Supporting best practice in the management of chronic diseases in primary health care settings: a scoping review of training programs for Indigenous Health Workers and Practitioners.

Background To improve diabetes management in primary health care for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples population, training programs that are culturally and contextually relevant to the local context are required. Using a scoping review methodology, the aim of this review was to describe the characteristics of chronic disease management training programs for Aboriginal Health Workers and Practitioners, their effectiveness on knowledge and skills, and client-related outcomes, and the enablers, barriers to delivery and participation. Methods Following protocol parameters, a systematic search was conducted in relevant databases and grey literature. Two independent reviewers screened the title and abstract of each paper to determine if the study met the inclusion criteria. Results Of the 23 included studies, most were developed with stakeholders, profession facilitated and delivered by cultural facilitators. All training programs included content knowledge, two included a professional support network, four provided on-the-job support and six had follow-up support post-training. Modes of delivery ranged from didactic, storytelling and hands-on learning. Two studies reported significant improvement in participants' knowledge and confidence; one reported improvement in knowledge (12.7% increase pre-post training), and an increase in confidence in both clinical and non-clinical skills. Enablers (relevance, modes of learning, power of networking, improved knowledge, confidence and clinical practice) and barriers (adult learning capabilities, competing work-family commitments) were reported. Few studies reported on knowledge transfer into clinical practice and client-related outcomes. Conclusions Multifaceted training programs for Aboriginal health workers are well received and may improve workforce capability.

ANDA-Evaluating Facilitated Feedback Enhancement - a Cluster randomised Trial (ANDA-EFFECT): protocol for a cluster randomised trial of audit feedback augmented with education and support, compared to feedback alone, on acceptability, utility and health outcomes in diabetes centres in Australia.

BACKGROUND: People living with diabetes must manage a range of factors for optimal control of glycaemia and to minimise the risk of diabetes-related complications. Diabetes practitioners are expected to follow guidelines for the key process of care and clinical outcomes, to help people living with diabetes achieve clinical targets. In Australia, the performance of diabetes centres against guidelines is evaluated by the Australian National Diabetes Audit, an annual clinical audit and feedback activity. Previous work has identified areas for improvement in the feedback provided to participating diabetes centres and suggested additional educational and support resources to assist in using audit feedback for the development of quality improvement activities. This cluster randomised trial will test the acceptability, utility and impact on selected clinical outcomes of the developed study intervention (audit feedback and a tailored educational and peer support cointervention). METHODS: Two-armed cluster randomised trial with Australian Diabetes Centres that participated in the Australian National Diabetes Audit in 2021 as the clusters, stratified by location and type of centre. We aim to recruit 35 diabetes centres in each arm. Both the intervention and control arms will receive an augmented feedback report, accompanied by a partially pre-populated slide deck. In addition, the intervention arm will receive a tailored theory-based intervention designed to address identified, modifiable barriers to utilising and implementing the recommendations from diabetes audit feedback. The co-primary outcomes are (1) HbA1c at the patient level, measured at 6 months after delivery of the intervention, and (2) the acceptability and utility of the augmented feedback and cointerventions at the practitioner level, measured at 3 months after delivery of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to test the effects of systematic development and implementation of theory and evidence-informed changes to the audit feedback delivered to diabetes centres participating in an established national clinical diabetes audit. Potential benefits of improved audit feedback include more optimal engagement with the feedback by end clinical users which, ultimately, may lead to improvements in care for people living with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000765820. Prospectively registered on June 21, 2021.

Management of type 2 diabetes in young adults aged 18-30 years: ADS/ADEA/APEG consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes in young adults (nominally, 18-30 years of age) is a more aggressive condition than that seen in older age, with a greater risk of major morbidity and early mortality. This first Australian consensus statement on the management of type 2 diabetes in young adults considers areas where existing type 2 diabetes guidance, directed mainly towards older adults, may not be appropriate or relevant for the young adult population. Where applicable, recommendations are harmonised with current national guidance for type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents (aged < 18 years). The full statement is available at https://www.diabetessociety.com.au, https://www.adea.com.au and https://www.apeg.org.au. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Advice is provided on important aspects of care including screening, diabetes type, psychological care, lifestyle, glycaemic targets, pharmacological agents, cardiovascular disease risk management, comorbidity assessment, contraception and pregnancy planning, and patient-centred education. Special considerations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are highlighted separately. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Management recommendations for young adults, which differ from those for adults, include: ▪screening for diabetes in young adults with overweight or obesity and additional risk factors, including in utero exposure to type 2 diabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus; ▪more stringent glucose targets (glycated haemoglobin ≤ 6.5% [≤ 48 mmol/mol]); ▪in the context of obesity or higher cardio-renal risk, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are preferred second line agents; ▪ß-cell decline is more rapid, so frequent review, early treatment intensification and avoidance of therapeutic inertia are indicated; ▪a blood pressure target of < 130/80 mmHg, as the adult target of ≤ 140/90 mmHg is too high; ▪absolute cardiovascular disease risk calculators are not likely to be accurate in this age group; early statin use should therefore be considered; and ▪a multidisciplinary model of care including an endocrinologist and a certified diabetes educator.

Making the most of audit and feedback to improve diabetes care: a qualitative study of the perspectives of Australian Diabetes Centres.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has high burden on the health system and the individual, and many people living with diabetes struggle to optimally manage their condition. In Australia, people living with diabetes attend a mixture of primary, secondary and tertiary care centres. Many of these Diabetes Centres participate in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA), a quality improvement (QI) activity that collects clinical information (audit) and feeds back collated information to participating sites (feedback). Despite receiving this feedback, many process and care outcomes for Diabetes Centres continue to show room for improvement. The purpose of this qualitative study was to inform improvement of the ANDA feedback, identify the needs of those receiving feedback and elicit the barriers to and enablers of optimal feedback use. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of Australian Diabetes Centres, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). De-identified transcripts were analysed thematically, underpinned by the domains and constructs of the CFIR. RESULTS: Representatives from 14 Diabetes centres participated in this study, including a diverse range of staff typical of the Diabetes Centres who take part in ANDA. In general, participants wanted a shorter report with a more engaging, simplified data visualisation style. Identified barriers to use of feedback were time or resource constraints, as well as access to knowledge about how to use the data provided to inform the development of QI activities. Enablers included leadership engagement, peer mentoring and support, and external policy and incentives. Potential cointerventions to support use include exemplars from clinical change champions and peer leaders, and educational resources to help facilitate change. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study supported our contention that the format of ANDA feedback presentation can be improved. Healthcare professionals suggested actionable changes to current feedback to optimise engagement and potential implementation of QI activities. These results will inform redesign of the ANDA feedback to consider the needs and preferences of end users and to provide feedback and other supportive cointerventions to improve care, and so health outcomes for people with diabetes. A subsequent cluster randomised trial will enable us to evaluate the impact of these changes.

Exploring HbA1c variation between Australian diabetes centres: The impact of centre-level and patient-level factors.

BACKGROUND: Increasing global diabetes incidence has profound implications for health systems and for people living with diabetes. Guidelines have established clinical targets but there may be variation in clinical outcomes including HbA1c, based on location and practice size. Investigating this variation may help identify factors amenable to systemic improvement interventions. The aims of this study were to identify centre-specific and patient-specific factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels and to determine how these associations contribute to variation in performance across diabetes centres. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed data for 5,872 people with type 1 (n = 1,729) or type 2 (n = 4,143) diabetes mellitus collected through the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). A linear mixed-effects model examined centre-level and patient-level factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Mean age was: 43±17 years (type 1), 64±13 (type 2); median disease duration: 18 years (10,29) (type 1), 12 years (6,20) (type 2); female: 52% (type 1), 45% (type 2). For people with type 1 diabetes, volume of patients was associated with increases in HbA1c (p = 0.019). For people with type 2 diabetes, type of centre was associated with reduction in HbA1c (p <0.001), but location and patient volume were not. Associated patient-level factors associated with increases in HbA1c included past hyperglycaemic emergencies (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (type 2, p<0.001). Being a non-smoker was associated with reductions in HbA1c (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Centre-level and patient-level factors were associated with variation in HbA1c, but patient-level factors had greater impact. Interventions targeting patient-level factors conducted at a centre level including sick-day management, smoking cessation programs and culturally appropriate diabetes education for and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be more important for improving glycaemic control than targeting factors related to the Centre itself.

Trends in glycaemic control and drug use in males and females with type 2 diabetes: Results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit from 2013 to 2019.

AIM: To investigate temporal changes in glycaemic control and the use of antihyperglycaemic therapies in females and males with type 2 diabetes from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: Data from adult patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 11 930; 44.9% females, mean [SD] age of 62.9 [12.9] years) were analysed from the 2013 to 2019 biennial cross-sectional Australian National Diabetes Audit. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c remained similar throughout the years examined and between the sexes (7.8%-8.3%, 62-67 mmol/mol; P > .05). The number of antihyperglycaemic agents used by both sexes increased from 2013 to 2019 (P < .001), with more agents used by males (P = .014). From 2013 to 2019, there were increasing proportions of both sexes using dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (females: 11.7%-25.7%, P = .045; males: 11.6%-29.5%, P = .036) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (females: 5.9%-15.3%; males: 4.9%-11.1%; P = .043 for both). Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors were not available in 2013; however, their use increased substantially from 2015 to 2019 in both females (4.9%-26.3%, P = .013) and males (4.7%-32.2%, P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: From 2013 to 2019, mean HbA1c levels remained unchanged despite a concurrent increase in the number of antihyperglycaemic medications used. Overall, there was a trend towards preferencing newer agents with some differences in treatment regimens relating to sex and renal function.

What Gets Measured Gets Improved-Setting Standards and Accreditation for Quality Improvement for Diabetes Services in Australia.

The purpose of this article is to illustrate that setting standards of care is the cornerstone for excellence in diabetes management. This is underpinned by 3 activities: a standards and accreditation process, an audit and benchmarking program and a linked quality improvement plan. While there are many examples of local auditing and quality improvement programs, there are very few that are at a national level. The National Association of Diabetes Centres (NADC) was formed by the Australian Diabetes Society and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association to set standards of diabetes care in Australia. A rigorous accreditation process was put in place to recognize primary, secondary, and tertiary level diabetes centers that meet these standards. The NADC accreditation process is underpinned by a quality improvement plan, which must be submitted for accreditation to be granted and is informed by the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). ANDA is conducted annually to gather information about treatments, complications, self-care practices and quality of life outcomes and provides a national as well as an individual report to the participating center that is used to benchmark against other like centers. The ANDA reports are important to inform national policy and advocacy for diabetes care and to also provide information for quality improvement purposes for the individual participating center. We believe that the NADC Standards and Accreditation can be an exemplar for other countries to adapt and adopt to standardize diabetes care at the highest level.

Glycaemia and utilisation of technology across the lifespan of adults with type 1 diabetes: Results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA).

AIMS: To evaluate the utilisation of technologies and associated glycaemia among adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: De-identified data from adults with type 1 diabetes (≥18 years old) in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA)-2019 were analysed. Proportions using insulin pumps or injections with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or capillary-glucose testing were compared. Technology use among adults was compared to young people (<21 years old) with subsidised CGM. Glycaemia and complication-burden were assessed across management strategies. RESULTS: 1,693 adults were analysed. Mean(±SD) age, diabetes duration, and HbA1c were 43.3 ± 17.0 years, 20.3 ± 14.3 years and 8.4% ± 1.7 [68 ± 19 mmol/mol], respectively. Among adults, 40% used at least one device, 27% used insulin pumps, and 23% used CGM. CGM was used by 62% of young people with subsidised access. Mean HbA1c was consistently lower among adults using CGM, insulin pumps, or combined insulin pump and CGM compared to standard care (8.3% ± 1.6 [67 ± 18 mmol/mol], 8.2% ± 1.4 [66 ± 15 mmol/mol], and 7.8% ± 1.4 [62 ± 15 mmol/mol] respectively compared to 8.6% ± 1.8 [70 ± 20 mmol/mol], p < 0.001). Technology use was not associated with diabetic ketoacidosis but CGM was associated with more hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Government subsidy is an important consideration for utilisation of technologies among adults with type 1 diabetes. Technology use across the adult lifespan was associated with lower HbA1c than insulin injections and capillary-glucose testing.

Age-related differences in glycaemic control, cardiovascular disease risk factors and treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study from the Australian National Diabetes Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk factor profiles of younger and older patients with type 2 diabetes. Cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2015 Australian National Diabetes Audit was undertaken. METHODS: Data were obtained from adults with type 2 diabetes presenting to Australian secondary/tertiary diabetes centres. Logistic regression examined associations with glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) >7% (53 mmol/mol) and cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: Data from 3492 patients were analysed. Mean (±SD) age was 62.9±12.5 years, mean diabetes duration 13.5±9.4 years and mean HbA1c 8.2%±1.8%. Mean HbA1c was 8.6%±2.1% and 8.0%±1.6% for the younger (<60 years) and older subgroups (≥60 years), respectively (p<0.001). The adjusted OR (aOR) of HbA1c above >7.0% was 1.5 times higher (95% CI 1.22 to 1.84) for younger patients compared with older patients after adjustment for gender, smoking, diabetes duration, renal function and body mass index. Younger patients were also more likely to have dyslipidaemia (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.68; p<0.001), be obese (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49; p<0.001) and be current smokers (aOR 2.13 95% CI 1.64 to 2.77; p<0.001) than older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Younger age was associated with poorer glycaemic control and adverse cardiovascular risk factor profiles. It is imperative to optimise and monitor treatment in order to improve long-term outcomes.

Risk-adjustment of diabetes health outcomes improves the accuracy of performance benchmarking.

Benchmarking clinical performance by comparing diabetes health outcomes across healthcare providers drives quality improvement. Non-care related patient risk factors are likely to confound clinical performance, but few studies have tested this. This cross-sectional study is the first Australian investigation to analyse the effect of risk-adjustment for non-care related patient factors on benchmarking. Data from 4,670 patients with type 2 (n = 3,496) or type 1 (n = 1,174) were analysed across 49 diabetes centres. Diabetes health outcomes (HbA1c levels, LDL-cholesterol levels, systolic blood pressure and rates of severe hypoglycaemia) were risk-adjusted for non-care related patient factors using multivariate stepwise linear and logistic regression models. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted funnel plots were constructed for each outcome to identify low-performing and high-performing outliers. Unadjusted funnel plots identified 27 low-performing outliers and 15 high-performing outliers across all diabetes health outcomes. After risk-adjustment, 22 (81%) low-performing outliers and 13 (87%) high-performing outliers became inliers. Additionally, one inlier became a low-performing outlier. Risk-adjustment of diabetes health outcomes significantly reduced false positives and false negatives for outlier performance, hence providing more accurate information to guide quality improvement activity.

Burden of cardiovascular risk factors and disease among patients with type 1 diabetes: results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA).

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk stratification is complex in type 1 diabetes. We hypothesised that traditional and diabetes-specific cardiovascular risk factors were prevalent and strongly associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) among adults with type 1 diabetes attending Australian diabetes centres. METHODS: De-identified, prospectively collected data from patients with type 1 diabetes aged ≥ 18 years in the 2015 Australian National Diabetes Audit were analysed. The burden of cardiovascular risk factors [age, sex, diabetes duration, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, lipid profile, body mass index, smoking status, retinopathy, renal function and albuminuria] and associations with CVD inclusive of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery/angioplasty and peripheral vascular disease were assessed. Restricted cubic splines assessed for non-linearity of diabetes duration and likelihood ratio test assessed for interactions between age, diabetes duration, centre type and cardiovascular outcomes of interest. Discriminatory ability of multivariable models were assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Data from 1169 patients were analysed. Mean (± SD) age and median diabetes duration was 40.0 (± 16.7) and 16.0 (8.0-27.0) years respectively. Cardiovascular risk factors were prevalent including hypertension (21.9%), dyslipidaemia (89.4%), overweight/obesity (56.4%), ever smoking (38.5%), albuminuria (31.1%), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (10.3%) and HbA1c > 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (81.0%). Older age, longer diabetes duration, smoking and antihypertensive therapy use were positively associated with CVD, while high density lipoprotein-cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure were negatively associated (p < 0.05). Association with CVD and diabetes duration remained constant until 20 years when a linear increase was noted. Longer diabetes duration also had the highest population attributable risk of 6.5% (95% CI 1.4, 11.6). Further, the models for CVD demonstrated good discriminatory ability (area under the ROC curve 0.88; 95% CI 0.84, 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular risk factors were prevalent and strongly associated with CVD among adults with type 1 diabetes attending Australian diabetes centres. Given the approximate J-shaped association between type 1 diabetes duration and CVD, the impact of cardiovascular risk stratification and management before and after 20 years duration needs to be further assessed longitudinally. Diabetes specific cardiovascular risk stratification tools incorporating diabetes duration should be an important consideration in future guideline development.

Depression and diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes: results from the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA) 2016.

This study explores the prevalence of, and factors associated with, likely depression and diabetes distress in adults with type 2 diabetes in a large, national sample. Australian National Diabetes Audit data were analysed from adults with type 2 diabetes attending 50 diabetes centres. The Brief Case find for Depression and Diabetes Distress Score 17 were administered to screen for likely depression and diabetes-related distress, respectively. A total of 2,552 adults with type 2 diabetes participated: (mean ± SD) age was 63 ± 13 years, diabetes duration was 12 ± 10 years, and HbA1c was 8 ± 2%. Twenty-nine percent of patients had likely depression, 7% had high diabetes distress, and 5% had both. Difficulty following dietary recommendations, smoking, forgetting medications, and diabetes distress were all associated with greater odds of depression whereas higher own health rating was associated with lower odds (all p < 0.02). Female gender, increasing HbA1c, insulin use, difficulty following dietary recommendations and depression were all associated with greater odds of diabetes distress & older age, higher own health rating and monitoring blood glucose levels as recommended were associated with lower odds (all p < 0.04). Depression was associated with sub-optimal self-care, while diabetes distress was associated with higher HbA1c and sub-optimal self-care.

Age, age at diagnosis and diabetes duration are all associated with vascular complications in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is increasingly diagnosed in younger patients. The trajectory of complications in patients diagnosed at a younger or older age is not well understood. We examine the associations between age, age at diagnosis and diabetes duration and vascular complications in patients with T2DM. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of pre-specified demographic and clinical data, from 3419 adults with T2DM participating in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (2015). Factors associated with diabetes complications were analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) current age was 62.9±12.5years, age at diagnosis was 49.4±12.3years and mean diabetes duration was 13.5±9.4years. Macrovascular complications were more prevalent in patients who were older at diabetes diagnosis whereas microvascular complications were more prevalent in patients who were younger at diabetes diagnosis. Age, age at diagnosis and diabetes duration were all independently associated with increased risk of macrovascular complications after adjustment for sex, smoking, BMI and microvascular complications (all p<0.001). In contrast, only diabetes duration was independently associated with microvascular complications after adjustment for sex, smoking, BMI and macrovascular complications (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age, age at diagnosis, and diabetes duration were all independently associated with macrovascular complications whereas only diabetes duration was independently associated with microvascular complications.