Glucose testing and insufficient follow-up of abnormal results: a cohort study

BackgroundMore than 6 million Americans have undiagnosed diabetes. Several national organizations endorse screening for diabetes by physicians, but actual practice is poorly understood. Our objectives were to measure the rate, the predictors and the results of glucose testing in primary care, including rates of follow-up for abnormal values.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 301 randomly selected patients with no known diabetes who received care at a large academic general internal medicine practice in New York City. Using medical records, we collected patients' baseline characteristics in 1999 and followed patients through the end of 2002 for all glucose tests ordered. We used multivariate logistic regression to measure associations between diabetes risk factors and the odds of glucose testing.ResultsThree-fourths of patients (78%) had at least 1 glucose test ordered. Patient age (≥45 vs. <45 years), non-white ethnicity, family history of diabetes and having more primary care visits were each independently associated with having at least 1 glucose test ordered (p < 0.05), whereas hypertension and hyperlipidemia were not. Fewer than half of abnormal glucose values were followed up by the patients' physicians.ConclusionAlthough screening for diabetes appears to be common and informed by diabetes risk factors, abnormal values are frequently not followed up. Interventions are needed to trigger identification and further evaluation of abnormal glucose tests.

[1]  H. Murff,et al.  The impact of family history of diabetes on glucose testing and counseling behavior in primary care. , 2004, Diabetes care.

[2]  G. King,et al.  Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation , 2001, American Political Science Review.

[3]  D. Gohdes,et al.  Diabetes screening practices among individuals aged 45 years and older. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[4]  Ray Burke,et al.  Opportunistic screening for diabetes in routine clinical practice. , 2004, Diabetes care.

[5]  C. Hobel.  U.S.A. , 1980, The Lancet.

[6]  M. Engelgau,et al.  Screening for type 2 diabetes. , 2000, Diabetes care.

[7]  Gary King,et al.  AMELIA: A Program for Missing Data (software) , 1999 .

[8]  M. Fantone,et al.  Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus , 1997, Diabetes Care.

[9]  Russell Harris,et al.  Screening Adults for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  P. Raskin,et al.  Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. , 1999, Diabetes care.

[11]  U. P. S. T. Force.  Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adults: Recommendations and Rationale , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  Ning Li,et al.  Tools for Analyzing Multiple Imputed Datasets , 2003 .

[13]  M. Harris,et al.  Frequency and Determinants of Screening for Diabetes in the U.S , 1994, Diabetes Care.

[14]  W. Dupont,et al.  Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. , 1990, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  S. Fowler,et al.  Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. , 2002 .

[16]  David W Bates,et al.  "I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.