Electronic clinical reminder and quality of primary diabetes care

Are Guideline-concordant Processes of Care Consistent Across the Rural-Urban Continuum? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Adults Newly Treated for Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Our aim in this study was to identify the association between place of residence (metropolitan, urban, rural) and guideline-concordant processes of care in the first year of type 2 diabetes management.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of new metformin users between April 2015 and March 2020 in Alberta, Canada. Outcomes were identified as guideline-concordant processes of care through the review of clinical practice guidelines and published literature. Using multivariable logistic regression, the following outcomes were examined by place of residence: dispensation of a statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), eye examination, glycated hemoglobin (A1C), cholesterol, and kidney function testing.

RESULTS

Of 60,222 new metformin users, 67% resided in a metropolitan area, 10% in an urban area, and 23% in a rural area. After confounder adjustment, rural residents were less likely to have a statin dispensed (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 0.87) or undergo cholesterol testing (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.90) when compared with metropolitan residents. In contrast, rural residents were more likely to receive A1C and kidney function testing (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.21 and aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.24, respectively). ACEi/ARB use and eye examinations were similar across place of residence.

CONCLUSIONS

Processes of care varied by place of residence. Limited cholesterol management in rural areas is concerning because this may lead to increased cardiovascular outcomes.

"A friendly reminder" - Improving workflow and efficiency in a pulmonary fellows' outpatient continuity clinic

BACKGROUND

Seeing patients in an ambulatory clinic generates electronic medical record (EMR) inbox tasks. Little is known about the standard baseline message turnaround time to EMR inbox task completion and whether electronic reminders improve turnaround time.

OBJECTIVE

1) Obtain baseline message type and mean message turnaround time (MTT) to EMR inbox task completion data, 2) Standardize EMR workflow education, 3) Disseminate bi-weekly electronic reminders to fellows in their continuity clinic and measure MTT.

METHODS

Prospective, non-randomized, unblinded, cross-over pre- and post-intervention pilot study in an ambulatory pulmonary clinic at a large, urban, academic referral health system. Sixteen pulmonary and critical care fellows affiliated with the Indiana University School of Medicine Pulmonary and Critical Care Fellowship were divided equally into two groups, with the study period from October of 2021 to May of 2022, and were given bi-weekly calendar reminders in Microsoft Outlook with measurement of EMR messages and MTT.

RESULTS

2554 messages were acknowledged with result notes (n = 1676, 59.16 %) being the most common. There was a 40 % decrease in overall MTT from the pre- to the post-intervention period (MTT = 33 days in pre-intervention period for whole cohort, MTT = 19 days in post-intervention period).

CONCLUSIONS

MTT for EMR inbox tasks at a large, academic center with fellowship trainees is roughly 2.5 weeks. These findings should prompt other institutions to investigate their own trainees' inbox handling habits and validates the benefit of EMR training and reminders on fellowship trainee's in-basket task turnaround time.

Using Electronic Clinical Decision Support to Examine Vision Rehabilitation Referrals and Practice Guidelines in Ophthalmology

Purpose

To examine ophthalmologist use of an electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate low vision rehabilitation (LVR) care referral.

Methods

The CDSS alert was designed to appear when best documented visual acuity was <20/40 or hemianopia or quadrantanopia diagnosis was identified during an ophthalmology encounter from November 6, 2017, to April 5, 2019. Fifteen ophthalmologists representing eight subspecialties from an academic medical center were required to respond to the referral recommendation (order, don't order). LVR referral rates and ophthalmologist user experience were assessed. Encounter characteristics associated with LVR referrals were explored using multilevel logistic regression analysis.

Results

The alert appeared for 3625 (8.9%) of 40,931 eligible encounters. The referral rate was 14.8% (535/3625). Of the 3413 encounters that met the visual acuity criterion only, patients who were worse than 20/60 were more likely to be referred, and 32.4% of referred patients were between 20/40 and 20/60. Primary reasons for deferring referrals included active medical or surgical treatment, refractive-related issues, and previous connection to LVR services. Eleven of the 13 ophthalmologists agreed that the alert was useful in identifying candidates for LVR services.

Conclusions

A CDSS for patient identification and referral offers an acceptable mechanism to apply practice guidelines and prompt ophthalmologists to facilitate LVR care. Further study is warranted to optimize ophthalmologist user experience while refining alert criteria beyond visual acuity.

Translational Relevance

The CDSS provides the framework for multi-center research to assess the development of pragmatic algorithms and standards for facilitating LVR care.

A view on the quality of diabetes care in Italy and the role of Diabetes Clinics from the 2018 ARNO Diabetes Observatory

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

To investigate relevant indicators of quality of care in a large population-based sample of people with diabetes representative of clinical practice in Italy in 2018.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed data from 11,300,750 subjects. All administrative healthcare claims collected in 2018 were scrutinized to identify subjects with diabetes and investigate several indicators of quality of care. Subjects with diabetes were identified by anti-hyperglycemic drug prescriptions, disease-specific co-payment exemption and hospital discharge codes. Indicators of quality of care pertained to monitoring (HbA1c, creatinine, lipid profile, microalbuminuria, eye examination, ECG, ultrasonography of carotid and lower limb arteries) and diabetes treatment (anti-hyperglycemic agents in subjects with cardiovascular disease, CVD). Subjects attending and nonattending Diabetes Clinics were compared. We identified 697,208 individuals with diabetes. HbA1c was assessed at least once in the year in 62.7%, creatinine in 62.3%, total cholesterol in 59.6%, microalbuminuria in 34.3%. Frequency of eye examination was 8.2%, ECG 23.5%, carotid ultrasonography 14.3%, lower limb ultrasonography 7.6%. Among anti-hyperglycemic drugs, SGLT-2 inhibitors were prescribed to ~5% and GLP-1 receptor agonists to ~5% although the proportion of subjects with CVD was ~45%. Subjects attending Diabetes Clinics had higher figures for all these monitoring and treatment indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of national and international guidelines regarding disease monitoring and treatment is far from being satisfactory, especially among subjects nonattending Diabetes Clinics. Further efforts and investments are needed for better disseminating guidelines, more efficaciously engaging healthcare professionals and more strongly empowering the healthcare system to improve diabetes care.