Evaluating adherence to American Diabetes Association standards of care in diabetes and impacts of social determinants of health on patients at two nurse practitioner-owned clinics.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created barriers in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and worsened social determinants of health (SDOH). A New Hampshire primary care office worked to adhere to T2DM standards of care and began screening for SDOH. This project assessed adherence to quality metrics, hemoglobin A1C, and SDOH screening as telehealth utilization decreased. LOCAL PROBLEM: A1C values have increased at the practice, especially since COVID-19. The practice also began screening for SDOH at every visit, but there was need to assess how needs were being documented and if/how they were addressed. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with T2DM was performed. Demographic data and T2DM metrics were collected and compared with previous years and compared new versus established patients. Charts were reviewed to evaluate documentation of SDOH and appropriate referral. INTERVENTIONS: The practice transitioned from an increased utliization of telehealth back to prioritizing in-office visits. The practice also began routinely screening for SDOH in 2020; however, this process had not been standardized or evaluated. RESULTS: Adherence to nearly all quality metrics improved. Glycemic control improved after a year of nurse practitioner (NP) care, especially in new patients. All patients were screened for SDOH, but documentation varied, and affected patients had higher A1Cs, despite receiving comparable care. CONCLUSION: Nurse practitioners at this practice are adhering to American Diabetes Association guidelines, and A1C values improve under their care. Social determinants of health continue to act as unique barriers that keep patients from improving glycemic control, highlighting the need for individualized treatment of SDOH in T2DM care.

Pregnancy intentionality in relation to non-planning impulsivity.

BACKGROUND: Half of US pregnancies are unintended. Understanding risk factors is important for reducing unintended pregnancy rates. AIM: We examined a novel risk factor for unintended pregnancies, impulsivity. We hypothesized that non-planning impulsivity, but not motor or attentional impulsivity, would be related to pregnancy intention. METHODS: Pregnant women (N = 116) completed self-report measures during their second or third trimester. Impulsivity was measured using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-15); subscales measured motor, attentional and non-planning impulsivity (subscale range: 5-20). On each subscale, high impulsivity was indicated by a score of ≥11. Pregnancy intention was assessed by asking women whether they were trying to become pregnant at the time of conception (yes or no). Crude and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models estimated the cross-sectional association between impulsivity and unplanned pregnancy. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of women reported that their current pregnancy was unplanned, and 32% had high non-planning impulsivity. Fifty-one percent of women with high non-planning impulsivity reported an unplanned pregnancy versus 25% of women with low impulsivity. Women with high non-planning impulsivity had 3.53 times the odds of unplanned pregnancy compared to women with low non-planning impulsivity (adjusted OR =3.53, 95% CI: 1.23-10.14). Neither motor (adjusted OR =0.55, 95% CI: 0.10-2.90) nor attentional (adjusted OR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.25-2.84) impulsivity were related to pregnancy intentionality. CONCLUSIONS: High non-planning impulsivity may be a risk factor for unplanned pregnancy. Further research should explore whether increasing the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives or integrating if-then planning into contraceptive counseling among women with higher non-planning impulsivity can lower unplanned pregnancy rates.