Research articles
Preventive care practices for diabetes management in two primary care samples

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00157-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the level of physician performance on American Diabetes Association Provider Recognition Program (PRP) measures in two samples of primary care patients, as well as to identify patient, physician, and office characteristics related to performance levels.

Methods: In the two studies, we surveyed 435 Type 2 diabetes patients, cared for by 47 different physicians, on their receipt of PRP preventive care activities.

Results: Overall, patients in the two samples reported receiving 74% and 64% of recommended services. In both samples, performance of microvascular/glycemic control activities and cardiovascular lab checks (84% and 74%) was significantly higher than behavioral self-management/patient-focused activities (61% and 48%) (p<0.001). From a set of patient, physician, and practice setting characteristics, only the use of community resources for chronic illness management support was associated with service performance.

Conclusions: We found considerable variability in the levels of performance in providing PRP-recommended activities. Greater attention should be focused on self-management and patient-focused activities, given that these are delivered less frequently than medical/laboratory checks.

Introduction

T he emergence of clinical practice guidelines, disease management programs, evidence-based clinical pathways, “best practices,” and disease-specific performance measures is prominent among the many changes in health care during the past decade. Spurred by the confluence of evidence-based medicine1, 2 and the desire of managed care and other organizations to reduce nonproductive variations in practice, clinical performance measures and guidelines are applied with increasing frequency.2, 3, 4

Several factors have all contributed to the development of diabetes management recommendations, performance indicators, and guidelines: recent advances in diabetes self-management5, 6, 7; the emergence of conclusive data that demonstrate the efficacy of organized, comprehensive management in reducing diabetes complications and mortality8, 9, 10; and recognition of the enormous health care costs of diabetes.11, 12 Among these, the Provider Recognition Program (PRP) performance measures of the American Diabetes Association are prominent. The related Diabetes Quality Improvement Program measures,13 essentially a subset of the PRP measures, have been adopted recently as Health Employer Data Info Survey criteria.

Initial studies of the PRP measures have found considerable variability in performance levels across various measures and providers.14, 15, 16 Specifically, patient-focused and self-management practices appear to occur less often than laboratory/screening activities, and internists may differ from family physicians in their diabetes care practices.15

Much of the brunt of following these new recommendations and best practices falls on the primary care provider, as the great majority of diabetes patients are managed in primary care.2, 17 Given that most of the recommended prevention activities must be accomplished or initiated during the ever more time-limited primary care visit, it is understandable that many of these activities are performed at substandard levels.2, 10 Diabetes is a complex and challenging chronic illness that requires numerous lifestyle changes, including microvascular and macrovascular disease–prevention activities.6, 11, 12, 18 Also, most diabetes patients have other comorbid chronic illnesses that further complicate their management.

Little research exists on patient, provider, or office characteristics associated with either diabetes patient–physician interactions or with the level of recommended preventive practices.15, 19, 20 In particular, more research has been recommended on contextual factors, such as the patient’s social environment and health care system characteristics,7, 10 and on patient and physician factors, such as gender, that may influence performance of preventive activities.21

The purpose of this report is threefold: (1) to report on the overall levels of PRP preventive measures in two different primary care samples, as replication is important, especially in new areas of investigation; (2) to determine whether levels of performance for laboratory/screening were higher than for patient-focused/self-management activities; and (3) to determine whether we could replicate reported findings concerning patient and physician characteristics associated with performance of these prevention activities.

Section snippets

Recruitment of practices, providers, and patients

Within each of the two different health care systems in the Pacific Northwest, we made arrangements with influential physician leaders to facilitate access to primary care providers within their systems. We approached 35 and 16 primary care physicians for Study 1 and Study 2, respectively. Of these, 33 (94%) and 14 (88%) participated. We summarize their characteristics in Table 1. Fifty-five percent and fourteen percent were family physicians, 45% and 21% were female, the average number of

Results

Table 3 summarizes the level of performance reported for each of the 11 PRP measures for Study 1 and Study 2. As shown, overall results were similar across the two studies. On average, 74% and 64% of the activities were reported as completed within the recommended time interval in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively (difference significant, t=5.15, p<0.001). Only 5% of patients in Study 1 and 3% of patients in Study 2 reported meeting all performance criteria. Patients in Study 1 reported

Discussion

Consistent with earlier reports of diabetes15, 16, 26 and other preventive practices,2, 25, 27 we observed both sub-optimal and variable levels of preventive practices. We found some encouraging results pertaining to frequent testing of HbA1C (88% and 85%), blood pressure16 (95% and 92%), and lipids (91% and 81%). These findings suggest that the message from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial8, 28 and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group9 that “metabolic control and

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by NIH grants RO1DK 51581 and RO1DK35524–13. We express our appreciation to Shawn Boles, Jane Brown, Ed Feil, Lyn Foster, and Melda DeSalvo for their assistance in data collection.

References (32)

  • R.C. Brownson et al.

    Evidence-based decision making in public health

    J Public Health Manage Pract

    (1999)
  • Starfield B. Primary care: balancing health needs, services, and technology. New York: Oxford University Press,...
  • Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd ed

    (1996)
  • Health plan employer data and information set 3.0

    (1996)
  • S. Clement

    Diabetes self-management education

    Diabetes Care

    (1995)
  • R.E. Glasgow et al.

    Issues in diabetes self-management

  • R.E. Glasgow et al.

    Behavioral science in diabetescontributions and opportunities

    Diabetes Care

    (1999)
  • The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

    N Engl J Med

    (1993)
  • Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk complications in patients with type 2 diabetes

    Lancet

    (1998)
  • Glasgow RE, Hiss RG, Anderson RM, et al. Behavioral research related to the establishment of a chronic disease model...
  • National Diabetes Data Group, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney...
  • Diabetesa serious public health problem

    (1996)
  • Diabetes quality improvement projectInitial measures set

    (1998)
  • L. Joyner et al.

    ADA’s provider recognition program

    HMO Pract

    (1997)
  • R.E. Glasgow et al.

    Diabetes care practices in primary care. Results from two samples and three performance measure sets

    Diabetes Educator

    (1999)
  • Kahn R, Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ninomiya J. Assessing quality of care in patients with diabetes. Are process or...
  • Cited by (67)

    • Sociodemographic characteristics associated with self-care and quality of life among community-dwelling older adults with type 2 diabetes

      2022, Primary Care Diabetes
      Citation Excerpt :

      Compared to those with post-secondary level education, individuals with no formal, primary, or secondary level education might face more challenges in following instructions for self-care and hence demonstrate lower levels of self-care [14]. This increases their risk of developing diabetes related complications [3]. Those who experience complications in turn will have a higher tendency to experience lower levels of quality of life [36].

    • Enhancing healthcare professional and caregiving staff informedness with data analytics for chronic disease management

      2021, Information and Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      For other definitions of key terms in this article, see Appendix 1.) Some studies have shown that patients with chronic illnesses often receive less-than-optimal care [15,16]. One reason is that methods of the acute health delivery system are unsuitable for addressing some patients’ needs, although these have emerged as a primary strategy for healthcare.

    • Organizational Variation in Implementation of an Evidence-Based Human Papillomavirus Intervention

      2015, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Evidence-based practice (EBP) is defined as the use of strategies or interventions that have been studied and shown to improve processes and outcomes.1 However, the time lag between research findings and their incorporation into practice stretches into decades,2 with evidence-based preventive and public health measures often used less frequently than those adopted in clinical settings.3 This long translational process frequently is marked by development of local adaptations intended to improve fit of the intervention to the requirements of disparate organizational resources, audiences, communities, and temporal constraints.2,4–6

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text