Cargando…

A Proposal for an Out-of-Range Glycemic Population Health Safety Measure for Older Adults With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-level glycemic control and facility variation of a proposed out-of-range (OOR) measure (overtreatment [OT] [HbA(1c) <7% (53 mmol/mol)] or undertreatment [UT] [>9% (75 mmol/mol)]) compared with the standard measure (SM) (HbA(1c) <8% [64 mmol/mol]) in high-risk...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pogach, Leonard, Tseng, Chin-Lin, Soroka, Orysya, Maney, Miriam, Aron, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28325799
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc16-0953
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-level glycemic control and facility variation of a proposed out-of-range (OOR) measure (overtreatment [OT] [HbA(1c) <7% (53 mmol/mol)] or undertreatment [UT] [>9% (75 mmol/mol)]) compared with the standard measure (SM) (HbA(1c) <8% [64 mmol/mol]) in high-risk older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration patients ≥65 years of age in 2012 who were taking antihyperglycemic agents in 2013 were identified. Patient-level rates and facility-level rates/rankings were calculated by age and comorbid illness burden. RESULTS: We identified 303,097 patients who were taking antiglycemic agents other than metformin only. The study population comprised 193,689 patients with at least one significant medical, neurological, or mental health condition; 98.2% were taking a sulfonylurea and/or insulin; 55.2% were aged 65–75 years; and 44.8% were aged >75 years. The 47.4% of patients 65–75 years met the OOR measure (33.4% OT, 14% UT), and 65.7% met the SM. For patients aged >75 years, rates were 48.1% for OOR (39.2% OT; 8.9% UT) and 73.2% for SM. Facility-level rates for OOR for patients aged 65–75 years ranged from 33.7 to 60.4% (median 47.4%), with a strong inverse correlation (ρ = −0.41) between SM and OOR performance rankings. Among the best-performing 20% facilities on the SM, 14 of 28 ranked in the worst-performing 20% on the OOR measure; 12 of 27 of the worst-performing 20% facilities on the SM ranked in the best-performing 20% on the OOR measure. CONCLUSIONS: Facility rankings that are based on an SM (potential benefits) and OOR measure (potential risks) differ substantially. An OOR for high-risk populations can focus quality improvement on individual patient evaluation to reduce the risk for short-term harms.