How Outpatient Diabetes Education Programs Can Support Local Hospitals to Reduce Emergency Department Visits for Adults With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim in this study was to assess the level of collaboration between a hospital-based outpatient diabetes education program (DEP) and emergency departments (EDs) for reducing number of ED revisits and hospital admissions by implementing intervention strategies to promote education services and streamlining referral and appointment intake processes. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years of age) with an ED visit for hyper- or hypoglycemia were analyzed in 2 cohorts based on their intervention exposure. We conducted a single-cohort analysis of the exposed cohort (exposure to the intervention strategies) and compared 2-year outcomes with those of the unexposed cohort. Primary outcomes were hyper- or hypoglycemia-related ED revisit and hospitalization rates. Process outcomes included DEP referrals and DEP attendance. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in ED revisits and hospital admissions between the exposed and unexposed cohorts. However, patients were more likely to be referred to a DEP by ED physicians (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; p=0.02) and to attend a DEP appointment (OR, 1.96; p<0.01) after intervention exposure. DEP attendees from both cohorts became less likely to revisit an ED (exposed: OR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.71; unexposed: OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.15) at 12-month follow up; however, this reduction was sustained only among the exposed cohort (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.81) and not the unexposed cohort (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.60 to 2.91) at 24 months (p=0.04 when comparing the 2 cohorts). CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between outpatient DEPs with local EDs could effectively reduce diabetes-related ED revisits by increasing diabetes program utilization.

Evaluating the impact of onsite diabetes education teams in primary care on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of integrating diabetes education teams in primary care on glycemic control, lipid, and blood-pressure management in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: A historical cohort design was used to assess the integration of teams comprising nurse and dietitian educators in 11 Ontario primary-care sites, which delivered individualized self-management education. Of the 771 adult patients with A1C ≥ 7% recruited, 487 patients attended appointments with the diabetes teams, while the remaining 284 patients did not. The intervention's primary goal was to increase the proportion of patients with A1C ≤7%. Secondary goals were to reduce mean A1C, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol-high density lipoprotein, and diastolic and systolic blood pressure, as recommended by clinical-practice guidelines. RESULTS: After 12 months, a higher proportion of intervention-group patients reached the target for A1C, compared with the control group. Mean A1C levels fell significantly among all patients, but the mean reduction was larger for the intervention group than the control group. Although more intervention-group patients reached targets for all clinical outcomes, the between-group differences were not statistically significant, except for A1C. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse and dietitian diabetes-education teams can have a clinically meaningful impact on patients' ability to meet recommended A1C targets. Given the study's historical cohort design, results are generalizable and applicable to day-to-day primary-care practice. Longer follow-up studies are needed to investigate whether the positive outcomes of the intervention are sustainable.

Impact of diabetes education teams in primary care on processes of care indicators.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of the integration of onsite diabetes education teams in primary care on processes of care indicators according to practice guidelines. METHODS: Teams of nurse and dietitian educators delivered individualized self-management education counseling in 11 Ontario primary care sites. Of the 771 adult patients with HbA1c ≥7% who were recruited in a prospective cohort study, 487 patients attended appointments with the education teams, while the remaining 284 patients did not (usual care group). Baseline demographic, clinical information, and patient care processes (diabetes medical visit, HbA1c test, lipid profile, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and albumin-to-creatinine ratio, measuring blood pressure, performing foot exams, provision of flu vaccine, and referral for dilated retinal exam) were collected from patient charts one year before (pre period) and after (post period) the integration began. A multi-level random effects model was used to analyze the effect of group and period on whether the process indicators were met based on practice guidelines. RESULTS: Compared to the usual care group, patients seen by the education teams had significant improvements on indicators for semi-annual medical visit and annual foot exam. No significant improvements were found for other process of care indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Onsite education teams in primary care settings can potentially improve diabetes management as shown in two process of care indicators: medical visits and foot exams. The results support the benefits of having education teams in primary care settings to increase adherence to practice guidelines.

Will Mobile Diabetes Education Teams (MDETs) in primary care improve patient care processes and health outcomes? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that delivery of diabetes self-management support by diabetes educators in primary care may improve patient care processes and patient clinical outcomes; however, the evaluation of such a model in primary care is nonexistent in Canada. This article describes the design for the evaluation of the implementation of Mobile Diabetes Education Teams (MDETs) in primary care settings in Canada. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use a non-blinded, cluster-randomized controlled trial stepped wedge design to evaluate the Mobile Diabetes Education Teams' intervention in improving patient clinical and care process outcomes. A total of 1,200 patient charts at participating primary care sites will be reviewed for data extraction. Eligible patients will be those aged ≥18, who have type 2 diabetes and a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of ≥8%. Clusters (that is, primary care sites) will be randomized to the intervention and control group using a block randomization procedure within practice size as the blocking factor. A stepped wedge design will be used to sequentially roll out the intervention so that all clusters eventually receive the intervention. The time at which each cluster begins the intervention is randomized to one of the four roll out periods (0, 6, 12, and 18 months). Clusters that are randomized into the intervention later will act as the control for those receiving the intervention earlier. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended HbA1c target of ≤7% between intervention and control groups. Qualitative work (in-depth interviews with primary care physicians, MDET educators and patients; and MDET educators' field notes and debriefing sessions) will be undertaken to assess the implementation process and effectiveness of the MDET intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01553266.