Diabetes management by residents in training in a municipal hospital primary care site (IPCAAD 2).

PURPOSE: Since diabetes is largely a primary care problem but we know little about management by residents in training--the primary care practitioners of the future--we examined surrogate outcomes reflective of their performance. METHODS: A seven-week observational study was conducted in a typical training site- a municipal hospital internal medicine resident "continuity" (primary care) clinic in a large, academic, university-affiliated training program. We evaluated control of glucose, blood pressure, and lipids; screening for proteinuria; and use of aspirin relative to national standards. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-six (556) patients were 72% female and 97% African-American, with mean age 63 years, duration of diabetes 12 years, and BMI 34 kg/m2. Patients were managed largely with diet alone (22%) or oral agents alone (40%); 7% used oral agents and insulin in combination, and 30% insulin alone. Hemoglobin A1c (mean 8.2%) was above goal (<7.0%) in 61% of patients. Low density lipoprotein cholesterol (mean 128 mg/dL) was above goal (<100) in 76% of patients, but high density lipoprotein (mean 53 mg/dL) was at goal in 46%, and triglycerides (mean 138 mg/dL) were at goal in 85%. Diastolic pressure (mean 75 mm Hg) was at goal (<85) in 77% of patients, but systolic pressure (mean 143) was at goal (<130) in only 25% of patients. An average of only 53% of the patients had urine protein screening per 12 months, and use of aspirin was documented for only 39% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes in a typical internal medicine resident primary care clinic frequently do not achieve national standard of care goals. Since skills and attitudes developed in residency are likely to carry over into later practice, local diabetes educators may need to work with medical faculty to develop new interventions to improve postgraduate medical education in diabetes management.

An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7.

OBJECTIVE: Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient's visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both. RESULTS: Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (deltaA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (deltaA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings.

Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether "clinical inertia"-inadequate intensification of therapy by the provider-could contribute to high A1C levels in patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care site. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, management was compared in the Medical Clinic, a primary care site supervised by general internal medicine faculty, and the Diabetes Clinic, a specialty site supervised by endocrinologists. These municipal hospital clinics serve a common population that is largely African American, poor, and uninsured. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-eight African American patients in the Medical Clinic and 2157 in the Diabetes Clinic were similar in average age, diabetes duration, body mass index, and gender, but A1C averaged 8.6% in the Medical Clinic versus 7.7% in the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Use of pharmacotherapy was less intensive in the Medical Clinic (less use of insulin), and when patients had elevated glucose levels during clinic visits, therapy was less than half as likely to be advanced in the Medical Clinic compared to the Diabetes Clinic (P < .0001). Intensification rates were lower in the Medical Clinic regardless of type of therapy (P < .0001), and intensification of therapy was independently associated with improvement in A1C (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical Clinic patients had worse glycemic control, were less likely to be treated with insulin, and were less likely to have their therapy intensified if glucose levels were elevated. To improve diabetes management and glycemic control nationwide, physicians in training and generalists must learn to overcome clinical inertia, to intensify therapy when appropriate, and to use insulin when clinically indicated.

Little time for diabetes management in the primary care setting.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine how time is allocated to diabetes care. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving care from the internal medicine residents were shadowed by research nurses to observe the process of management. The amount of time spent with patients and the care provided were observed and documented. RESULTS: The total time patients spent in the clinic averaged 2 hours and 26 minutes: 1 to 9 minutes waiting, 25 minutes with the resident, and 12 minutes with medical assistants and nurses. The residents spent an average of only 5 minutes on diabetes. Glucose monitoring was addressed in 70% of visits; a history of hypoglycemia was sought in only 30%. Blood pressure values were mentioned in 75% of visits; hemoglobin A1c (A1C) values were addressed in only 40%. The need for proper foot care was discussed in 55% of visits; feet were examined in only 40%. Although 65% of patients had capillary glucose levels greater than 150 mg/dL during the visit and their A1C averaged 8.9%, therapy was intensified for only 15% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: During a routine office visit in a resident-staffed general medicine clinic, little time is devoted to diabetes management. Given the time pressures on the primary care practitioner and the need for better diabetes care, it is essential to teach an efficient but systematic approach to diabetes care.