Exploring the feasibility of combining chronic disease patient registry data to monitor the status of diabetes care.

INTRODUCTION: To provide direction and to support improvements in diabetes care, states must be able to measure the effectiveness of interventions and gain feedback on progress. We wanted to know if data from multiple health clinics that are implementing quality improvement strategies could be combined to provide useful measurements of diabetes care processes and control of intermediate outcomes. METHODS: We combined and analyzed electronic patient health data from clinic sites across Washington State that used the Chronic Disease Electronic Management System (CDEMS) registry. The data were used to determine whether national and state objectives for diabetes care were met. We calculated the percentage of patients that met standards of care in 2004. RESULTS: The pooled dataset included 17,349 adult patients with diabetes from 90 clinics. More than half of patients were above recommended target levels for hemoglobin A1c testing, foot examination, hemoglobin A1c control, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control. Fewer patients met recommendations for nephropathy assessment, eye examinations, and blood pressure control. In terms of meeting these standards, rates of diabetes care varied across clinics. CDEMS rates of care were compared with those reported by other data sources, but no consistent pattern of similarities or differences emerged. CONCLUSION: With committed staff time, provider support, and resources, data from clinical information systems like CDEMS can be combined to address a deficiency in state-level diabetes surveillance and evaluation systems--specifically, the inability to capture clinical biometric values to measure intermediate health outcomes. These data can complement other surveillance and evaluation data sources to help provide a better picture of diabetes care in a state.

Recruitment of Medicaid and dual-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes mellitus into a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To document the recruitment of Medicaid and dual-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes mellitus into a randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 2242 Medicaid or dual-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes residing in King County, Washington, were recruited by direct mail for a clinical trial of diabetes self-care management. Washington State Medicaid program databases were used to identify the target population who received recruitment packets from the program director. Individuals who did not return a participation refusal letter were telephoned to determine study eligibility. Subjects were screened during a study visit, and written informed consent was obtained. Enrolled subjects were randomized to a self-care intervention group or a usual care group. RESULTS: Of 2242 recruitment packets sent, we were unable to contact 40% of the target population, despite the fact that packets were sent to the same mailing addresses used for monthly Medicaid check distributions. The primary recruitment challenges were missing telephone contact information and a lack of interpreters speaking needed dialects. Of the 146 subjects enrolled, 71% were nonwhite, 28% were non-English speaking, 69% were women, and the mean age was 59.8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Research in Medicaid and Medicare populations is possible but requires additional time, energy, and resources. The finding that 40% of the Medicaid population could not be contacted suggests that Medicaid may want to revisit their contact information procedures to facilitate case management and other programs.

A state-level application of the chronic illness breakthrough series: results from two collaboratives on diabetes in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: Breakthrough Series Collaboratives addressing chronic conditions have been conducted at the national level and in single health care delivery systems but not at the state level. Two state-level collaboratives were conducted: Diabetes Collaborative I (October 1999-November 2000) included 17 clinic teams from across the state, and Diabetes Collaborative II (February 2001-March 2002) included 30 teams and 6 health plans. METHODS: Both collaboratives took place in Washington State, where a diverse group of primary care practices participated, and health insurance plans partnered with the clinic teams. Teams individually tested and implement changes in their systems of care to address all components of the Chronic Care Model. RESULTS: All 47 teams completed the collaboratives, and all but one maintained a registry throughout the 13 months. Most teams demonstrated some amount of improvement on process and outcome measures that addressed blood sugar testing and control, blood pressure control, lipid testing and control, foot exams, dilated eye exams, and self-management goals. CONCLUSION: The benefits of holding collaboratives more locally include increased technical support and increased participation, translating into wider implementation of prevention-focused, patient-centered care.

Case studies from two collaboratives on diabetes in Washington State.

Two individual teams, one from a small, rural clinic and one from a larger urban health system, were able to introduce innovations in care and realize improvement in patient outcomes.