Usage Patterns of Devices Designed to Support Diabetes Management: an Educational Needs Assessment

ObjectiveTo determine knowledge, competence, and attitudinal issues among diabetes specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding the use of insulin delivery devices such as insulin pens and insulin pumps and the role of glucose monitoring devices and systems in the care of patients with diabetes.MethodsA quantitative survey tool was developed that contained 51 questions directed to diabetes specialists and 49 questions directed to PCPs. A 5-point, Likert-type scale or multiple-choice format was used. Data were collected from attendees at live symposia across the United States. Results were analyzed for frequency of response and significant relationships among the variables.ResultsThe survey was completed by 136 specialists and 418 PCPs. There were higher usage rates for insulin pens among specialists than PCPs, although there were higher usage rates among more experienced PCPs. Regarding glucose monitoring, most specialists and PCPs did not recommend “block checking,” which has been commonly thought of as a reasonable compromise checking schedule for patients with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. PCPs who were more experienced and used outside educational resources, such as a certified diabetes educator, and specialists who saw more patients on a weekly basis were more likely to prescribe the use of continuous glucose monitoring. There was a general underuse of continuous glucose monitoring in eligible patients.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the discordance between PCPs and specialists with regard to advanced knowledge and confidence required for the use of newer technologies for glucose monitoring and insulin replacement. We have identified important remedial opportunities for qualityand performance-based educational interventions. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:51-57)     

Endo Echo Improves Primary Care Provider And Community Health Worker Self-Efficacy In Complex Diabetes Management In Medically Underserved Communities

Objective: To determine whether participation in a multidisciplinary telementorship model of healthcare delivery improves primary care provider (PCP) and community health worker (CHW) confidence in managing patients with complex diabetes in medically underserved regions.Methods: We applied a well-established healthcare delivery model, Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), to the management of complex diabetes (Endo ECHO) in medically underserved communities. A multidisciplinary team at Project ECHO connected with PCPs and CHWs at 10 health centers across New Mexico for weekly videoconferencing virtual clinics. Participating PCPs and CHWs presented de-identified patients and received best practice guidance and mentor-ship from Project ECHO specialists and network peers. A robust curriculum was developed around clinical practice guidelines and presented by weekly didactics over the ECHO network. After 2 years of participation in Endo ECHO, PCPs and CHWs completed self-efficacy surveys comparing confidence in complex diabetes management to baseline.Results: PCPs and CHWs in rural New Mexico reported significant improvement in self-efficacy in all measures of complex diabetes management, including PCP ability to serve as a local resource for other healthcare providers seeking assistance in diabetes care. Overall self-efficacy improved by 130% in CHWs (P<.0001) and by 60% in PCPs (P<.0001), with an overall large Cohen's effect size.Conclusion: Among PCPs and CHWS in rural, medically underserved communities, participation in Endo ECHO for 2 years significantly improved confidence in complex diabetes management. Application of the ECHO model to complex diabetes care may be useful in resource-poor communities with limited access to diabetes specialist services.Abbreviations: CHW = community health worker; CME = Continuing Medical Education; ECHO = Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes; FQHC = federally qualified health center; PCP = primary care provider     

Econsults to Endocrinologists Improve Access and Change Primary Care Provider Behavior

Objective: To describe the impact of an eConsult service on access to endocrinologists along with its influence on changing primary care provider (PCP) course of action and referral behaviors.Methods: Established in 2011, the Champlain BASE (Building Access to Specialist Care via eConsult) service allows PCPs to access specialist care in lieu of traditional face-to-face referrals. We conducted a cross-sectional study of eConsult cases submitted to endocrinologists by PCPs between April 15, 2011 and January 31, 2015. Usage data and PCP responses to a mandatory closeout survey were analyzed to determine eConsult response times, PCP practice behavior, referral outcomes, and provider satisfaction. Each eConsult was coded according to clinical topic and question type based on established taxonomies.Results: A total of 180 PCPs submitted 464 eConsults to endocrinology during the study period. Specialist median response time was 7 hours, with 90% of responses occurring within 3 days. PCPs received a new or additional course of action in 62% of submitted cases. An unnecessary face-to-face referral was avoided in 44% of all eConsults and in 67% of cases where the PCP initially contemplated requesting a referral. Over 95% of cases were rated at least 4 out of 5 in value for PCPs and their patients.Conclusion: The use of eConsult improves access to endocrinologists by providing timely, highly rated practice-changing clinical advice while reducing the need for patients to attend face-to-face office visits.Abbreviations:BASE = Building Access to Specialist Advice through eConsultPCP = primary care physicianUCSF = University of California San Francisco     

Differences in Achieving Hba1C Goals Among Patients Seen by Endocrinologists and Primary Care Providers

Objective: This study evaluated whether there is a difference in the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes who achieve a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) <7% within one year following treatment by an endocrinologist or primary care physician (PCP).Methods: We conducted a retrospective, propensity-matched study of patients with type 2 diabetes that were not optimally controlled and seen within our health system from 2007–2016. We assessed differences in short term health outcomes for patients following an endocrinologist visit compared to a PCP visit.Results: Patients seen by endocrinologists obtained HbA1c control at a faster rate (hazard ratio = 1.226; 95% confidence interval = 1.01 to 1.488) than those seen by a PCP. Furthermore, 34.5% and 29.5% of those treated by endocrinologists and PCPs, respectively, obtained HbA1c control by one year. Endocrinologists were more likely to prescribe a new medication class within 90 days than PCPs (14.1% versus 10.3%, respectively, P = .043). There was no difference in the risk of hospitalization between groups; 24.4% and 24.1% of those treated by endocrinologists and PCPs, respectively, were hospitalized within one year.Conclusion: Patients treated by endocrinology specialists were more likely to achieve a target HbA1c of <7% (53 mmol/mol) than those treated by PCPs in our health-care system. The performance difference may be partially explained by a higher rate of adding new classes of diabetes medications to the patient's pharmacologic regimens within 90 days by endocrinologists compared with PCPs. The long-term impact of these differences is unknown but has the potential to have an unfavorable impact on the health of the population.Abbreviations: ACP = American College of Physicians; CI = confidence interval; DUHS = Duke University Health System; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; HR = hazard ratio; PCP = primary care physician; SMD = standard mean difference     

Physicians' Self-Perceptions of Care for Emerging Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Establishing care with adult providers is essential for emerging adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) transitioning from pediatric care. Although research evaluating the transition from pediatric to adult care has been focused primarily on patients' perceptions, little is known about the adult providers' perspectives. We sought to ascertain adult providers' perspectives of caring for the medical and psychosocial needs of this patient population.Methods: We developed and mailed a survey to 79 regional adult endocrinologists and 186 primary care physicians (PCPs) identified through 2 regional insurance plans. Questions addressed perceived aptitude in clinical aspects of diabetes management, importance and availability of diabetes team members, and opinions regarding recommended transition methods.Results: The response rate was 43% for endocrinologists and 13% for PCPs. Endocrinologists reported higher aptitude in insulin management (P<.01). PCPs reported greater aptitude in screening and treating depression (P<0.01). Although endocrinologists and PCPs did not differ in their views of the importance of care by a comprehensive team, endocrinologists reported better access to diabetes educators and dieticians than PCPs (P<.01). Recommended transition methods were described as useful.Conclusion: These preliminary results suggest that endocrinologists are better prepared to assume diabetes care of emerging adults, whereas PCPs may be better prepared to screen and treat associated depression. Future studies are needed to determine if a medical home model with cooperative management improves care for emerging adults with T1D.Abbreviations: T1D = type 1 diabetes CDE = certified diabetes educator RD = registered dietitian PCPs = primary care physicians     

Bariatric Surgery and the Role of the Clinical Endocrinologist: 2011 Update

ObjectiveTo discuss the emerging roles of bariatric surgery and clinical endocrinology within the context of obesity and diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plans and cost-effective strategies.MethodsRelevant literature is reviewed and clinical cases are presented.ResultsThe global obesity epidemic poses many challenges to clinical endocrinologists and has fomented a coordinated effort among specialists to revolutionize management paradigms. Technologic innovation drives the need for accelerated learning and research efforts in bariatric surgery. The national shortage of physicians with expertise in nutritional medicine compounds the management problems for this expanding patient population. Certain issues merit continued attention and research, such as gastric banding for mild obesity, surgery for treatment of diabetes, sleeve gastrectomy, and nutritional and metabolic consequences.ConclusionClinical endocrinologists should have a central role in the perioperative decision-making for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. (Endocr Pract. 2011;17:788-797)     

Transforming the Endocrine Consult: Asynchronous Provider Consultations

Objective: To analyze the impact of virtual consultations on the spectrum and volume of endocrine consults, access to endocrine care, and downstream healthcare utilization.Methods: A program (eConsults) designed to enable and reimburse asynchronous consultations between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists at the University of California, San Francisco, was launched in 2012. All eConsults (n = 158) submitted to endocrinology over the first year were analyzed for clinical focus and use of structured referral templates. PCP compliance with specialist recommendations was measured and stratified by provider type. Impact on endocrine referral volume was calculated using simple linear regression. Changes in wait times to endocrine care were analyzed comparing administrative data from the year of and the year prior to the introduction of eConsults. Downstream endocrine office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were captured by chart abstraction for all standard endocrine eConsults (n = 113).Results: The proportion of endocrine referrals sent as eConsults (15 to 22%) was significantly higher than the combined average for all other participating specialties (7.4%) (P<.001). Overall, 76.0% of endocrinologist recommendations were fully implemented. There was no induced demand in total volume of referrals to endocrinology, and introduction of eConsults significantly improved access to endocrine care (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 4.9). Rates of downstream healthcare utilization within 6 months of a completed eConsult were low.Conclusion: Use of virtual consultations in a fee-for-service, academic medical center setting significantly improved access to endocrine care and the quality of referrals. Increasing recognition and reimbursement of nontraditional consultation models will be essential to scaling and disseminating these programs.Abbreviations:CI = confidence intervalEHR = electronic health recordPCP = primary care physicianUCSF = University of California, San Francisco     

Inpatient Management of Diabets Mellitus Among Noncritically Ill Patients at the University Hospital of Puerto Rico

ObjectiveTo describe the state of glycemic control in noncritically ill diabetic patients admitted to the Puerto Rico University Hospital and adherence to current standard of care guidelines for the treatment of diabetes.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients admitted to a general medicine ward with diabetes mellitus as a secondary diagnosis. Clinical data for the first 5 days and the last 24 hours of hospitalization were analyzed.ResultsA total of 147 noncritically ill diabetic patients were evaluated. The rates of hyperglycemia (blood glucose ≥ 180 mg/dL) and hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 70 mg/dL) were 56.7 and 2.8%, respectively. Nearly 60% of patients were hyperglycemic during the first 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 226.5 mg/dL), and 54.2% were hyperglycemic during the last 24 hours of hospitalization (mean random blood glucose, 196.51 mg/dL). The mean random last glucose value before discharge was 189.6 mg/dL. Most patients were treated with subcutaneous insulin, with basal insulin alone (60%) used as the most common regimen. The proportion of patients classified as uncontrolled receiving basal-bolus therapy increased from 54.3% on day 1 to 60% on day 5, with 40% continuing to receive only basal insulin. Most of the uncontrolled patients had their insulin dose increased (70.1%); however, a substantial proportion had no change (23.7%) or even a decrease (6.2%) in their insulin dose.ConclusionThe management of hospitalized diabetic patients is suboptimal, probably due to clinical inertia, manifested by absence of appropriate modification of insulin regimen and intensification of dose in uncontrolled diabetic patients. A comprehensive educational diabetes management program, along with standardized insulin orders, should be implemented to improve the care of these patients. (Endocr Pract. 2014;20:452-460)     

Transcultural Diabetes Care in The United States – A Position Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a transculturalized diabetes chronic disease care model that is adapted for patients across a spectrum of ethnicities and cultures. AACE has conducted several transcultural activities on global issues in clinical endocrinology and completed a 3-city series of conferences in December 2017 that focused on diabetes care for ethnic minorities in the U.S. Proceedings from the “Diabetes Care Across America” series of transcultural summits are presented here. Information from community leaders, practicing health care professionals, and other stakeholders in diabetes care is analyzed according to biological and environmental factors. Four specific U.S. ethnicities are detailed: African Americans, Latino/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. A core set of recommendations to culturally adapt diabetes care is presented that emphasizes culturally appropriate terminology, transculturalization of white papers, culturally adapting clinic infrastructure, flexible office hours, behavioral medicine—especially motivational interviewing and building trust—culturally competent nutritional messaging and health literacy, community partnerships for care delivery, technology innovation, clinical trial recruitment and retention of ethnic minorities, and more funding for scientific studies on epigenetic mechanisms of cultural impact on disease expression. It is hoped that through education, research, and clinical practice enhancements, diabetes care can be optimized in terms of precision and clinical outcomes for the individual and U.S. population as a whole.Lay AbstractThe American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a diabetes care model for patients of different backgrounds. AACE led meetings in New York, Houston, and Miami with health care professionals and community leaders to improve diabetes care. Information from these meetings looked at biological and environmental diabetes risks. Four American patient groups were studied: African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Diabetes care should use culturally appropriate language and search for better ways to apply science and clinic design. Talking to patients more clearly can improve their diabetes control. There are many other needed changes in the American health care system discussed in this paper. It is hoped that through better education, research, and practice, diabetes care can be improved for the entire U.S. population. This means that important differences among patients' ethnic and cultural backgrounds are addressed.Executive Summary

• Cultural adaptation of evidence-based recommendations is a necessary component of optimal diabetes care.
• Biological factors that contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes vary according to race and ethnicity and can be affected by social determinants that vary with culture.
• The “Transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm” was developed in 2010 to optimize diabetes nutrition care globally and represents a validated methodology where evidence-based recommendations from a source culture can be adapted and implemented in a different culture using a toolkit.
• The 2015 AACE Pan-American Workshop examined diabetes care in 9 Latin American nations and concluded that there should only be one level of diabetes care for a population and that level should be “excellent;” also, that A1C measurements should be utilized and that more educational and nutritional options are needed to optimize diabetes care.
• The “Diabetes Care Across America – A Series of Transcultural Summits” was an AACE program conducted in 2017 in New York, Houston, and Miami to examine cultural factors that influence diabetes care domestically; the findings of this program are presented here.
• The African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American, and Native American populations are each comprised of different ancestries, anthropometrics/body compositions and physical appearances, and cultures and degrees of acculturation, with a significant evidence base that associates specific gene variants with specific phenotypic traits affecting diabetes care.
• For each ethno-cultural population, health messaging and diabetes care will need to consider issues of potential distrust of health care professionals, history of discrimination, religious practices, food preferences, attitudes toward physical activity, and despite the full range of socio-economics, the impact of poverty on engagement, self-monitoring, adherence with lifestyle and medical recommendations, and recruitment for clinical trials.
• Diabetes care should be as precise as possible, incorporating clinical trial evidence that best reflects the ethno-cultural attributes of a specific patient, with particular emphasis on cardiovascular disease risk mitigation, technology to assess the effects of eating patterns on glycemic status, adjusting traditional eating patterns to more healthy options that are still acceptable to the patient, flexibility in lifestyle and medication recommendations that take into account cultural factors, and the utilization of community-based resources to improve implementation.
• Pragmatic first steps to prepare a diabetes practice for an ethno-culturally diverse patient population include: learning more about biological-cultural interactions; gaining experience with lifestyle and behavioral medicine, especially motivational interviewing; creating a safe and immersive clinical environment; incorporating translation services, social prescribing, wearable technologies, web-based resources, and community engagement; and establishing referral networks with clinical trialists in diabetes research to improve recruitment of different populations.

ABSTRACTAbbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; BMI = body mass index; CPA = clinical practice algorithm; CPG = clinical practice guideline; DBCD = dysglycemia-based chronic disease; DPP = Diabetes Prevention Program; GWAS = genome-wide association study; HCP = health care professional(s); IHS = Indian Health Service; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; MetS = metabolic syndrome; T2D = type 2 diabetes mellitus; tDNA = transcultural Diabetes Nutrition Algorithm; TG = triglyceride; WC = waist circumference     

Insulin therapy for inpatients with diabetes: Perceptions of resident physicians from disparate geographic training programs

Background: Improving diabetes management in hospitalized patients will require educational efforts for all practitioners, particularly resident physicians. Thus, a better understanding of residents' beliefs about diabetes in the hospital must be obtained.Objective: The purpose of this article was to compare and contrast perceptions of resident physicians from 2 geographically distinct training programs regarding management of inpatients with diabetes.Methods: Residents from training programs in the southwestern and southeastern United States were surveyed in 2006 and 2007 about their views on the importance of inpatient glucose control, their perceptions about desirable target glucose ranges, and the problems they encountered when trying to manage hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.Results: Responses were obtained from 52 of 66 residents at site 1 and from 65 of 85 residents at site 2 (N = 117 total respondents; total response, 77%; mean age, 31 years; 48% men; 61% primary care). Combined analyses revealed that respondents believed that glucose control was “very important” in critically ill patients (96%), perioperative patients (82%), and noncritically ill patients (66%). Most residents indicated that they would target a therapeutic glucose range within published recommendations. Less than half felt “very comfortable” managing inpatient hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, subcutaneous insulin, or insulin drips. Respondents were not very familiar with existing institutional policies or preprinted order sets for insulin therapy. The most commonly reported barrier to management of inpatient hyper-glycemia was lack of knowledge about appropriate insulin regimens and their use.Conclusions: Trainees from 2 very different educational programs shared common beliefs, knowledge deficits, and perceived barriers about inpatient glucose management. Our findings indicate that trainees were uncertain about how to use insulin therapy in the hospital. Future inpatient diabetes quality-improvement efforts should focus on development of uniform educational programs targeting the management of inpatient diabetes, particularly as it relates to insulin use.     

Cystic Fibrosis-Related Diabetes Mellitus: Etiology,Evaluation, and Management

ObjectiveTo review the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes mellitus (CFRD).MethodsWe performed a MEDLINE search of the literature, using the search terms “cystic fibrosis-related diabetes, “CFRD,” and “cystic fibrosis and diabetes,” to identify pertinent articles available in English.ResultsIn patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), CFRD is a major cause for an accelerated decline in health. It is the result of multiple pathophysiologic mechanisms, including destruction of pancreatic islet cells, impaired hepatic response to the antigluconeogenic effects of insulin, and impaired insulin sensitivity. Nutritional management and adequate caloric intake are paramount to successful management of CF. Although insulin remains the standard of care for treating CFRD in conjunction with fasting hyperglycemia, a small but growing body of literature supports the use of oral therapies. In this article, we discuss the benefits of and possible adverse reactions to the various classes of oral and injectable agents used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, with special attention to the population of patients with CF.ConclusionOrally administered agents can have a role in the treatment of CFRD. Further study is needed to determine the optimal combination of therapeutic modalities for CFRD. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:1169-1179)     

The Use of Premixed Insulin Analogues in the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Advantages and Limitations

Background:Intensive, target-oriented therapy is the standard of care in the management of patients with type 2 diabetesmellitus (DM). Early and aggressive use of insulin that is as close as possible to the physiologic pattern of insulin secretion from healthy pancreatic β-cells is advocated to achieve glycemic goals and reduce complications of DM.Objective:The objective of this article was to review the characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks of premixedinsulin analogues and to evaluate their role in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.Methods:A PubMed search of articles from 1990 to 2006 was undertaken using the search terms type 2 diabetes, basalbolus therapy, premixed insulins, biphasic insulins, and insulin analogues. Pertinent content from relevant articles was extracted and combined with the authors' knowledge, experience, and clinical expertise.Results:The advent of insulin analogues has streamlined the treatment of patients with DM. When to initiate insulin during the course of treatment is the subject of much debate. Insulin therapy targeting both fasting and postprandial hyperglycemia is important in achieving optimal blood glucose (BG) control in patients with type 2 DM. A practical and feasible option is the use of >1 injection of premixed insulin analogues. Premixed insulin preparations provide both basal and prandial coverage because of their biphasic pharmacokinetic properties. Clinical trials have shown that these agents improve glycemic control, are associated with an acceptably low rate of severe hypoglycemia, and have a high degree of patient acceptance. Limitations include the inability to adjust the long- and short-acting components separately, to use a flexible regimen of self-titration and premeal bolus-insulin calculations, and to adequately treat postlunch and earlymorning BG elevations.Conclusion:Clinicians should be aware of premixed insulin analogues' advantages and limitations so that these agentscan be used appropriately in the treatment of patients with type 2 DM.     

Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Separating the Myths from the Facts

Background: Reluctance to use insulin is a well-established problem among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Many of the concerns that prompt patients to resist insulin are rooted in myths that arose because of the medical profession's difficult history with this medication.Objectives: The goals of this article were to articulate those myths, describe their impact on patient and clinician reasoning, and explain how clinicians can reassure patients and help them make a more informed choice about insulin therapy.Methods: Materials used for this article were identified through a search of PubMed for the years 1993 to 2007. English-language articles were selected using the search terms diabetes mellitus, psychological insulin barriers, and clinical inertia.Results: There are patient- and physician-specific barriers to insulin initiation that providers must be aware of to successfully counsel patients. Physician issues include worries regarding the effect insulin initiation in patients will have on practice resources (eg, impact patient crises have during initial stages of insulin therapy, concern there is inadequate time or personnel to teach insulin therapy); fear that patients will become angry, alienated, or leave the practice; and concern about the potential for patient hypoglycemia and weight gain. Patient-centered issues focus on the fear of weight gain, social embarrassment/stigma, hypoglycemia, lifestyle changes/restrictions, painful injections, and feelings of failure and guilt that treatment has progressed to needing insulin. Clinicians can alleviate many patient concerns by becoming aware of the personal and social dimensions of insulin therapy. Numerous strategies are available for the clinician to use for successful implementation of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 DM.Conclusion: By investigating the new, simpler, more straightforward algorithms for initiating insulin and using them in patient care, it will be possible to help patients make an informed decision when the time comes to start insulin therapy.     

Parámetros de control glucémico en pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 no insulinizados derivados a consulta de Endocrinología,y grado de implementación del consenso nacional sobre el tratamiento de la hiperglucemia

ObjectiveTo assess blood glucose in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral antidiabetic drugs in primary care at the time of referral to specialized endocrinologists, and the degree of implementation of the national consensus guidelines of the Spanish Society of Diabetes by evaluating steps one (S1), two (S2), and three (S3) of the escalating therapy.Material and methodsRetrospective, observational study where 81 endocrinologists evaluated patients ≥40 years of age referred from primary care between July 2012 and July 2013, treated with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs but no insulin therapy, and with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) levels ≥6.5%. Patients also had to have HbA_1c levels and both fasting and postprandial plasma glucose measurements from the previous three months.ResultsA total of 285 patients (57.6% males) were assessed. Mean (SD) age was 63.1 (9.7) years, mean HbA_1c was 8.5 (1.2) %, mean FPG was 171.7 (43) mg/dL, and mean postprandial plasma glucose was 206.8 (50) mg/dL. In primary care, 26.0% of patients were at S1 and 74.0% were at S2. After referral to the endocrinologist, 9.8% of patients moved onto S1, 42.8% onto S2, and 47.4% onto S3. Oral antidiabetic drugs most commonly prescribed in primary care were metformin (90.2%), DPP-4 inhibitors (34.4%), and sulfonylureas (30.5%), while drugs most commonly used in the specialized endocrinology setting were metformin (86%), insulin (56.8%), and DPP-4 inhibitors (49.8%). The most commonly followed guidelines were those of the American Diabetes Association and the consensus guidelines of the Spanish Society of Diabetes, in 77% and 45% of cases respectively.ConclusionsApproximately half the patients treated with oral antidiabetic drugs in primary care are prescribed insulin after referral to an endocrinology specialist. The most commonly followed guidelines in specialized care are the American Diabetes Association guidelines.     

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to evaluate guidelines for the management of infertility across the primary care-secondary care interface

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of clinical guidelines on the management of infertility across the primary care-secondary care interface.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practices and NHS hospitals accepting referrals for infertility in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area.ParticipantsAll 221 general practices in Glasgow; 214 completed the trial.InterventionGeneral practices in the intervention arm received clinical guidelines developed locally. Control practices received them one year later. Dissemination of the guidelines included educational meetings.ResultsData on 689 referrals were collected. No significant difference was found in referral rates for infertility. Fewer than 1% of couples were referred inappropriately early. Referrals from intervention practices were significantly more likely to have all relevant investigations carried out (odds ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.75, P=0.025). 70% of measurements of serum progesterone concentrations during the midluteal phase and 34% of semen analyses were repeated at least once in hospital, despite having been recorded as normal when checked in general practice. No difference was found in the proportion of referrals in which a management plan was reached within one year or in the mean duration between first appointment and date of management plan. NHS costs were not significantly affected.ConclusionsDissemination of infertility guidelines by commonly used methods results in a modest increase in referrals having recommended investigations completed in general practice, but there are no detectable differences in outcome for patients or reduction in costs. Clinicians in secondary care tended to fail to respond to changes in referral practice by doctors. Guidelines that aim to improve the referral process need to be disseminated and implemented so as to lead to changes in both primary care and secondary care.

What is already known on this topic

Most previous research into clinical guidelines has focused on their development and implementationEvidence is lacking about the outcomes and costs associated with the use of clinical guidelines

What this study adds

Clinical guidelines that may alter the balance of care between general practice and hospital settings require more intensive implementation than guidelines aimed at either setting on its ownThe cost effectiveness of clinical guidelines should not be assumed     

Assessment of Inpatient Fragility Fracture Education and Outpatient Follow-Up at an Urban Tertiary Care Institution

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of inpatient fragility fracture education on follow-up care at an urban tertiary care center with a multidisciplinary inpatient education and follow-up initiative.MethodsParticipants included 139 patients with lowenergy fragility fractures who were identified, educated, and referred for follow-up by a coordinator. Education consisted of an initial 30 to 40-minute session with the patient and family followed by 10-minute sessions on subsequent hospitalization days. Follow-up activities with primary care physicians (PCPs) and orthopaedic surgeons were documented.ResultsOf the 129 patients still living at the end of the study period, 74 (57%) had followed up with their PCP while 93 (72%) had returned to see their orthopaedic surgeons. Women were 2.7 times more likely than men to address the cause of the fragility fracture (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-6.97; P = .038) and were 6.18 times more likely to receive treatment or to have bone mineral density (BMD) testing (95% CI, 1.29-29.61; P = .023). Patients previously treated for osteoporosis were 3 times more likely to follow-up with their PCPs (95% CI, 1.10- 8.02; P = .02), while patients who had previous BMD tests were 4.9 times more likely to follow-up (95% CI, 1.89- 12.79; P = .001). We observed a 42% reduction in the likelihood of seeing a physician for osteoporosis evaluation for each additional 10 years of age (95% CI, 13%-61% reduction in odds; P = .008).ConclusionIn the urban setting, follow-up rates are not sufficiently improved by inpatient education. Improved, persistent communication between the orthopaedic surgeon, PCP, and patient is needed to effectively treat patients and prevent future fractures. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:58-68)     

Analysis of Guidelines for Basal-Bolus Insulin Dosing: Basal Insulin,Correction Factor,and Carbohydrate-To-Insulin Ratio

ObjectiveTo analyze and compare the underlying mathematical models for basal-bolus insulin-dosing guidelines in patients with type 1 diabetes in a retrospective controlled study.MethodsAlgebraic model-development yielded several systems of models with unknown constants, including 3 systems currently in use. These systems were compared for logic and consistency. One of these systems was the accurate insulin management (AIM) system, which we developed in the setting of our large endocrine practice. Our database consisted of retrospective clinical records for a 7-month period. During this time, correction factor (CF), carbohydrate-to-insulin ratio (CIR), and basal insulin were being adjusted incrementally by titration. The variables studied were height, body weight in pounds (BWlb), CF, CIR, hemoglobin A1c (A1C), basal insulin, and 6-day mean total daily dose of insulin (TDD). The values of the variables used in the study were those determined on arrival of the patients at the office. The last 6 TDDs were entered into the database, and the mean was calculated by formulas within the database. We sorted our database into 2 groups, a well-controlled test group (n = 167; A1C ≤ 7%, time on pump > 180 days, no severe hypoglycemic events since the last office visit, and C-peptide level ≤ 0.5 ng/mL) and a control group with poor control (n = 209; A1C > 7% or time on pump < 180 days). We obtained one office visit per patient, as follows: from the test group, we chose the visit with the lowest A1C value; from the control group, we chose one visit by use of a computer’s random number generator. A significant difference was demonstrated between the correlation constants of the test group versus the control group by performing T tests between the means and F tests between the standard deviations. The least squares estimates of the correlation constants from the test group were recommended in the guidelines, in place of the means, to gain accuracy. By these methods, the guidelines used by the patients with good glycemic control are made available for all patients.ResultsWith use of the AIM system, the TDD for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion = 0.24 * BWlb; basal insulin = 0.47 * TDD; CF = 1,700/TDD; and CIR = 2.8 * BWlb/TDD.ConclusionThree mathematical models for CIR are presented, with a rationale for supporting one of them (the AIM model). This model, together with 3 related AIM models, when provided with statistically correlated constants, constitutes the AIM system of guidelines, a consistent and convenient means of estimating insulin-dosing variables for patients with type 1 diabetes. (Endocr Pract. 2008;14:1095-1101)