Chronic care clinics for diabetes in primary care: a system-wide randomized trial. Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience" Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a primary care setting in Taiwan: comparison with secondary/tertiary care. The Chronic CARe for diAbeTes study (CARAT): a cluster randomized controlled trial Nurse Care Manager Collaboration With Community-Based Physicians Providing Diabetes Care A Randomized Controlled Trial Synopsis of the 2017 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Barriers to self-management of diabetes: a qualitative study among low-income minority diabetics. A Mobile Health Intervention for Self-Management and Lifestyle Change for Persons With Type 2 Diabetes, Part 2: One-Year Results From the Norwegian Randomized Controlled Trial RENEWING HEALTH The impact of planned care and a diabetes electronic management system on community-based diabetes care: the Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project. Integrating depression and chronic disease care among patients with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease: the design of the TEAMcare study. Diabetes decision support: initial experience with the Vermont diabetes information system. Improving Chronic Care of Type 2 Diabetes Using Teams of Interprofessional Learners The effect of case management on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Impact of population management with direct physician feedback on care of patients with type 2 diabetes. A Clinical Trial of Chronic Care Diabetic Clinics in General Practice in the United Arab Emirates: A Preliminary Analysis Web-based care management in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7.
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of primary care group visits ( chronic care clinics ) on the process and outcome of care for diabetic patients . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We evaluated the intervention in primary care practice s r and omized to intervention and control groups in a large-staff model health maintenance organization ( HMO ) . Patients included diabetic patients > or = 30 years of age in each participating primary care practice , selected at r and om from an automated diabetes registry . Primary care practice s were r and omized within clinics to either a chronic care clinic ( intervention ) group or a  usual care ( control ) group . The intervention group conducted periodic one-half day chronic care clinics for groups of approximately 8 diabetic patients in their respective doctor 's practice .  Chronic care clinics consisted of st and ardized assessment s ; visits with the primary care physician , nurse , and clinical pharmacist ; and a group education/peer support meeting . We collected  self-report question  naires from patients and data from administrative systems . The question naires were mailed , and telephoned interviews were conducted for nonrespondents , at baseline and at 12 and 24 months ; we queried the process of care received , the satisfaction with care , and the health status of each patient . Serum cholesterol and HbA1c levels and health care use and cost data was collected from HMO administrative systems . RESULTS In an intention-to-treat analysis at 24 months , the intervention group had received significantly more recommended preventive procedures  and helpful patient education .  Of five primary health status indicators examined , two ( SF-36 general health and bed disability days ) were significantly better in the intervention group . Compared with control patients , intervention patients had slightly more primary care visits , but significantly fewer specialty and emergency room visits . Among intervention participants , we found consistently positive associations between the number of chronic care clinics attended and a number of outcomes , including patient satisfaction and HbA1c levels . CONCLUSIONS Periodic primary care sessions organized to meet the complex needs of diabetic patients imrproved the process of diabetes care and were associated with better outcomes Background Most research publications on Chronic Care Model ( CCM ) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system . Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce . In 2003 , the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting , a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered . Methods Process evaluation of an action research project ( 2003–2007 ) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an estimated number of 2,300 type 2 diabetes patients . In consultation with the region a program for type 2 diabetes patients was developed . The degree of implementation of the CCM in the region was assessed using the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey ( ACIC ) . A multi method approach was used to evaluate the implementation process . The result ing data were triangulated in order to identify the main facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation process . Results The overall ACIC score improved from 1.45 ( limited support ) at the start of the study to 5.5 ( basic support ) at the end of the study . The establishment of a local steering group and the appointment of a program manager were crucial steps in strengthening primary care . The willingness of a group of well-trained and motivated care providers to invest in quality improvement was an important facilitator . Important barriers were the complexity of the intervention , the lack of quality data , inadequate information technology support , the lack of commitment procedures and the uncertainty about sustainable funding . Conclusion Guided by the CCM , this study highlights the opportunities and the bottlenecks for adapting chronic care delivery in a primary care system with limited structure . The study succeeded in achieving a considerable improvement of the overall support for diabetes patients but further improvement requires a shift towards system thinking among policy makers . Currently primary care providers lack the opportunities to take up full responsibility for chronic care . Trial registration number Clinical Trials.gov Identifier : BACKGROUND This study investigated the status of diabetes control and management in patients treated in a primary healthcare setting and compared the results with data previously obtained for secondary /tertiary care patients in Taiwan . METHODS This study was conducted at 51 primary healthcare stations r and omly selected isl and -wide in Taiwan in 2001 . A total of 1302 type 2 diabetes patients who had been followed-up for more than 1 year were included .  Blood was collected for central ized HbA1c assay . The remaining data and information were collected by review of medical records and patient interview . RESULTS Compared with the results of a previous study on patients treated in a secondary /tertiary care setting , a significantly smaller percentage of primary care patients were receiving insulin therapy . Primary care patients also had a shorter duration of diabetes , a higher HbA1c level , better blood pressure control and a lower prevalence of complications . The proportion of patients achieving optimal control of glycemia and blood pressure was low . Patients aged < 65 years had a significantly shorter duration of diabetes , poorer diabetes control and better blood pressure control than elderly patients aged > or = 65 years . Primary care patients aged > or = 65 years had a significantly higher frequency of stroke than those aged < 65 years . The elderly group of secondary /tertiary care patients had a significantly higher frequency of coronary heart disease and stroke . Duration of diabetes and hypertension were the leading risk factors for complications in diabetes patients treated in both primary and secondary /tertiary care setting s. CONCLUSION Diabetes control was poorer in primary care than in secondary /tertiary care patients , but control of blood pressure was better in primary care patients . The shorter duration of diabetes and better control of blood pressure in primary care patients and in patients aged < 65 years compared with their elderly counterparts might be related to a lower prevalence of complications Background Diabetes is a major challenge for the health care system and especially for the primary care provider . The Chronic Care Model represents an evidence -based framework for the care for chronically ill . An increasing number of studies showed that implementing elements of the Chronic Care Model improves patient relevant outcomes and process parameters . However , most of these findings have been performed in setting s different from the Swiss health care system which is dominated by single h and ed practice s. Methods / Design CARAT is a cluster r and omized controlled trial with general practitioners as the unit of r and omization ( trial registration : IS RCT N05947538 ) . The study challenges the hypothesis that implementing several elements of the Chronic Care Model via a specially trained practice nurse improves the HbA1c level of diabetes type II patients significantly after one year ( primary outcome ) . Furthermore , we assume that the intervention increases the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended targets regarding blood pressure ( < 130/80 ) , HbA1c ( = < 6.5 % ) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ( < 2.6 mmol/l ) , increases patients ' quality of life ( SF-36 ) and several evidence -based quality indicators for diabetes care . These improvements in care will be experienced by the patients ( PACIC-5A ) as well as by the practice team ( ACIC ) . According to the power calculation , 28 general practitioners will be r and omized either to the intervention group or to the control group . Each general practitioner will include 12 patients suffering from diabetes type II . In the intervention group the general practitioner as well as the practice nurse will be trained to perform care for diabetes patients according to the Chronic Care Model in teamwork . In the control group no intervention will be applied at all and patients will be treated as usual . Measurements ( pre- data - collection ) will take place in months II-IV , starting in February 2010 . Follow-up data will be collected after 1 year . Discussion This study challenges the hypothesis that the Chronic Care Model can be easily implemented by a practice nurse focused approach . If our results will confirm this hypothesis the suggestion arises whether this approach should be implemented in other chronic diseases and multimorbid patients and how to re design care in Switzerl and PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the potential value of close collaboration at the office level of a nurse care manager with community-based primary care physicians in the care of adult patients with type 2 diabetes , particularly those physicians not affiliated with an integrated care system that some managed care organizations provide . METHODS Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from the general population of a large metropolitan area . Each received a comprehensive evaluation of his or her diabetes with results reported to patients and their physicians ( basic intervention ) . A r and om one-half of patients were additionally assigned to individual counseling , problem identification , care planning , and management recommendations by a nurse care manager ( individualized intervention ) . The patients receiving only the basic intervention served as the control group to those receiving the individualized intervention . Re-evaluation of all patients at 6 months after their entry into the study determined the effectiveness of the nurse-directed individualized intervention using A1C , blood pressure , and cholesterol as outcome measures . RESULTS Of 220 patients recruited , 197 had type 2 diabetes , r and omly assigned only the basic intervention ( 102 patients ) or individualized intervention ( 95 patients ) . Postintervention data were obtained on 164 patients ( 83 % ) . Significant improvement occurred in mean systolic blood pressure and A1C of all patients in the individualized but not the basic intervention only group . Patients with a systolic blood pressure > or=130 mm Hg at baseline showed improvement if they had more than 2 contacts with the study nurse but not if they had less than 2 contacts . CONCLUSIONS A nurse care manager collaborating at the office level with community-based primary care physicians can enhance the care provided to adult patients with type 2 diabetes . For those many physicians not affiliated with an integrated care system featured by some managed care organizations , this collaboration could underlie a team approach ( nurse/patient/physician ) for the ambulatory patient with diabetes that would be an essential element in a chronic disease model of care for diabetes at the community level Diabetes is the leading cause of major complications , such as end-stage renal disease and lower extremity amputations , and is a significant contributor to ischemic heart disease , stroke , peripheral vascular disease , and vision loss ( 1 ) . There has been increasing acceptance of the importance of individualizing glycemic management and assessment of risk for adverse events , especially hypoglycemia ( 26 ) . This is of great importance for all patients , especially older adults ( aged 65 years ) with comorbid conditions . In 2013 , 12.0 million older adults in the United States had diabetes , comprising 40 % of the 30.2 million persons with the disease ( 7 ) . Older adults account for an estimated 60 % to 70 % of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) and U.S. Department of Defense ( DoD ) diabetic population ( largely retirees ) ( VA/DoD. Unpublished data ) . These considerations make safe and effective diabetes management a policy priority for health care providers ( physicians , nurses , dietitians , and pharmacists ) and policymakers in both the VA and the DoD. The 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline ( CPG ) for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care offers health care providers an evidence -based framework to evaluate , treat , and manage persons with type 2 diabetes  mellitus in the context of their individual needs and preferences ( 8) . The current article is a summary of key CPG recommendations , which was developed with multiple stakeholders to ensure representation by a broad spectrum of clinicians . It provides practice recommendations for the care of patients with diabetes , with an emphasis on shared decision making . Guideline Development and Review Process These recommendations were developed using methods established by the VA/DoD Evidence -Based Practice Work Group ( EBPWG ) ( 9 ) , which are aligned with st and ards for trustworthy guidelines ( 10 ) . The EBPWG and the U.S. Army Medical Comm and selected guideline panel cochairs ( 1 each from the VA and the DoD ) . The cochairs then selected a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders , including primary care physicians ( family and internal medicine ) , endocrinologists , medical nutritionists , pharmacists , diabetes educators , and nurse practitioners . At the start of the CPG development process and at other key points throughout , all members were required to su bmi t disclosure statements for potential conflicts of interest in the previous 24 months . Verbal affirmations of no conflicts were used during meetings throughout the development process . The project team was also subject to r and om Web-based surveillance ( for example , ProPublica ) . The VA/DoD contracted with The Lewin Group , a third party with expertise in clinical practice guideline development , to facilitate meetings . The guideline panel , in collaboration with the ECRI Institute , developed 9 key questions using the PICOTS ( population , intervention , comparator , outcomes , timing of outcomes measurement , and setting ) format . A systematic search of the peer- review ed literature from January 2009 through March 2016 was conducted to find evidence relevant to the key questions that focused on r and omized trials , systematic review s , and meta-analyses of fair or better quality . One key question was up date d through 14 June 2016 . The search methods and results are detailed in the full guideline ( 8) . The guideline panel rated recommendations by using the GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ) method ( 11 ) . The guideline panel focused on developing new and up date d recommendations using the evidence review for the key questions . The panel also considered , without a complete review of the relevant evidence , the current applicability of recommendations that were included in the 2010 CPG . As part of the development process , a patient focus group was also convened to better underst and the perspectives of patients receiving diabetes treatment in the VA and the DoD. Five patients were included , consistent with the requirements of the federal Paperwork Reduction Act . All patients had type 2 diabetes and were veterans receiving care in the VA . The focus group explored knowledge of treatment options , views on the delivery of care , patients ' needs and preferences , and the effect of diabetes on their lives . Important concepts that emerged from the focus group were shared with the panel and informed guideline development . It was acknowledged that this convenience sample may not be representative of all VA and DoD patients receiving treatment for type 2 diabetes . The draft guideline was sent to more than 15 expert review ers inside and outside the federal sector . Comments were review ed and , where appropriate , were incorporated into the final guideline based on panel consensus . The VA/DoD EBPWG approved the final document on 3 April 2017 and released it on 17 April 2017 . Recommendations are presented in the Table , and an algorithm for establishing a personalized glycemic goal and treatment plan is presented in the Figure . Key recommendations are review ed in this article . Table . Summary of Recommendations From the 2017 VA/DoD CPG on the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Figure . Algorithmic approach to evaluating glycemic control risk factors , setting a personalized glycemic control target range , providing self-management ( including lifestyle and nutrition ) education , and initiating or reevaluating medication therapy . Recommendations Provide Patient-Centered Care and Incorporate Shared Decision Making The CPG strongly encourages clinicians to incorporate shared decision making and partner with their patients . Shared decision making is the process by which the patient and family , in conjunction with the care provider , reach an agreement about a plan of care and treatment . Key principles include readiness of the patient and family , tools with underst and able information about the benefits and harms of all options , and strategies to identify and incorporate patient preferences . Patients can not effectively participate in care and shared decision making unless they underst and diabetes and how they can be involved in planning and carrying out the jointly developed care plan . Shared decision making reinforces a trusted therapeutic relationship and increases patient satisfaction and treatment buy-in with regard to the methods used to reach a particular goal or treatment plan ( 1214 ) . It should be used not only for patients with stable glycemic control but also to assist those who are not able or willing to make lifestyle changes and decisions that affect their diabetes at any time during the course of treatment . At a minimum , shared decision making should be included at the time of diagnosis , during difficulties with management , and at times of transition or development of complications ( 14 ) . Benefits include greater knowledge of medications ( 13 ) and underst and ing of risks ( 14 ) . In addition , patient-centered care and shared decision making together may decrease patient anxiety , increase trust in clinicians ( 15 ) , and improve treatment adherence ( 16 ) . Family involvement should be considered if appropriate , especially in older adults ( 17 ) . Patient information should be culturally appropriate ; underst and able and actionable by people with limited literacy skills ; and accessible to those with physical , sensory , or learning needs ( 18 ) . As part of the patient-centered care approach to diabetes management , clinicians should explore with the patient the outcomes of previous opportunities for shared decision making , their ability to self-manage , prior efforts to change health behaviors , past treatment experiences ( including reasons for discontinuing treatment ) , and relevant clinical outcomes . In actively sharing decisions , they should involve the patient in prioritizing problems to be addressed and setting specific goals regardless of the setting or level of care . Assess Patient Characteristics and Nonglycemic Factors When Interpreting Results of Hemoglobin A1c , Fructosamine , and Other Glycemic Biomarker Testing Many factors affect measurement of hemoglobin A1c ( HbA1c ) besides the level of glycemia ( 19 ) . Because HbA1c level depends on the duration of erythrocyte exposure to glucose , conditions that alter erythrocyte life span affect the measured level of HbA1c ( 20 , 21 ) . Iron deficiency anemia , which prolongs erythrocyte life span and exposes the cell to glucose for a longer period , is associated with falsely elevated HbA1c levels ( 22 ) . In contrast , conditions that shorten erythrocyte life span ( such as hemolytic anemia ) may result in falsely low HbA1c levels . Various other conditions , such as chronic kidney disease , may alter HbA1c measurement . Hemoglobin variants can result in falsely elevated or falsely lowered HbA1c levels , depending on the assay used ( 2325 ) . In addition , oral hypoglycemic agents ( metformin or sulfonylureas ) may alter the relationship between blood glucose and HbA1c levels , although the clinical significance is unclear ( 26 ) . There are also racial/ethnic differences in HbA1c levels for a given level of glycemia . A previous study found that African Americans with prediabetes ( 27 ) had HbA1c values that were 0.4 % higher than among white persons ; those who were within 3 years of diagnosis ( 28 ) also had higher HbA1c values than white persons for any measure of glycemia . This difference can not be explained by measured differences in glycemia , clinical factors known to affect HbA1c measurement , or sociodemographic factors ( 27 , 28 ) . Therefore , it is recommended that a new diagnosis of diabetes be based on a confirmatory fasting blood glucose level of at least 7.0 mmol/L ( 126 mg/dL ) if the initial HbA1c value is 6.5 % to 6.9 % . How and where the HbA1c level is measured can also affect results because of intralaboratory variation ( variation in test accuracy and precision ) and interlaboratory variation ( variation related to use of different test methods ) . A single HbA1c measurement , even from a OBJECTIVES Diabetes self-management is a key element in the overall management of diabetes . Identifying barriers to disease self-management is a critical step in achieving optimal health outcomes . Our goal was to explore patients ' perceptions about barriers to self-management of diabetes that could possibly help explain poor health outcomes among minority patients . STUDY DESIGN Four focus groups were conducted among 31 predominately African American patients with diabetes who were enrolled in the Baltimore Cardiovascular Partnership Study , a NIH-funded multiyear prospect i ve partnership study . The topic guide consisted of a series of open-ended questions about knowledge of current health status , medication use , continuity of care , blood glucose level and nutrition . RESULTS The focus groups confirmed that previously reported barriers to self-management persisted and identified new concerns that could be associated with poor health outcomes among minority patients with diabetes .  Attitudes , perceptions and behaviors surrounding diabetes and self-management of the condition did vary across individuals , however , the variation appeared to reflect the individual 's knowledge and opinions rather than patient 's age , sex , or culture . The primary barrier to diabetes self-management result ed from lack of knowledge of target blood glucose and blood pressure . Several participants found some of the health information to be quite confusing . CONCLUSIONS Diabetes is a major public health concern and the lack of awareness of target blood glucose and blood pressure further complicates the problem . The limited health literacy seen in this study could help explain several of the barriers to self-management . The barriers to self-management identified in this qualitative study are amenable to intervention that could improve health outcomes Background Self-management is crucial in the daily management of type 2 diabetes . It has been suggested that mHealth may be an important method for enhancing self-management when delivered in combination with health counseling . Objective The objective of this study was to test whether the use of a mobile phone – based self-management system used for 1 year , with or without telephone health counseling by a diabetes specialist nurse for the first 4 months , could improve glycated hemoglobin A1c ( HbA1c ) level , self-management , and health-related quality of life compared with usual care . Methods We conducted a 3-arm prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial involving 2 intervention groups and 1 control group . Eligible participants were persons with type 2 diabetes with an HbA1c level ≥7.1 % ( ≥54.1 mmol/mol ) and aged ≥18 years . Both intervention groups received the mobile phone – based self-management system Few Touch Application ( FTA ) . The FTA consisted of a blood glucose – measuring system with automatic wireless data transfer , diet manual , physical activity registration , and management of personal goals , all recorded and operated using a diabetes diary app on the mobile phone . In addition , one intervention group received health counseling based on behavior change theory and delivered by a diabetes specialist nurse for the first 4 months after r and omization . All groups received usual care by their general practitioner . The primary outcome was HbA1c level . Secondary outcomes were self-management ( heiQ ) , health-related quality of life ( SF-36 ) , depressive symptoms ( CES-D ) , and lifestyle changes ( dietary habits and physical activity ) . Data were analyzed using univariate methods ( t test , ANOVA ) and multivariate linear and logistic regression . Results A total of 151 participants were r and omized : 51 to the FTA group , 50 to the FTA-health counseling ( FTA-HC )  group , and 50 to the  control group . Follow-up data after 1 year were available for 120 participants ( 79 % ) . HbA1c level decreased in all groups , but did not differ between groups after 1 year . The mean change in the heiQ domain skills and technique acquisition was significantly greater in the FTA-HC group after adjusting for age , gender , and education ( P=.04 ) . Other secondary outcomes did not differ between groups after 1 year . In the FTA group , 39 % were substantial users of the app ; 34 % of the FTA-HC group were substantial users . Those aged ≥63 years used the app more than their younger counterparts did ( OR 2.7 ; 95 % CI 1.02 - 7.12 ; P=.045 ) . Conclusions The change in HbA1c level did not differ between groups after the 1-year intervention . Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups except for an increase in the self-management domain of skill and technique acquisition in the FTA-HC group . Older participants used the app more than the younger participants did OBJECTIVE The Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project sought to assess models of community-based diabetes care and use of a diabetes electronic management system ( DEMS ) . Planned care is a re design ed model of chronic disease care that involves guideline implementation , support of self-management , and use of clinical information systems . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We studied adult diabetic patients attending three primary care practice sites in Wisconsin and Minnesota . We implemented planned care at all sites and DEMS in the practice of 16 primary care providers . We assessed quality of diabetes care using st and ard indicators for 200 patients r and omly selected from each site at baseline and at 24 months of implementation . We used multivariable analyses to estimate the association between planned care and DEMS and each quality indicator . RESULTS Planned care was associated with improvements in measurement of HbA(1c ) ( odds ratio 7.0 [ 95 % CI 4.2 - 11.6 ] ) , HDL cholesterol ( 5.6 [ 4.1 - 7.5 ] ) , and microalbuminuria ( 5.3 [ 3.5 - 8.0 ] ) , as well as the provision of tobacco advice ( 6.9 [ 4.7 - 10.1 ] ) , among other performance measures . DEMS use was associated with improvements in all indicators , including microalbuminuria ( 3.2 [ 1.9 - 5.2 ] ) , retinal examination ( 2.4 [ 1.5 - 3.9 ] ) , foot examinations ( 2.3 [ 1.2 - 4.4 ] ) , and self-management support ( 2.6 [ 1.7 - 3.8 ] ) . Although planned care was associated with improvements in metabolic control , we observed no additional metabolic benefit when providers used DEMS . CONCLUSIONS Planned care was associated with improved performance and metabolic outcomes in primary care . DEMS use augmented the impact of planned care on performance outcomes but not on metabolic outcomes . Optimal identification of the best translation of evidence to diabetes practice will require longer follow-up or new care-delivery models Diabetes and coronary heart disease ( CHD ) are two of the most prevalent medical illnesses in the US population and comorbid depression occurs in up to 20 % of these patients . Guidelines for management of diabetes and CHD overlap for healthy lifestyle and disease-control recommendations . However , the majority of patients with these medical illnesses have been shown to have inadequate control of key risk factors such as blood pressure , LDL cholesterol , or blood sugar . Comorbid depression has been shown to adversely affect self-care of diabetes and CHD , and is associated with an increased risk of complications and mortality . Interventions that have improved quality and outcomes of depression care alone in patients with diabetes and CHD have not demonstrated benefits in self-care , improved disease control or morbidity and mortality . This paper describes the design and development of a new biopsychosocial intervention ( TEAMcare ) aim ed at improving both medical disease control and depression in patients with poor control of diabetes and /or CHD who met the criteria for comorbid depression . A team approach is used with a nurse interventionist who receives weekly psychiatric and primary care physician caseload supervision in order to enhance treatment by the primary care physician . This intervention is being tested in an NIMH-funded r and omized controlled trial in a large integrated health plan Interventions that have proven effective in the management of chronic illness have often been difficult to establish in widespread practice . The Chronic Care Model provides a framework for implementing interventions , but it is expensive and difficult to implement . We developed a decision support system based on this model to improve the care of adults who have diabetes and receive primary care in Vermont or adjacent New York . The Vermont Diabetes Information System uses a network of community laboratories for providing data to produce flowsheets , reminders , action alerts , and population reports that are sent to primary care providers by fax and to patients by mail . Currently , 7295 patients are cared for by 124 primary care providers in 62 practice s and are enrolled in a r and omized controlled trial to study its effects Purpose To improve the care and outcomes of adult patients with type 2 diabetes by teaching interprofessional teams of learners the principles and practice s of the Improving Chronic Illness Care Model . Method The study population consisted of 384 adult patients with type 2 diabetes . The study design was a nonr and omized , parallel-group , clinical trial conducted during 18 months in the University of California , San Francisco internal medicine clinics .  Interprofessional team care provided by primary care internal medicine residents , nurse practitioner students , and pharmacy students was compared with usual care by internal medicine residents only .  Processes of care , clinical status , and health utilization were measured in both patient groups . Learner outcomes also were assessed and compared . Results At study completion , intervention patients more frequently received assessment s of glycosolated hemoglobin ( 79 % versus 67 % ; P = .01 ) , LDL-C ( 69 % versus 55 % ; P = .009 ) , blood pressure ( 86 % versus 79 % ; P = .08 ) , microalbuminuria ( 40 % versus 30 % ; P = .05 ) , smoking status assessment ( 43 % versus 31 % ; P = .02 ) , and foot exams ( 38 % versus 20 % ; P = .0005 ) . Intervention patients had more planned general medicine visits ( 7.9 ± 6.2 versus 6.2 ± 5.7 ; P = .006 ) than did control patients . Interprofessional learners rated themselves significantly higher on measures of accomplishment , preparation , and success for chronic care than did the usual care learners . Conclusions Interprofessional team care by learners was effective in improving quality of care for adult patients with diabetes treated in general medicine clinics . The chronic illness framework result ed in more appropriate health care utilization Abstract Diabetes is a chronic yet controllable disease . It is not like a broken arm ; it can not be seen and will never heal completely . Although people can live long , full lives with diabetes , the disease will affect their and their family 's lifestyles . However , diabetics can take comfort in knowing that diabetes is one disease over which they , given the appropriate tools , can exercise enormous control . 1 Case management ( CM ) of diabetic care that ensures appropriate therapy , based on the American Diabetes Association 's ( ADA ) Clinical Practice Recommendations , effectively optimizes diabetic health and slows the progression of complications . 2 Fewer complications mean fewer re sources are used and the overall cost of long-term care is decreased OBJECTIVE Population -level strategies may improve primary care for diabetes . We design ed a controlled study to assess the impact of population management versus usual care on metabolic risk factor testing and management in patients with type 2 diabetes . We also identified potential patient-related barriers to effective diabetes management . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used novel clinical software to rank 910 patients in a diabetes registry at a single primary care clinic and thereby identify the 149 patients with the highest HbA(1c ) and cholesterol levels . After review of the medical records of these 149 patients , evidence -based guideline recommendations regarding metabolic testing and management were sent via e-mail to each intervention patient 's primary care provider ( PCP ) . Over a 3-month follow-up period , we assessed changes in the evidence -based management of intervention patients compared with a matched cohort of control patients receiving usual care  at a second primary care clinic affiliated with the same academic medical center . RESULTS In the intervention cohort , PCPs followed testing recommendations more often ( 78 % ) than therapeutic change recommendations ( 36 % , P = 0.001 ) . Compared with the usual care control cohort , population management result ed in a greater overall proportion of evidence -based guideline practice s being followed ( 59 vs. 45 % , P = 0.02 ) . Most intervention patients ( 62 % ) had potential barriers to effective care , including depression ( 35 % ) , substance abuse ( 26 % ) , and prior nonadherence to care plans ( 18 % ) . CONCLUSIONS Population management with clinical recommendations sent to PCPs had a modest but statistically significant impact on the evidence -based management of diabetes compared with usual care . Depression and substance abuse are prevalent patient-level adherence barriers in patients with poor metabolic control Control of diabetes mellitus is a high priority for primary health care systems . One innovative method of diabetes care delivery is the use of structured diabetes care in primary care . This includes the use of chronic care diabetes clinics or mini-clinics operated by general practitioners in primary care . There is limited experience with this model in non-Western setting s. This study sought to evaluate a multi-component structured approach to diabetes care in primary care including chronic care diabetes clinics in a newly developed country in the Arabian Gulf . The study design used was a controlled before-after methodology . Three primary health centers were chosen for the intervention with six of the remaining clinics in a Health District being used as controls . A multifaceted intervention was initiated in the intervention clinics composed of chronic care diabetes clinics , a diabetic flow chart , and educational programs for clinic nurses and doctors and patients . The study intervention took place over a period of 18 months with three diabetic outcomes ( fasting blood glucose , blood pressure and cholesterol ) and adherence to seven diabetes guidelines being compared for the year prior to the intervention and during the last 12 months of the intervention period . Knowledge and satisfaction question naires were also administered to intervention and control subjects at the end of the study . In this study , 219 subjects were enrolled ( 130 males and 89 females ) . They had a mean age of 51.6 years and a mean of 3.1 years of formal education . Of these 109 were enrolled in one of three clinics that had a chronic care diabetes clinic and 110 were enrolled in one of the six control clinics . Subjects had diabetes for a mean of 7.8 ± 4.8 years and the majority was treated with pharmacological therapy . Baseline characteristics in the intervention and the control clinics were similar with the exception of younger age ( p = 0.01 ) and a trend for more males ( p = 0.06 ) in the intervention clinics . There was a statistically insignificant change noted with the intervention in the three clinical outcomes studied ( fasting blood glucose , blood pressure and cholesterol ) both in comparison to the control group before and after and within the intervention group . However most changes noted were in the expected direction of improvement ; six of the seven guidelines were statistically improved in the intervention group when compared with the control group . Within the intervention group , adherence with five of seven guidelines was also statistically significantly increased with the remaining guidelines showing a trend in favor of improvement ( fasting blood glucose measurements ( p = 0.07 ) and urine determinations for protein ( p = 0.07 ) ) . Knowledge question naire scores were similar between the intervention and control groups on completion of the study but 2 of 4 items on a satisfaction scale were statistically significantly higher in the intervention group . The intervention described in this setting was successful in improving adherence to diabetes guidelines and increased some aspects of satisfaction with diabetes care . The intervention did not result in a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes but changes noted were in the expected direction of improvement . The significant improvement in adherence to diabetes guidelines suggests that this intervention is a promising model for diabetes care for newly developed countries OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of web-based care management on glucose and blood pressure control over 12 months in patients with poorly controlled diabetes . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS For this study , 104 patients with diabetes and HbA(1c ) ( A1C ) > or = 9.0 % who received their care at a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center were recruited . All participants completed a  diabetes education class  and were r and omized to continue with their usual care ( n = 52 ) or receive web-based care management ( n = 52 ) . The web-based group received a notebook computer , glucose and blood pressure monitoring devices , and access to a care management website . The website provided educational modules , accepted uploads from monitoring devices , and had an internal messaging system for patients to communicate with the care manager . RESULTS Participants receiving web-based care management had lower A1C over 12 months ( P < 0.05 ) when compared with education and usual care . Persistent website users had greater improvement in A1C when compared with intermittent users ( -1.9 vs. -1.2 % ; P = 0.051 ) or education and usual care ( -1.4 % ; P < 0.05 ) . A larger number of website data uploads was associated with a larger decline in A1C ( highest tertile -2.1 % , lowest tertile -1.0 % ; P < 0.02 ) . Hypertensive participants in the web-based group had a greater reduction in systolic blood pressure ( P < 0.01 ) . HDL cholesterol rose and triglycerides fell in the web-based group ( P < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS Web-based care management may be a useful adjunct in the care of patients with poorly controlled diabetes OBJECTIVE Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care setting s , where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high , a problem known as clinical inertia . We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center . We studied all patients ( 4,138 ) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were r and omized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions . Instead of consultative advice , the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient 's visit , individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks , or both . RESULTS Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site , improvements in and final HbA1c ( A1C ) with feedback + reminders ( deltaA1C 0.6 % , final A1C 7.46 % ) were significantly better than control ( deltaA1C 0.2 % , final A1C 7.84 % , P < 0.02 ) ; changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only ( P = NS vs. control ) . Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure ( sBP ) and LDL cholesterol . Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP . Over a 2-year period , overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites ( final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2 % , P < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS Feedback on performance aim ed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control . Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care setting
The effect on patient outcomes remained less clear as these were rarely assessed .
Arrangements for follow-up ( organisational intervention ) also showed a favourable effect on process outcomes .
Multiple interventions in which patient education was added or in which the role of the nurse was enhanced also reported favourable effects on patients ' health outcomes .
REVIEW ER 'S CONCLUSIONS Multifaceted professional interventions can enhance the performance of health professionals in managing patients with diabetes .
Organisational interventions that improve regular prompted recall and review of patients ( central computerised tracking systems or nurses who regularly contact the patient ) can also improve diabetes management .
The addition of patient-oriented interventions can lead to improved patient health outcomes .
BACKGROUND Diabetes is a common chronic disease that is increasingly managed in primary care .
Different systems have been proposed to manage diabetes care .