Implications of Specialist Density for Diabetes Care in the United States.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Patel RB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6813576 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Implications of Specialist Density for Diabetes Care in the United States.
Patel Ravi B RB Al Rifai Mahmoud M McEvoy John W JW Vaduganathan Muthiah M
JAMA cardiology 20191101 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAlthough many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.ObjectiveTo describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.DesignCross-sectional study and time trend analysis.DataNationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010.Main measuresProportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.Key resultsAmong 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p?=?0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p?<?0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p?<?0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p?<?0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.ConclusionsMedical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.
| S-EPMC4026490 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC153099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTreatment advances in diabetes can meaningfully improve outcomes only if they effectively reach the populations at risk.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether the cascade of US diabetes care, defined as diabetes diagnosis, linkage to care, and achievement of individual and combined treatment targets, improved from 2005 to 2016 and to investigate potential disparities in US diabetes care.Design, setting, and participantsNationally representative, serial cross-sectional studies included in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were evaluated. Data on nonpregnant US adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes who had reported fasting for 9 or more hours (n = 1742 diagnosed and 746 undiagnosed) were included. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to May 10, 2019.ExposuresTime period (2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016), age, sex, race/ethnicity, health insurance, and educational level incorporated into logistic regression models predicting odds of target achievement.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of participants overall and stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity who were linked to diabetes care and met glycemic (hemoglobin A1c <7.0%-8.5%, depending on age and complications), blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg), cholesterol level (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL), and smoking abstinence targets and a composite of all targets.ResultsIn 2013-2016, of 1742 US adults with diagnosed diabetes, 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) were linked to diabetes care; 64% (95% CI, 58%-69%) met hemoglobin A1c level, 70% (95% CI, 64%-75%) met blood pressure level, and 57% (95% CI, 51%-62%) met cholesterol level targets; 85% were nonsmokers (95% CI, 82%-88%); and 23% (95% CI, 17%-29%) achieved the composite goal. Results were similar in 2005-2008 (composite 23%) and in 2009-2012 (composite 25%). There was no significant improvement in diagnosis or target achievement during the study period. Compared with middle-aged adults (45-64 years) with diagnosed diabetes, older patients (≥65 years) had higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.17-2.48) and younger adults (18-44 years) had lower odds (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) of meeting the composite target. Women had lower odds of achieving the composite target than men (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80). Non-Hispanic black individuals vs non-Hispanic white individuals had lower odds of achieving the composite target (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83). Having health insurance was the strongest predictor of linkage to diabetes care (aOR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.34-6.69).Conclusions and relevanceIt appears that the diabetes care cascade in the United States has not significantly improved between 2005 and 2016. This study's findings suggest that gaps in diabetes care that were present in 2005, particularly among younger adults (18-44 years), women, and nonwhite individuals, persist.
| S-EPMC6692836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support (DSMES) programs are an effective, yet underutilized, resource to improve health outcomes and behaviors for people with diabetes. We examined the attendance and referral rates for people with diabetes to DSMES classes at an academic medical center, noting a 10% referral rate and 37% completion rate for those referred. We identified barriers to DSMES care at patient, provider, and health system levels. Current technology platforms and training fail to prioritize referrals to diabetes education; providers and people with diabetes are often unfamiliar with program content and benefits. Scheduling mechanisms often delay or lose interested patients in receiving vital education. Existing Medicare reimbursement strategies limit expansion of DSMES programs, generating significant wait times and limit capabilities for Diabetes Care and Education Specialists. We identify potential policy solutions and recommend alterations to existing referral and scheduling systems to expand existing technology platforms for DSMES programs and shift reimbursement policies to individualize and better support care for persons with diabetes.
| S-EPMC11350287 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC152636 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8261690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The quality of diabetes care delivered to patients falls below the expectations of practice guidelines and clinical trial evidence. Studies in many jurisdictions with varying health care systems have shown that recommended processes of care occur less often than they should; hence, outcomes of care are inadequate. Many studies comparing care between specialists and generalists have found that specialists are more likely to implement processes of care. However, this provides little insight into improving quality of care, as the difference between specialists and generalists in these studies is small compared to the overall deficiency in quality. Therefore, future research should instead focus on ways to implement high quality care, regardless of specialty. To date, few methodologically rigorous studies have uncovered interventions that can improve quality of care. The development of such interventions to help all physicians implement better quality care could greatly benefit people with diabetes.
| S-EPMC1824726 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine variations in the quality and cost of care provided to patients with diabetes mellitus by Community Health Centers (CHCs) compared to other primary care settings.Research design and methodsWe used data from the 2005-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (N = 2,108). We used two dependent variables: quality of care and ambulatory care expenditures. Our primary independent variable was whether the respondent received care in a Community Health Centers (CHCs) or not. We estimated logistic regression models to determine the probability of quality of care, and used generalized linear models with log link and gamma distribution to predict expenditures for CHC users compared to non-users of CHCs, conditional on patients with positive expenditures.ResultsResults showed that variations of quality between CHC users and non-CHC users were not statistically significant. Patients with diabetes mellitus who used CHCs saved payers and individuals approximately $1,656 in ambulatory care costs compared to non-users of CHCs.ConclusionsThese findings suggest an opportunity for policymakers to control costs for diabetes mellitus patients without having a negative impact on quality of care.
| S-EPMC4670225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic diabetes registers promote structured care and enable identification of undiagnosed diabetes, but they require consistent coding of the diagnosis in electronic medical records. We investigated the potential of electronic medical records to identify undiagnosed diabetes and to support diabetes management in a large primary care population in the United States.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study and retrospective observational cohort analysis of primary care electronic medical records from a nationally representative US database (GE Centricity). We tested the feasibility of identifying patients with undiagnosed diabetes by applying simple algorithms to the electronic medical record data. We compared the quality of care provided to patients in the United States who had diabetes (coded and uncoded) for at least 15 months with the quality of care provided in England using a set of 16 indicators.ResultsWe included 11 540 454 electronic medical records from more than 9000 primary care clinics across the United States. Of the 1 110 398 records indicating diagnosed diabetes, only 61.9% contained a diagnostic code. Of the 10 430 056 records for nondiabetic patients, 0.4% (n = 40 359) had at least 2 abnormal fasting or random blood glucose values, and 0.2% (n = 23 261) of the remaining records had at least 1 documented glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value of 6.5% or higher. Among the 622 260 patients for whom information on quality-of-care indicators was available, those with a coded diagnosis of diabetes had a significantly higher level of quality of care than those with uncoded diabetes (p < 0.01); however, the quality of care was generally lower than that indicated in England.InterpretationWe were able to identify a substantial number of patients with uncoded diabetes and probable undiagnosed diabetes using simple algorithms applied to the primary care electronic records. Electronic coding of the diagnosis was associated with improved quality of care. Electronic diabetes registers are underused in US primary care and provide opportunities to facilitate the systematic, structured approach that is established in England.
| S-EPMC4251506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims at assessing the composition and performance of care management models evaluated in the last decade and their impact on patient important outcomes.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of electronic bibliographic databases was performed to identify care management trials in type 2 diabetes. Random effects meta-analysis was used when feasible to pool outcome measures.ResultsFifty-two studies were eligible. Most commonly reported were surrogate outcomes (such as HbA1c and LDL), followed by process measures (clinic visit or testing frequency). Less frequently reported were quality of life, patient satisfaction, self-care, and healthcare utilization. Most care management modalities were carved out from primary care. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant but trivial reduction of HbA1c (weighted difference in means -0.21%, 95% confidence interval -0.40 to -0.03, p < .03) and LDL-cholesterol (weighted difference in means -3.38 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval -6.27 to -0.49, p < .02).ConclusionsMost care management programs for patients with type 2 diabetes are 'carved-out', accomplish limited effects on metabolic outcomes, and have unknown effects on patient important outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research of different models of care management is needed to inform the design of medical homes for patients with chronic conditions.
| S-EPMC3349574 | biostudies-literature