Getting Under the Skin of Clinical Inertia in Insulin Initiation: The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Insulin Starts Project

Purpose The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to explore primary care providers’ (PCPs) perceptions about barriers to initiating insulin among patients. Studies suggest that many patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes do not receive insulin initiation by PCPs. Methods As part of the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes study, the authors conducted structured interviews in health systems in Indiana, New Jersey, and California, asking PCPs about the importance of insulin initiation and factors affecting this decision. The authors calculated proportions choosing each multiple-choice response option and listed the most frequently offered open-ended response categories. Results Among 83 PCPs, 45% were women; 60% were white; and they averaged 13.4 years in practice. Four-fifths of PCPs endorsed guideline-concordant glycemic targets, but 54% individualized targets based on patient age, life expectancy, medical comorbidities, self-management capacity, and willingness. Most (64%) reported that many patients were resistant to new oral or insulin therapies due to fears about the therapy and what it meant about their disease progression. Two-thirds (64%) cited patient resistance as a barrier to insulin initiation, and 43% cited problems with patient self-management, including cognitive or mental health issues, dexterity, or ability to adhere. Eighty percent felt that patient nonadherence would dissuade them from initiating insulin at least some of the time. Conclusions PCPs perceived that patient resistance and poor self- management skills were significant barriers to initiating insulin. Future studies should investigate whether systems-level interventions to improve patient-provider communication about insulin and enhance providers’ perceptions of patient self-management capacity can increase guideline-concordant, patient-centered insulin initiation

Temporal trends in recording of diabetes on death certificates: results from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD)

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency that diabetes is reported on death certificates of decedents with known diabetes and describe trends in reporting over 8 years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 11,927 participants with diabetes who were enrolled in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes, a multicenter prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. Data on decedents (N=2,261) were obtained from the National Death Index from 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2007. The primary dependent variables were the presence of the ICD-10 codes for diabetes listed anywhere on the death certificate or as the underlying cause of death. RESULTS: Diabetes was recorded on 41% of death certificates and as the underlying cause of death for 13% of decedents with diabetes. Diabetes was significantly more likely to be reported on the death certificate of decedents dying of cardiovascular disease than all other causes. There was a statistically significant trend of increased reporting of diabetes as the underlying cause of death over time (P<0.001), which persisted after controlling for duration of diabetes at death. The increase in reporting of diabetes as the underlying cause of death was associated with a decrease in the reporting of cardiovascular disease as the underlying cause of death (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Death certificates continue to underestimate the prevalence of diabetes among decedents. The increase in reporting of diabetes as the underlying cause of death over the past 8 years will likely impact estimates of the burden of diabetes in the U.S

Predictors of mortality over 8 years in type 2 diabetic patients: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD)

OBJECTIVE To examine demographic, socioeconomic, and biological risk factors for all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes over 8 years and to construct mortality prediction equations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Beginning in 2000, survey and medical record information was obtained from 8,334 participants in Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a multicenter prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. The National Death Index was searched annually to obtain data on deaths over an 8-year follow-up period (2000–2007). Predictors examined included age, sex, race, education, income, smoking, age at diagnosis of diabetes, duration and treatment of diabetes, BMI, complications, comorbidities, and medication use. RESULTS There were 1,616 (19%) deaths over the 8-year period. In the most parsimonious equation, the predictors of all-cause mortality included older age, male sex, white race, lower income, smoking, insulin treatment, nephropathy, history of dyslipidemia, higher LDL cholesterol, angina/myocardial infarction/other coronary disease/coronary angioplasty/bypass, congestive heart failure, aspirin, β-blocker, and diuretic use, and higher Charlson Index. CONCLUSIONS Risk of death can be predicted in people with type 2 diabetes using simple demographic, socioeconomic, and biological risk factors with fair reliability. Such prediction equations are essential for computer simulation models of diabetes progression and may, with further validation, be useful for patient management

Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Diabetes is predicted to increase in incidence by 42% from 1995 to 2025. Although most adults with diabetes seek care from primary care practices, adherence to treatment guidelines in these settings is not optimal. Many practices lack the infrastructure to monitor patient adherence to recommended treatment and are slow to implement changes critical for effective management of patients with chronic conditions. Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC) will evaluate effectiveness and sustainability of a low-cost intervention designed to support work process change in primary care practices and enhance focus on population-based care through implementation of a diabetes registry. Methods: SPARC is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 30 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). Participating practices (including control groups) will be introduced to population health concepts and tools for work process redesign and registry adoption at a meeting of practice-level implementation champions. Practices randomized to the intervention will be assigned study peer mentors, receive a list of specific milestones, and have access to a physician informaticist. Peer mentors are clinicians who successfully implemented registries in their practices and will help champions in the intervention practices throughout the implementation process. During the first year, peer mentors will contact intervention practices monthly and visit them quarterly. Control group practices will not receive support or guidance for registry implementation. We will use a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design to guide collection of medical record, participant observation, and semistructured interview data in control and intervention practices at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. We will use grounded theory and a template-guided approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze qualitative data on contextual factors related to registry adoption. We will assess intervention effectiveness by comparing changes in patient-level hemoglobin A1c scores from baseline to year 1 between intervention and control practices. Discussion: Findings will enhance our understanding of how to leverage existing practice resources to improve diabetes care in primary care practices by implementing and using a registry. SPARC has the potential to validate the effectiveness of low-cost implementation strategies that target practice change in primary care

Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Diabetes is predicted to increase in incidence by 42% from 1995 to 2025. Although most adults with diabetes seek care from primary care practices, adherence to treatment guidelines in these settings is not optimal. Many practices lack the infrastructure to monitor patient adherence to recommended treatment and are slow to implement changes critical for effective management of patients with chronic conditions. Supporting Practices to Adopt Registry-Based Care (SPARC) will evaluate effectiveness and sustainability of a low-cost intervention designed to support work process change in primary care practices and enhance focus on population-based care through implementation of a diabetes registry. Methods: SPARC is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 30 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN). Participating practices (including control groups) will be introduced to population health concepts and tools for work process redesign and registry adoption at a meeting of practice-level implementation champions. Practices randomized to the intervention will be assigned study peer mentors, receive a list of specific milestones, and have access to a physician informaticist. Peer mentors are clinicians who successfully implemented registries in their practices and will help champions in the intervention practices throughout the implementation process. During the first year, peer mentors will contact intervention practices monthly and visit them quarterly. Control group practices will not receive support or guidance for registry implementation. We will use a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design to guide collection of medical record, participant observation, and semistructured interview data in control and intervention practices at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. We will use grounded theory and a template-guided approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze qualitative data on contextual factors related to registry adoption. We will assess intervention effectiveness by comparing changes in patient-level hemoglobin A1c scores from baseline to year 1 between intervention and control practices. Discussion: Findings will enhance our understanding of how to leverage existing practice resources to improve diabetes care in primary care practices by implementing and using a registry. SPARC has the potential to validate the effectiveness of low-cost implementation strategies that target practice change in primary care

Predictors and Impact of Intensification of Antihyperglycemic Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD)

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the predictors of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; its impact on A1C, body weight, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and health status; and patient characteristics associated with improvement in A1C.Research design and methodsWe analyzed survey, medical record, and health plan administrative data collected in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). We examined patients who were using diet/exercise or oral antihyperglycemic medications at baseline, had A1C &gt;7.2%, and stayed with the same therapy or intensified therapy (initiated or increased the number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic medications or began insulin) over 18 months.ResultsOf 1,093 patients, 520 intensified therapy with oral medications or insulin. Patients intensifying therapy were aged 58 +/- 12 years, had diabetes duration of 11 +/- 9 years, and had A1C of 9.1 +/- 1.5%. Younger age and higher A1C were associated with therapy intensification. Compared with patients who did not intensify therapy, those who intensified therapy experienced a 0.49% reduction in A1C (P &lt; 0.0001), a 3-pound increase in weight (P = 0.003), and no change in anxiety/depression (P = 0.5) or health status (P = 0.2). Among those who intensified therapy, improvement in A1C was associated with higher baseline A1C, older age, black race/ethnicity, lower income, and more physician visits.ConclusionsTreatment intensification improved glycemic control with no worsening of anxiety/depression or health status, especially in elderly, lower-income, and minority patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions are needed to overcome clinical inertia when patients might benefit from treatment intensification and improved glycemic control

Electronic Health Record Functionality Needed to Better Support Primary Care

Electronic health records (EHRs) must support primary care clinicians and patients, yet many clinicians remain dissatisfied with their system. This manuscript presents a consensus statement about gaps in current EHR functionality and needed enhancements to support primary care. The Institute of Medicine primary care attributes were used to define needs and Meaningful Use (MU) objectives to define EHR functionality. Current objectives remain disease- rather than whole-person focused, ignoring factors like personal risks, behaviors, family structure, and occupational and environmental influences. Primary care needs EHRs to move beyond documentation to interpreting and tracking information over time as well as patient partnering activities, support for team based care, population management tools that deliver care, and reduced documentation burden. While Stage 3 MU’s focus on outcomes is laudable, enhanced functionality is still needed including EHR modifications, expanded use of patient portals, seamless integration with external applications, and advancement of national infrastructure and policies

Partisan Competition and the Decline in Legislative Capacity among Congressional Offices

Since the 1990s, members of the US House have shifted resources away from legislative functions to representational activities. We reveal this decline using an original dataset constructed from 236,000 quarterly payroll disbursements by 1,090 member offices for 120,000 unique staff between the 103rd and 113th Congresses, as well as interviews with former members and staff in Congress. These data allow us to test two plausible alternative explanations, one rooted in the centralization of legislative power over time and the other in conservatives’ desires to contract government power. We show that the decline in legislative capacity is symmetrical between and consistent within both parties, contrary to expectations rooted in asymmetrical, ideological sabotage. Additionally, this divestment occurs within incumbent member offices over time, accelerates when new members replace incumbents, and persists when majority control changes. We conclude that competition over institutional control and centralization of legislative functions motivates declining legislative capacity among individual members