Cargando…
The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial
BACKGROUND: Most studies of diabetes self-management that show improved clinical outcome performance involve multiple, time-intensive educational sessions in a group format. Most provider performance feedback interventions do not improve intermediate outcomes, yet lack targeted, patient-level feedba...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050679/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21329495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-12 |
_version_ | 1782199368100610048 |
---|---|
author | Fischer, Henry H Eisert, Sheri L Durfee, M Josh Moore, Susan L Steele, Andrew W McCullen, Kevin Anderson, Katherine Penny, Lara Mackenzie, Thomas D |
author_facet | Fischer, Henry H Eisert, Sheri L Durfee, M Josh Moore, Susan L Steele, Andrew W McCullen, Kevin Anderson, Katherine Penny, Lara Mackenzie, Thomas D |
author_sort | Fischer, Henry H |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Most studies of diabetes self-management that show improved clinical outcome performance involve multiple, time-intensive educational sessions in a group format. Most provider performance feedback interventions do not improve intermediate outcomes, yet lack targeted, patient-level feedback. METHODS: 5,457 low-income adults with diabetes at eight federally-qualified community health centers participated in this nested randomized trial. Half of the patients received report card mailings quarterly; patients at 4 of 8 clinics received report cards at every clinic visit; and providers at 4 of 8 clinics received quarterly performance feedback with targeted patient-level data. Expert-recommended glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure outcomes were assessed. Assessment of report card utility and patient and provider satisfaction was conducted through mailed patient surveys and mid- and post-intervention provider interviews. RESULTS: Many providers and the majority of patients perceived the patient report card as being an effective tool. However, patient report card mailings did not improve process outcomes, nor did point-of-care distribution improve intermediate outcomes. Clinics with patient-level provider performance feedback achieved a greater absolute increase in the percentage of patients at target for glycemic control compared to control clinics (6.4% vs 3.8% respectively, Generalized estimating equations Standard Error 0.014, p < 0.001, CI -0.131 - -0.077). Provider reaction to performance feedback was mixed, with some citing frustration with the lack of both time and ancillary resources. CONCLUSIONS: Patient performance report cards were generally well received by patients and providers, but were not associated with improved outcomes. Targeted, patient-level feedback to providers improved glycemic performance. Provider frustration highlights the need to supplement provider outreach efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00827710 |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3050679 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30506792011-03-09 The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial Fischer, Henry H Eisert, Sheri L Durfee, M Josh Moore, Susan L Steele, Andrew W McCullen, Kevin Anderson, Katherine Penny, Lara Mackenzie, Thomas D BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Most studies of diabetes self-management that show improved clinical outcome performance involve multiple, time-intensive educational sessions in a group format. Most provider performance feedback interventions do not improve intermediate outcomes, yet lack targeted, patient-level feedback. METHODS: 5,457 low-income adults with diabetes at eight federally-qualified community health centers participated in this nested randomized trial. Half of the patients received report card mailings quarterly; patients at 4 of 8 clinics received report cards at every clinic visit; and providers at 4 of 8 clinics received quarterly performance feedback with targeted patient-level data. Expert-recommended glycemic, lipid, and blood pressure outcomes were assessed. Assessment of report card utility and patient and provider satisfaction was conducted through mailed patient surveys and mid- and post-intervention provider interviews. RESULTS: Many providers and the majority of patients perceived the patient report card as being an effective tool. However, patient report card mailings did not improve process outcomes, nor did point-of-care distribution improve intermediate outcomes. Clinics with patient-level provider performance feedback achieved a greater absolute increase in the percentage of patients at target for glycemic control compared to control clinics (6.4% vs 3.8% respectively, Generalized estimating equations Standard Error 0.014, p < 0.001, CI -0.131 - -0.077). Provider reaction to performance feedback was mixed, with some citing frustration with the lack of both time and ancillary resources. CONCLUSIONS: Patient performance report cards were generally well received by patients and providers, but were not associated with improved outcomes. Targeted, patient-level feedback to providers improved glycemic performance. Provider frustration highlights the need to supplement provider outreach efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00827710 BioMed Central 2011-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3050679/ /pubmed/21329495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-12 Text en Copyright ©2011 Fischer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fischer, Henry H Eisert, Sheri L Durfee, M Josh Moore, Susan L Steele, Andrew W McCullen, Kevin Anderson, Katherine Penny, Lara Mackenzie, Thomas D The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title | The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title_full | The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title_fullStr | The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title_short | The impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
title_sort | impact of tailored diabetes registry report cards on measures of disease control: a nested randomized trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050679/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21329495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-12 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fischerhenryh theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT eisertsheril theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT durfeemjosh theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mooresusanl theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT steeleandreww theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mccullenkevin theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT andersonkatherine theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT pennylara theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mackenziethomasd theimpactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT fischerhenryh impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT eisertsheril impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT durfeemjosh impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mooresusanl impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT steeleandreww impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mccullenkevin impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT andersonkatherine impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT pennylara impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial AT mackenziethomasd impactoftailoreddiabetesregistryreportcardsonmeasuresofdiseasecontrolanestedrandomizedtrial |