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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fischer, Henry H, Eisert, Sheri L, Durfee, M Josh, Moore, Susan L, Steele, Andrew W, McCullen, Kevin, Anderson, Katherine, Penny, Lara, Mackenzie, Thomas D
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