Disparities in Diabetes Care: Differences Between Rural and Urban Patients Within a Large Health System.

PURPOSE: We sought to ascertain factors associated with the quality of diabetes care, comparing rural vs urban diabetic patients in a large health care system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study assessing patients' attainment of the D5 metric, a diabetes care metric having 5 components (no tobacco use, glycated hemoglobin [A1c] level less than 8%, blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level at goal or statin prescribed, and aspirin use consistent with clinical recommendations). Covariates included age, sex, race, adjusted clinical group (ACG) score as a marker of complexity, insurance type, primary care clinician type, and health care use data. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 45,279 patients with diabetes, 54.4% of whom resided in rural locations. The D5 composite metric was met in 39.9% of rural patients and 43.2% of urban patients (P <.001). Rural patients were significantly less likely to have attained all metric goals than urban counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97). The rural group had fewer outpatient visits (mean number of visits = 3.2 vs 3.9, P <.001) and less often had an endocrinology visit (5.5% vs 9.3%, P <.001) during the 1-year study period. Patients with an endocrinology visit were less likely to have met the D5 metric (AOR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86), whereas the more outpatient visits patients had, the greater their likelihood of attainment (AOR per visit = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients had worse diabetes quality outcomes than their urban counterparts, even after adjustment for other contributing factors and despite being part of the same integrated health system. Lower visit frequency and less specialty involvement in the rural setting are possible contributing factors.

Outcomes of Mayo Clinic reBoot camps for postimplementation training in the electronic health record.

OBJECTIVE: After a new electronic health record (EHR) was implemented at Mayo Clinic, a training program called reBoot Camp was created to enhance ongoing education in response to needs identified by physician leaders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reBoot camp focused on EHR topics pertinent to ambulatory care was offered from April 2018 through June 2020. There were 37 2-day sessions and 43 1-day sessions, with 673 unique participants. To evaluate outcomes of the reBoot camp, we used survey data to study baseline, immediate, and long-term perceptions of program satisfaction and self-assessed skills with the EHR. The study was conducted among practitioners at a large ambulatory practice network based in several states. Data were collected from April 2018 through January 2021. We analyzed automatically collected metadata and scores that evaluated the amount of personalization and proficiency of use. RESULTS: Confidence in skills increased by 13.5 points for general EHR use and was significant in 5 subdomains of use (13-18 point improvement). This degree of user confidence was maintained at the 6-month reassessment. The outcomes of configuration and proficiency scores also improved significantly. DISCUSSION: Ongoing education regarding EHR tools is necessary to support continued use of technology. This study was novel because of the amount and breadth of data collected, diversity of user participation, and validation that improvements were maintained over time. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in a reBoot camp significantly improved user confidence in each domain of the EHR and demonstrated use of best-practice tools. Users maintained gains at the 6-month evaluation phase.

Development and Early Experience of a Primary Care Learning Collaborative in a Large Health Care System.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one's practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. METHODS: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system's primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. RESULTS: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. CONCLUSION: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

One year of COVID: primary care learning experiences in a health system.

Context: Patients and communities consider their primary care clinicians (PCC's) to be their most trusted source of information. During the first 12 months of the COVID pandemic, initially reliable, accurate information was scare, evolving, and at times conflicting. From testing, public health prevention, treatment, and vaccinations clinicians had to learn, apply, and convey this information honestly and openly. Objective: This was a survey of a health system's PCC's after the first year of the pandemic. The objective was to determine the clinical, educational, and advisory roles performed by PCC's and the sources of from which PCC's obtained the information necessary to fulfill these roles. Study Design: An intranet survey was sent to members of the system's primary care learning collaborative. Questions were multiple answer with options for open-ended answers. Setting: Large health system. Population: Learning collaborative membership consisting of physicians, nurse practitioners (NP), and physician assistants (PA). Instrument: Brief intranet survey. Outcome measures: Identify clinical and educational roles for PCC. Results: 192 surveys were sent; 109 responses; 72% physicians, 28% NP/PA. 25 unique clinical roles were identified. Most common: discuss vaccine (94%), work excuse/return to work (88%), outpatient care (87%), virtual assessment for COVID (74%). 14 unique educational or advisory roles were identified; the most common being teaching residents (45%) or students (42%), lecture/discussion on COVID (20%) or vaccines (22%) or advising community groups (18%). Sources of information related to COVID were diverse. When asked to identify the three most relied on sources, system (internal COVID website or disseminated by system) (83%), colleagues (34%), and consultants (33%), were the most common source. CME was the least relied upon (7%). Frequently the system utilized information from CDC, state/local health department information along with national organizations. Conclusions: During the pandemic, primary care clinicians provided a broad array of clinical services, and are a source of information for colleagues, patients, and communities. They rely on a broad array of sources for reliable information, mostly relationship-based, not formal CME. The trusted relationships primary care clinicians have with others throughout their communities was essential in promulgating accurate reliable information during the first year of the pandemic.

Clinician Care Team Composition and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a greater proportion of physician time on primary care teams are associated with decreased emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and readmissions, and to determine clinician and care team characteristics associated with greater utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed administrative data collected from January 1 to December 31, 2017, of 420 family medicine clinicians (253 physicians, 167 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) with patient panels in an integrated health system in 59 Midwestern communities serving rural and urban areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These clinicians cared for 419,581 patients through 110 care teams, with varying numbers of physicians and NP/PAs. Primary outcome measures were rates of ED visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions. RESULTS: The proportion of physician full-time equivalents on the team was unrelated to rates of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.826; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.624 to 1.063), hospitalizations (RR = 0.894; 95% CI, 0.746 to 1.072), or readmissions (RR = -0.026; 95% CI, 0.364 to 0.312). In separate multivariable models adjusted for clinician and practice-level characteristics, the rate of ED visits was positively associated with mean panel hierarchical condition category (HCC) score, urban vs rural setting, NP/PA vs physician, and lower years in practice. The rate of inpatient admissions was associated with HCC score, and 30-day hospital readmissions were positively associated with HCC score, lower years in practice, and male clinicians. CONCLUSION: Care team physician and NP/PA composition was not independently related to utilization. More complex panels had higher rates of ED visits, hospitalization, and readmissions. Statistically significant differences between physician and NP/PA panels were only evident for ED visits.

Impact of gestational diabetes diagnosis on concurrent depression in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects nearly 5% of US pregnancies and is associated with poor outcomes. Perinatal depression is also associated with substantial risks to both the fetus and mother. There is limited data about the relationship between GDM and antenatal depression. Therefore, we looked at whether a GDM diagnosis would be associated with an increased risk of depression during pregnancy. METHODS: We studied 562 pregnant women from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015, in a prospective multi-part survey on clinical obstetrical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 562 patients, 46 patients (8.0%) were diagnosed with GDM. There was no statistical difference between the groups for either history of prior or post-partum depression. Diagnosis of depression was present in 15.2% of the GDM group but only 6.2% of the control group. Regression modeling demonstrated an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 2.46 for a diagnosis of depression when the patient had a diagnosis of GDM (95% CI 1.01-6.03, p=.049). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of GDM was associated with an elevated risk of concomitant pregnancy diagnosis of depression. Given the elevated risk to patients diagnosed with GDM, a more frequent depression screening interval could be considered during the remainder of the pregnancy, such as each prenatal visit.

Relationship of Clinician Care Team Composition and Diabetes Quality Outcomes.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team (P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007-1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.

Childhood stye and adult rosacea.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how individuals with a predisposition for rosacea appear in childhood. This retrospective, matched control, longitudinal study examined the relationship between childhood stye and adult rosacea. METHODS: The records of the Rochester Epidemiology Project were examined to identify patients who received care for stye or blepharitis between ages 2 and 17 years, and received care for any cause at age 40 years or older. Patients were matched by group to control subjects (1:2). RESULTS: Patients with stye during childhood (N = 201) had a higher prevalence of adult rosacea than did control subjects (5.5% vs 1.5%, P = .01). Patients who had other childhood eye conditions without stye (N = 504) were not at higher risk. LIMITATIONS: The study population included few minority patients. CONCLUSIONS: The association between childhood stye and adult rosacea appears to be significant and should be examined further. Rosacea prevalence in adults may be lower (2.1%) than previously reported.