RESUMO
AIMS: To test (1) whether a diabetes scorecard can improve glycaemic control, blood pressure control, LDL cholesterol, aspirin usage and exercise; (2) if the scorecard will motivate and/or educate patients to improve their scores for subsequent visits; and (3) whether the scorecard will improve rates of clinical inertia. METHODS: Five physicians enrolled 103 patients ≥ 40 years old with uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes [HbA(1c) ≥ 64 mmol/mol (8.0%)] to randomly receive either a diabetes scorecard or not during four clinical visits over a 9-month period. The population was predominantly urban with a disproportionately higher percentage of black people than the general population. Our scorecard assigned points to six clinical variables, with a perfect total score of 100 points corresponding to meeting all targets. The primary outcomes were total scores and HbA(1c) in the scorecard and control groups at 9 months. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the control and scorecard groups at visits 1 and 4 in total score, HbA(1c) , blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, aspirin usage, exercise or knowledge about diabetic targets. By visit 4 both the control and scorecard groups had statistically significant improvements with their mean total score (9 and 7 points, respectively), HbA(1c) [-9 mmol/mol (-0.8%) and -15 mmol/mol (-1.4%), respectively] and aspirin usage (33% increase and 16% increase, respectively). Rates of clinical inertia were low throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: A diabetes scorecard did not improve glycaemic control, blood pressure control, LDL cholesterol, aspirin usage, exercise or diabetic knowledge in an urban population with uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes.
