hypothesized that multiple uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors would decrease blood pressure (BP) medication intensification among uncontrolled hypertensive patients. Methods We observed 946 encounters at two VA primary care clinics from May through August 2006. After each encounter, clinicians recorded BP medication intensification (BP medication was added or titrated). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory information were collected from the medical record. We examined BP medication intensification by presence and control of diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia. 'Uncontrolled' was defined as hemoglobin A1c ≥ for diabetes, BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg (≥ 130/80 mmHg if diabetes present) for hypertension, and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) ≥ 130 mg/dl (≥ 100 mg/dl if diabetes present) for hyperlipidemia. Hierarchical regression models accounted for patient clustering and adjusted medication intensification for age, systolic BP, and number of medications. Results Among 387 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 51.4% had diabetes (25.3% were uncontrolled) and 73.4% had hyperlipidemia (22.7% were uncontrolled). The BP medication intensification rate was 34.9% overall, but higher in individuals with uncontrolled diabetes and uncontrolled hyperlipidemia: 52.8% overall and 70.6% if systolic BP ≥ 10 mmHg above goal. Intensification rates were lowest if diabetes or hyperlipidemia were controlled, lower than if diabetes or hyperlipidemia were not present. Multivariable adjustment yielded similar results. Conclusions The presence of uncontrolled diabetes and hyperlipidemia was associated with more guideline-concordant hypertension care, particularly if BP was far from goal. Efforts to understand and improve BP medication intensification in patients with controlled diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia are warranted.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78266/1/1748-5908-5-55.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78266/2/1748-5908-5-55.pdfPeer Reviewe

Rationale and design of the Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS)

Background: Unresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. Methods: Six U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a “gold standard” medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders. Discussion At baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT0133706

Is physician engagement with Web-based CME associated with patients\u27 baseline hemoglobin A1c levels? The Rural Diabetes Online Care study

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between physician participants\u27 levels of engagement in a Web-based educational intervention and their patients\u27 baseline diabetes measures. METHOD: The authors conducted a randomized trial of online CME activities designed to improve diabetes care provided by family, general, and internal medicine physicians in rural areas of 11 southeastern states between September 2006 and July 2008. Using incidence rate ratios derived from negative binomial models, the relationship between physicians\u27 engagement with the study Web site and baseline proportion of their patients having controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A1c \u3c or = 7%) was explored. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three participants (intervention = 64; control = 69) provided information for 1,637 patients with diabetes. In the intervention group, physicians in practices in the worst quartiles of A1c control were least engaged with the study Web site in nearly all dimensions. Total number of pages viewed decreased as quartile of A1c control worsened (137, 73, 68, 57; P = .007); similarly, for a given 10% increase in proportion of patients with controlled A1c, participants viewed 1.13 times more pages (95% CI: 1.02-1.26, P = .02). In the control group, engagement was neither correlated with A1c control nor different across quartiles of A1c control. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement in Web-based interventions is measurable and has important implications for research and education. Because physicians of patients with the greatest need for improvement in A1c control may not use online educational resources as intensely as others, other strategies may be necessary to engage these physicians in professional development activities

Patient complexity and diabetes quality of care in rural settings

PURPOSE: Even though pay-for-performance programs are being rapidly implemented, little is known about how patient complexity affects practice-level performance assessment in rural settings. We sought to determine the association between patient complexity and practice-level performance in the rural United States. BASIC PROCEDURES: Using baseline data from a trial aimed at improving diabetes care, we determined factors associated with a practice\u27s proportion of patients having controlled diabetes (hemoglobin A1c MAIN FINDINGS: Rural primary care practices (n=135) in 11 southeastern states provided information for 1641 patients with diabetes. For practices in the best quartile of observed control, 76.1% of patients had controlled diabetes vs 19.3% of patients in the worst quartile. After controlling for other variables, proportions of diabetes control were 10% lower in those practices whose patients had the greatest difficulty with either self testing or appointment keeping (p PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Basing public reporting and resource allocation on quality assessment that does not account for patient characteristics may further harm this vulnerable group of patients and physicians

The E-Coach technology-assisted care transition system: a pragmatic randomized trial

Care transitions from the hospital to home remain a vulnerable time for many patients, especially for those with heart failure (CHF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite regular use in chronic disease management, it remains unclear how technology can best support patients during their transition from the hospital. We sought to evaluate the impact of a technology-supported care transition support program on hospitalizations, days out of the community and mortality. Using a pragmatic randomized trial, we enrolled patients (511 enrolled, 478 analyzed) hospitalized with CHF/COPD to E-Coach, an intervention with condition-specific customization and in-hospital and post-discharge support by a care transition nurse (CTN), interactive voice response post-discharge calls, and CTN follow-up versus usual post-discharge care (UC). The primary outcome was 30-day rehospitalization. Secondary outcomes included (1) rehospitalization and death and (2) days in the hospital and out of the community. E-Coach and UC groups were similar at baseline except for gender imbalance (p = 0.02). After adjustment for gender, our primary outcome, 30-day rehospitalization rates did not differ between the E-Coach and UC groups (15.0 vs. 16.3 %, adjusted hazard ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 0.94 [0.60, 1.49]). However, in the COPD subgroup, E-Coach was associated with significantly fewer days in the hospital (0.5 vs. 1.6, p = 0.03). E-Coach, an IVR-augmented care transition intervention did not reduce rehospitalization. The positive impact on our secondary outcome (days in hospital) among COPD patients, but not in CHF, may suggest that E-Coach may be more beneficial among patients with COPD.NIH trial registry number: NCT01135381Trial Protocol: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cct.2012.08.007

A web-based diabetes intervention for physician: a cluster-randomized effectiveness trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a provider-based education and implementation intervention for improving diabetes control. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized trial with baseline and follow-up cross sections of diabetes patients in each participating physician\u27s practice. SETTING: Eleven US Southeastern states, 2006-08. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and five rural primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: Multi-component interactive intervention including Web-based continuing medical education, performance feedback and quality improvement tools. Primary Outcome Measures \u27Acceptable control\u27 [hemoglobin A1c≤9%, blood pressure (BP) \u3c140/90 mmHg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) \u3c130 mg/dl] and \u27optimal control\u27 (A1c \u3c7%, BP \u3c130/80 mmHg, LDL \u3c100 mg/dl). RESULTS: Of 364 physicians attempting to register, 205 were randomized to the intervention (n= 102) or control arms (n= 103). Baseline and follow-up data were provided by 95 physicians (2127 patients). The proportion of patients with A1c ≤9% was similar at baseline and follow-up in both the control [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.47] and intervention arms [AOR: 1.16 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.69)]; BP \u3c140/90 mmHg and LDL \u3c130 mg/dl were also similar at both measurement points (P= 0.66, P= 0.46; respectively). We observed no significant effect on diabetes control attributable to the intervention for any of the primary outcome measures. Intervention physicians engaged with the Website over a median of 64.7 weeks [interquartile range (IQR): 45.4-81.8) for a median total of 37 min (IQR: 16-66). CONCLUSIONS: A wide-reach, low-intensity, Web-based interactive multi-component intervention did not improve control of glucose, BP or lipids for patients with diabetes of physicians practicing in the rural Southeastern US