ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Primary care providers with limited time and resources bear a heavy responsibility for chronic disease prevention or progression. Reliable clinical tools are needed to risk stratify patients for more targeted care. This exploratory study examined the care of patients who had been risk stratified regarding their likelihood of clinically progressing to type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review pilot study conducted to assess a primary care provider's use of a risk screening test. In this quality improvement project, the result of the risk screening was examined in relation to its influence on medical management and clinical impact on patients at risk for diabetes. All providers were board certified in family medicine and had more than 10 years clinical experience in managing diabetes and prediabetes. No specific clinical practice guidelines were mandated for patient care in this pilot study. Physicians in the practice group received an orientation to the diabetes risk measure and its availability for use in a pilot study to be conducted over a 6-month period. We identified the 696 nondiabetic adults in family practices who received a risk screening test (PreDx(®), a multi-marker blood test that estimates the 5-year likelihood of conversion to type 2 diabetes) between June and November 2011 for a 6-month sample. A comparison group of 2,002 patients from a total database of 3.2 million patients who did not receive the risk test was randomly selected from the same clinical database after matching for age, sex, selected diagnoses, and metabolic risk factors. Patient groups were compared for intensity of care provided and clinical impact. RESULTS: Compared to patients with a similar demographic and diagnostic profile, patients who had the risk test received more intensive primary care and had better clinical outcome than comparison patients. Risk-tested patients were more likely to return for follow-up visits, be monitored for relevant cardio-metabolic risk factors, and receive prescription medications with P<0.001. Further, intensity of care was associated with the level of risk test result: patients with moderate or high scores were more likely to return for follow-up visits and receive prescription medications than patients with low scores. All P-values for comparison patients between the low and moderate groups, low and high groups, and moderate and high groups resulted in P<0.001. Risk-tested patients were more likely than their comparison group counterparts to achieve weight reduction, lowered blood pressure, and improved blood glucose and cholesterol as demonstrated by P-values of <0.001. CONCLUSION: Use of a risk stratification test in primary care may help providers to more effectively identify high risk patients, manage diabetes risk, increase patient involvement in diabetes risk management, and improve clinical outcomes. A randomized controlled study is the next step to investigate the impact of diabetes risk stratification in primary care.
ABSTRACT
GOALS: To describe patterns of antidepressant (ADs) prescribing in community oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected using an electronic medical record on all staged breast, colon, and lung cancer patients in three community-based oncology practices. The data were analyzed retrospectively, using descriptive and bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression modeling. There were 850 breast, 299 colon, and 473 lung cancer patients identified in this analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 19.2% of breast, 11% of colon, and 13.7% of lung cancer patients had been prescribed ADs during the 2-year period. The clinic in which cancer treatment was received predicted AD prescribing. The relationship between AD administration and age proved to be nonlinear; the pattern exhibited an "inverted U" shape. Patients with comorbidities and on pain medications were more likely to be administered ADs. Colon cancer patients on pain medications were five times more likely to be administered ADs than those not on pain medications. CONCLUSIONS: While some predictors of AD prescribing appear to be consistent with other studies, such as being on pain medication, there is still a great amount of variability in prescribing patterns across community practices, age groups, and cancer diagnoses. This study demonstrates that prescriptions of ADs seem to be influenced by parameters other than psychopathology. Given the importance of major depression in oncology care, diagnosis of psychiatric disorders and prescription patterns of psychotropics should be part of the routine monitoring and quality management in oncology patient care.
