Impact of electronic diabetes registry 'Meaningful Use' on quality of care and hospital utilization

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether the use of diabetes registries meeting Meaningful Use core objectives in primary care practices is associated with differences in quality of care and hospital utilization rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS A practice assessment survey was conducted to identify whether and how practices were using diabetes registries. Insurance claims data from 2010 were used to compare the health outcomes of patients from practices that used diabetes registries meeting Meaningful Use-related objectives to the outcomes of patients from other practices. Logistic hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze the data. RESULTS Records from 12,514 diabetic patients (including 10,809 with type 2 diabetes) from 50 urban practices were included in the analysis. The results suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated in practices using registries for patient reminders were more likely to have completed the recommended laboratory testing (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, p < 0.01) and dilated retinal examinations (OR 1.14, p < 0.01). Patients in practices using registries for quality improvement were less likely to have 'avoidable hospitalization' (OR 0.83, p < 0.01) and emergency room visits (OR 0.76, p < 0.01). The use of a diabetes registry did not have a significant impact on the quality of care or hospital utilization for patients with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSION Use of diabetes registries meeting Meaningful Use core objectives is associated with higher completion or recommended lab tests and a lower hospital utilization rate for patients with type 2 diabetes.

[1]  Plamen Nikolov,et al.  Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2002 , 2003, Diabetes care.

[2]  Alexander S. Young,et al.  Information Technology to Support Improved Care For Chronic Illness , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  B. Friedman,et al.  Primary Care, HMO Enrollment, and Hospitalization for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions: A New Approach , 2002, Medical care.

[5]  T Saric,et al.  Improving Performance in Diabetes Care: Benefits of Information Technology Enabled Diabetes Management. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  L. Baker,et al.  Physician practice size and variations in treatments and outcomes: evidence from Medicare patients with AMI. , 2007, Health affairs.

[7]  Spyridon S Marinopoulos,et al.  The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  D. Drotar,et al.  Age differences in parent and child responsibilities for management of cystic fibrosis and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. , 1994, Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP.

[9]  D. D. Ortiz.  Using a simple patient registry to improve your chronic disease care. , 2006, Family practice management.

[10]  N. Maizlish,et al.  A record linkage protocol for a diabetes registry at ethnically diverse community health centers. , 2005, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[11]  S. Shortell,et al.  Brief report: The prevalence and use of chronic disease registries in physician organizations , 2005, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[12]  V. Basevi,et al.  Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012 , 2011, Diabetes Care.

[13]  C. B. Taylor,et al.  Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer , 2003, Cancer.

[14]  Seppo Lehto,et al.  Gender difference in the impact of type 2 diabetes on coronary heart disease risk. , 2004, Diabetes care.

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

[16]  C. Tilquin,et al.  Risk Adjustment in Outcome Assessment: the Charlson Comorbidity Index , 1993, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[17]  R. McDaniel,et al.  7 characteristics of successful work relationships. , 2006, Family practice management.

[18]  D. Gans,et al.  Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. , 2005, Health affairs.

[19]  Anne F. Kittler,et al.  A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[20]  G. Watt,et al.  Practice size and quality attainment under the new GMS contract: a cross-sectional analysis. , 2006, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[21]  Robert J. Stroebel,et al.  A randomized trial of three diabetes registry implementation strategies in a community internal medicine practice. , 2002, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[22]  Rita Furst Seifert,et al.  Distinguishing the economic costs associated with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. , 2009, Population health management.

[23]  M. Harris,et al.  Quality of care provided by general practitioners using or not using Division‐based diabetes registers , 2002, The Medical journal of Australia.

[24]  Robin C. Meili,et al.  Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. , 2005, Health affairs.

[25]  Mark Woodward,et al.  Excess risk of fatal coronary heart disease associated with diabetes in men and women: meta-analysis of 37 prospective cohort studies , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.