Customized Feedback to Patients and Providers Failed to Improve Safety or Quality of Diabetes Care

OBJECTIVE To assess whether providing customized clinical information to patients and physicians improves safety or quality of diabetes care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Study subjects included 123 primary care physicians and 3,703 eligible adult diabetic patients with elevated A1C or LDL cholesterol, who were randomly assigned to receive customized feedback of clinical information as follows: 1) patient only, 2) physician only, 3) both the patient and physician, or 4) neither patient nor physician. In the intervention groups, patients received customized mailed information or physicians received printed, prioritized lists of patients with recommended clinical actions and performance feedback. Hierarchical models were used to accommodate group random assignment. RESULTS Study interventions did not improve A1C test ordering (P = 0.35) and negatively affected LDL cholesterol test ordering (P < 0.001) in the 12 months postintervention. Interventions had no effect on LDL cholesterol values (P = 0.64), which improved in all groups over time. Interventions had a borderline unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C ≥7% (P = 0.10) and an unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C ≥8% (P < 0.01). Interventions did not reduce risky prescribing events or increase treatment intensification. Time to next visit was longer in all intervention groups compared with that for the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Providing customized decision support to physicians and/or patients did not improve quality or safety of diabetes care and worsened A1C control in patients with baseline A1C ≥8%. Future researchers should consider providing point-of-care decision support with redesign of office systems and/or incentives to increase appropriate actions in response to decision-support information.

[1]  J. Sterman Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making , 1989 .

[2]  David M. Murray,et al.  Design and Analysis of Group- Randomized Trials , 1998 .

[3]  R S Wigton,et al.  Controlled trial using computerized feedback to improve physicians' diagnostic judgments , 1992, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[4]  K. Shojania,et al.  Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. , 2006, JAMA.

[5]  C. Schmid,et al.  Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. , 2002, Diabetes care.

[6]  L. McClure,et al.  Comprehensive evaluation of community-based diabetic patients: effect of feedback to patients and their physicians: a randomized controlled trial. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[7]  A. Karter,et al.  Why Don’t Diabetes Patients Achieve Recommended Risk Factor Targets? Poor Adherence versus Lack of Treatment Intensification , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[8]  B. Rimer,et al.  Why women resist screening mammography: patient-related barriers. , 1989, Radiology.

[9]  Paul Kolm,et al.  An intervention to overcome clinical inertia and improve diabetes mellitus control in a primary care setting: Improving Primary Care of African Americans with Diabetes (IPCAAD) 8. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  D. Bates,et al.  Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. , 2003, JAMA.

[11]  Dov Te'eni,et al.  Direct Manipulation as a Source of Cognitive Feedback: A Human-Computer Experiment with a Judgment Task , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[12]  T. Huisman,et al.  A new high-performance liquid chromatographic procedure for the separation and quantitation of various hemoglobin variants in adults and newborn babies. , 1983, The Journal of laboratory and clinical medicine.

[13]  Robert S. Wigton,et al.  Chapter 7 Applications of Judgment Analysis and Cognitive Feedback to Medicine , 1988 .

[14]  P. O’Connor,et al.  Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. , 2000, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[15]  P. Gollwitzer,et al.  Goal Effects on Action and Cognition , 1996 .

[16]  Michael A. Becker Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles , 1998 .

[17]  W. Assendelft,et al.  Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review. , 2001, Diabetes care.

[18]  Leslie B. Hammer,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Feedback Components, Display Format, and Elaboration on Performance , 1994 .

[19]  David W. Bates,et al.  The use of health information technology in seven nations , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[20]  T. Huisman,et al.  A new high-performance liquid chromatographic procedure to quantitate hemoglobin A1c and other minor hemoglobins in blood of normal, diabetic, and alcoholic individuals. , 1983, The Journal of laboratory and clinical medicine.

[21]  P Ours,et al.  DIABEDS: a randomized trial of the effects of physician and/or patient education on diabetes patient outcomes. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[22]  W. Assendelft,et al.  Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. , 2000, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  P. O’Connor,et al.  Identifying diabetes mellitus or heart disease among health maintenance organization members: sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and cost of survey and database methods. , 1998, The American journal of managed care.

[24]  E. Wagner The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.