Six-monthly diabetes monitoring of well-controlled patients: experiences of primary care providers

Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study

Background

Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients’ experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions.

Methods

in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions.

Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months).

Results

Qualitative:

In participating practices (n = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions

A focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity

Quantitative:

In patients (n = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.5), p < 0.001)

Satisfaction decreased slightly (− 1.6 (95% CI -2.6;-0.6), p = 0.001)

Non-significant declines were found in wellbeing (− 1.3 (95% CI -5.4; 2.9), p = 0.55) and health status (− 3.0 (95% CI -7.1; 1.2), p = 0.16).

Conclusions

To tailor diabetes care to individual patients within well-organised practices, we recommend dispensing with protocol while maintaining one structural annual monitoring consultation, combined with the well-supported implementation of feasible self-management interventions. Interventions should be selected and delivered with the involvement of patients and should involve population preferences and solid team collaborations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07198-2.

Association between person and disease related factors and the planned diabetes care in people who receive person-centered type 2 diabetes care: An implementation study

AIMS

To assess the planned diabetes care for the coming year and its associated factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have a person-centered annual consultation.

METHODS

Implementation study of a new consultation model in 47 general practices (primary care) and 6 outpatient clinics (secondary care); 1200 patients from primary and 166 from secondary care participated. Data collection took place between November 2015 and February 2017. Outcomes: preferred monitoring frequency; referral to other health care provider(s); medication change. One measurement at the end of the consultation. We performed logistic regression analyses. Differences between primary and secondary care were analyzed.

RESULTS

Many patients arranged a monitoring frequency <4 times per year (general practices 19.5%, outpatient clinics 40%, p < .001). Type of provider (physician/nurse, OR 3.83, p < .001), baseline HbA1c (OR 1.02, p = .017), glucose lowering medication; and setting treatment goals (OR .65, p = .048) were associated with the chosen frequency. Independently associated with a referral were age (OR .99, p = .039), baseline glucose lowering medication and patients' goal setting (OR 1.52, p = .016). Medication change was associated with type of provider, baseline HbA1c, blood glucose lowering medication, quality of life (OR .80, p = .037) and setting treatment goals (OR 2.64, p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Not only disease but also person related factors, especially setting treatment goals, are independently associated with planned care use in person-centered diabetes care.

Implementation of a Structured Diabetes Consultation Model to Facilitate a Person-Centered Approach: Results From a Nationwide Dutch Study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 3-monthly versus 6-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients: a pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial in primary care (EFFIMODI study)

AIM

To investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 6-monthly monitoring compared with 3-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial was performed. From April 2009 to August 2010, 2215 patients from 233 general practitioners across the Netherlands were included. Patients were eligible if between 40- and 80-years-old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for more than a year, treated by their general practitioner, not on insulin treatment and well-controlled during the last year (HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l). Patients without a strong preference for their monitoring frequency were randomised to 3-monthly or 6-monthly monitoring. Follow-up was 18 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients remaining under: HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l. Equivalence was assumed if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was between -5 and 5%. Cost-effectiveness was determined using a cost-minimisation analysis.

RESULTS

In the 3-monthly group 69.5% remained under good cardiometabolic control, versus 69.8% in the 6-monthly group (difference: 0.3%; 95%CI: -6.2-6.7%). All secondary outcomes were equivalent for 3-monthly and 6-monthly monitoring, except the systolic blood pressure target, physical activity and antihypertensive drug use. Six-monthly monitoring was €387 (£333) cheaper per patient compared to 3-monthly monitoring during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with good cardiometabolic control and without preference for their monitoring frequency can visit the primary care physician less often. The cost-savings can be considerable.