A prospective randomized controlled study of a virtual clinic integrating primary and specialist care for patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Telemedicine has been promoted as an effective way of managing type-2 diabetes (T2DM) in primary care. However, the effectiveness of telemedicine is unclear. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different telemedicine interventions for people with T2DM, compared to usual care.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINHAL, ProQuest and EconLit for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on clinical outcomes (HbA1c, body mass index [BMI], weight, diastolic blood pressure [DBP], systolic blood pressure [SBP], fasting blood glucose, high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglyceride) in adults with T2DM, published in English from inception until 31 December 2022. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models pooling mean differences, heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Egger tests and trim and fill. Subgroup analyses included type of telemedicine intervention, telemedicine mode of delivery and type of healthcare professionals. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42022375128.

RESULTS

Of the 4093 records identified, 21 RCTs, 10,732 participants from seven regions, were included. Reported interventions included telephone (k = 16 studies), internet-based (k = 2), videoconference (k = 2) and telephone and emails (k = 1). We observed no statistically significant differences between synchronous or asynchronous telemedicine interventions compared to usual care for HbA1c (-0.08% (-0.88 mmol/mol); 95% CI: -0.18, 0.02), BMI (0.51 kg/m2; 95% CI: -0.21, 1.22), SBP (-1.48 mmHg; 95% CI: -3.22, 0.26), DBP (3.23 mmHg; 95% CI: -0.89, 7.34), HDL-cholesterol (0.01 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.05), LDL-cholesterol (0.08 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.22, 0.37), triglycerides (-0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.31, -0.15), total cholesterol (-0.10 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.25, 0.04) and weight (-0.50 kg; 95% CI: -1.21, 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine was as effective as usual care in improving health outcomes of people with T2DM. They can provide a safe solution in times of rising demands for primary healthcare services, or in extreme events, like a global pandemic. More high-quality RCTs are needed on the cost evaluation of telemedicine.

Efficacy of using telecare services for community-dwelling people with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, self-efficacy, and quality of life efficacy of using telecare services for community-dwelling people with diabetes.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were systematically searched from their inception dates to June 22, 2023. Two evaluators independently selected and evaluated eligible studies. A protocol was registered in PROSPERO.

RESULTS

An analysis of 17 studies that included 3586 subjects showed that telecare significantly improved the management of patients with diabetes. Compared to controls, intervention care had significant benefits regarding HbA1c (MD = -0.30, 95 % CI = -0.44 - -0.17, 16 studies), systolic blood pressure (MD = -2.45, 95 % CI = -4.53 - -0.36, P = 0.02), self-efficacy (MD = 0.36, 95 % CI = 0.04 - 0.67, P = 0.03) and quality of life (MD = 0.37, 95 % CI = 0.05 - 0.70, P = 0.02). However, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.37, 95 % CI = -3.34 - -0.61, P = 0.17) was not found to be significantly affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Telecare is effective in improving self-management among community-dwelling people with diabetes, suggesting an effective means for them to achieve self-management.

Effect of m-Health-Based Interventions on Blood Pressure: An Updated Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background: In recent years, the integration of mobile health (m-Health) interventions has garnered increasing attention as a potential means to improve blood pressure (BP) management in adults. This updated systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to identify the effect of m-Health-based interventions on BP in adults and to evaluate the effect of m-Health on BP according to the characteristics of subjects, interventions, and countries. Methods: The search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, ResearchGate, and Cochrane databases in January 2022. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. For analysis, random effects models were used with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% and p < 0.05. Results: Fifty studies were included in this review and in the meta-analysis. Interventions with m-Health reduced systolic BP in 3.5 mmHg (95% CI -4.3; -2.7; p < 0.001; I2 = 85.8%) and diastolic BP in 1.8 mmHg (95% CI -2.3; -1.4; p < 0.001; I2 = 78.9%) compared to usual care. The effects of m-Health interventions on BP were more evident in men and in older adults, in interventions lasting 6-8 weeks, with medication reminders, with the possibility of insertion of BP values (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study support the effectiveness of m-Health in reducing BP when compared to standard care. However, these effects are dependent on the characteristics of the subjects and interventions. Given the substantial heterogeneity among the results of this systematic review with meta-analysis, its interpretation should be cautious. Future research on this topic is warranted.

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of an Innovative Primary and Secondary Diabetes Clinic in Western Sydney

Introduction

Western Sydney Diabetes (WSD) established an innovative diabetes service in May 2020, using virtual and in-person care, linking primary care with the diabetes specialist team. This study evaluated the service's feasibility using qualitative and quantitative methods.

Method

Evaluation included: 1) thematic analysis of interviews and workshops with patients and health professionals (n = 28); 2) quantitative analysis of records of patients admitted July 2020-June 2021 (n = 110).

Results

Key themes related to 1) benefits: convenient location, access to integrated care, advantages of virtual care; 2) challenges: hard for patients to ask questions, technology issues; 3) confidence: shared care decision making, multidisciplinary team; and 4) future directions: additional multidisciplinary services, expanded insulin stabilisation service, promotion.Improvements between baseline and 3 months included 1.3% reduction in HbA1c (p < 0.05). Sulfonylurea dropped by 25% between initial appointment and follow-up, and GLP1RA/SGLT2i use increasing by 30% (p < 0.05). The clinic covered costs using Medicare billings and Nationally Weighted Activity Units.

Discussion

The findings suggest this integrated care model was feasible and perceived as beneficial by both patients and providers. The clinic offers a promising model of practice that could be developed further to roll out in other regions for rural delivery of care.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

Impact of a multicomponent healthcare intervention on glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: The INTEGRA study

AIM

To evaluate whether a specially designed multicomponent healthcare intervention improves glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cluster, non-randomized, controlled, pragmatic trial in subjects from 11 primary care centres with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c of more than 9% (> 75 mmol/mol) was conducted. The intervention (N = 225 subjects) was professional and patient-centred, including a dedicated monographic visit that encouraged therapeutic intensification by physicians. The sham control (N = 181) was identical to that of the intervention group except that the dedicated visit was omitted. The primary outcome was to compare the reductions in HbA1c values between the groups at 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age at baseline was 59.5 years, mean diabetes duration was 10.7 years and mean HbA1c was 10.3% (89.0 mmol/mol). Patients in the intervention arm achieved significantly greater HbA1c reduction than those in the sham control group at 12 months (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI = -0.2%, -1.04%; P = .002). A larger percentage of intervention participants achieved an HbA1c of less than 8% (44.8% vs. 25.5%; P = .003) and were more frequently treated with more than three antidiabetic therapies (14.4% vs. 3.5%; P = .0008). Intervention was the only variable associated with higher odds of HbA1c less than 8% (odds ratio = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.54-4.12; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention including a dedicated visit oriented at reducing therapeutic inertia by primary care physicians can improve glycaemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 2 diabetes.

Impact of telehealth on the current and future practice of lipidology: a scoping review

Telehealth services have been implemented to deliver care for patients living with many chronic conditions and have expanded greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the current or future impacts of telehealth on lipid management practices. The PubMed database was searched from inception to June 25, 2021, with the keywords "lipids or cholesterol" and "telehealth," which yielded 376 published articles. Telehealth was defined as a synchronous visit between a patient and clinician that replaced an in-office appointment. Studies that solely used remote monitoring, mobile health technologies, or callbacks of results, were excluded. Articles must have measured lipid values. Review articles and protocol papers were not included. After evaluation, 128 abstracts were included for full text evaluation, with 55 full-text articles eventually included. Of the articles, 29 were randomized clinical trials, 15 were pre-post evaluations, and 11 were other study designs. Telehealth had positive to neutral impacts on lipid management. Reported facilitators include easier implementation of multidisciplinary approaches to care, and utilization of patient-centered programs. Reported barriers to telehealth services include technological barriers, such as various skill levels with technology; systems barriers, such as cost and reimbursement; patient-related barriers, including patient non-adherence; and clinician-related barriers, such as difficulty standardizing care. Clinicians reported improved satisfaction among patients but had mixed feelings regarding their ability to deliver quality care. Telemedicine use to provide care for individuals with lipid conditions has expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, but more research is needed to determine its potential as a sustainable tool for lipid management.

Influence of synchronous primary care telemedicine versus in-person visits on diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia outcomes: a systematic review

Background

Telemedicine can be used to manage various health conditions, but there is a need to investigate its effectiveness for chronic disease management in the primary care setting. This study compares the effect of synchronous telemedicine versus in-person primary care visits on patient clinical outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review of studies published in PubMed and Web of Science between 1996 and January 2021 was performed using keywords related to telemedicine, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Included studies compared synchronous telemedicine versus in-person visits with a primary care clinician, and examined outcomes of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, and/or lipid levels.

Results

Of 1724 citations screened, 7 publications met our inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 2000 and 2018. Three studies were conducted in the United States, 2 in Spain, 1 in Sweden, and 1 in the United Kingdom. The telemedicine interventions investigated were multifaceted. All included synchronous visits with a primary care provider through videoconferencing and/or telephone, combined with other components such as asynchronous patient data transmission. Five studies reported on HbA1c changes, 5 on blood pressure changes, and 3 on changes in lipid levels. Compared to usual care with in-person visits, telemedicine was associated with greater reductions in HbA1c at 6 months and similar HbA1c outcomes at 12 months. Telemedicine conferred no significant differences in blood pressure and lipid levels compared to in-person clinic visits.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the literature found few studies comparing clinical outcomes resulting from synchronous telemedicine versus in-person office visits, but the existing literature showed that in the primary care setting, telemedicine was not inferior to in-person visits for the management of diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. These results hold promise for continued use of telemedicine for chronic disease management.

Effectiveness of Integrated Diabetes Care Interventions Involving Diabetes Specialists Working in Primary and Community Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction:

Evidence that integrated diabetes care interventions can substantially improve clinical outcomes is mixed. However, previous systematic reviews have not focussed on clinical effectiveness where the endocrinologist was actively involved in guiding diabetes management.

Methods:

We searched EMBASE, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases and grey literature published in English language up to 25 January 2021. Reviewed articles included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies testing the effectiveness on clinical outcomes after ≥6 months intervention in non-pregnant adults (age ≥ 18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Two reviewers independently extracted data and completed a risk of bias assessment. Appropriate meta-analyses for each outcome from RCTs and pre-post studies were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and Cochran’s Q and publication bias assessed using Doi plots. Studies were not pooled to estimate the cost-effectiveness as the cost outcomes were not comparable across trials/studies.

Results:

We reviewed 4 RCTs and 12 pre-post studies. The integrated care model of diabetes specialists working with primary care health professionals had a positive impact on HbA1c in both RCTs and pre-post studies and on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and weight in pre-post studies. In the RCTs, interventions reduced HbA1c (–0.10% [–0.15 to –0.05]) (–1.1 mmol/mol [–1.6 to –0.5]), versus control. Pre-post studies demonstrated improvements in HbA1c (–0.77% [–1.12 to –0.42]) (–8.4 mmol/mol [–12.2 to –4.6]), systolic blood pressure (–3.30 mmHg [–5.16 to –1.44]), diastolic blood pressure (–3.61 mmHg [–4.82 to –2.39]), total cholesterol (–0.33 mmol/L [–0.52 to –0.14]) and weight (–2.53 kg [–3.86 to –1.19]). In a pre-post study with no control group only 4% patients experienced hypoglycaemia after one year of intervention compared to baseline.

Conclusions:

Integrated interventions with an active endocrinologist involvement can result in modest improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and weight management. Although the improvements per clinical outcome are modest, there is possible net improvements at a holistic level.

Impact of Telehealth Care among Adults Living with Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Primary health care physicians are increasingly offering telehealth services to patients not only for its cost and time saving advantages but for the additional benefits telehealth can provide for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) such as improved self-management behaviours. To support the development of telehealth based T2D clinical care models in primary health care settings, a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial studies was completed for 29 studies that evaluated the effect of one or more types of telehealth interventions on HbA1c levels compared to usual care alone. Results from the random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that telehealth interventions had a stronger influence on HbA1c compared to usual care with a mean difference in HbA1c \% -0.18 (CI -0.35, -0.01), p = 0.04. Results from the subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated that telehealth interventions, when grouped by type of telemonitoring (mHealth and telephone communication), all have a stronger effect on lowering HbA1c levels; however, none of these findings were significant. Key findings from this review demonstrate that telehealth interventions that address T2D self-management behaviours and have higher levels of health care provider engagement, have greater effects on lowering HbA1c levels compared to usual care alone.

Remote Consultations Versus Standard Face-to-Face Appointments for Liver Transplant Patients in Routine Hospital Care: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of myVideoClinic

Background

Using technology to reduce the pressure on the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales is a key government target, and the NHS Long-Term Plan outlines a strategy for digitally enabled outpatient care to become mainstream by 2024. In 2020, the COVID-19 response saw the widespread introduction of remote consultations for patient follow-up, regardless of individual preferences. Despite this rapid change, there may be enduring barriers to the effective implementation of remote appointments into routine practice once the unique drivers for change during the COVID-19 pandemic no longer apply, to which pre-COVID implementation studies can offer important insights.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using real-time remote consultations between patients and secondary care physicians for routine patient follow-up at a large hospital in the United Kingdom and to assess whether patient satisfaction differs between intervention and usual care patients.

Methods

Clinically stable liver transplant patients were randomized to real-time remote consultations in which their hospital physician used secure videoconferencing software (intervention) or standard face-to-face appointments (usual care). Participants were asked to complete postappointment questionnaires over 12 months. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was the difference in scores between baseline and study end by patient group for the three domains of patient satisfaction (assessed using the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument). An embedded qualitative process evaluation used interviews to assess patient and staff experiences.

Results

Of the 54 patients who were randomized, 29 (54%) received remote consultations, and 25 (46%) received usual care (recruitment rate: 54/203, 26.6%). The crossover between study arms was high (13/29, 45%). A total of 129 appointments were completed, with 63.6% (82/129) of the questionnaires being returned. Patient satisfaction at 12 months increased in both the intervention (25 points) and usual care (14 points) groups. The within-group analysis showed that the increases were significant for both intervention (P<.001) and usual care (P=.02) patients; however, the between-group difference was not significant after controlling for baseline scores (P=.10). The qualitative process evaluation showed that—according to patients—remote consultations saved time and money, were less burdensome, and caused fewer negative impacts on health. Technical problems with the software were common, and only 17% (5/29) of patients received all appointments over video. Both consultants and patients saw remote consultations as positive and beneficial.

Conclusions

Using technology to conduct routine follow-up appointments remotely may ease some of the resource and infrastructure challenges faced by the UK NHS and free up clinic space for patients who must be seen face-to-face. Our findings regarding the advantages and challenges of using remote consultations for routine follow-ups of liver transplant patients have important implications for service organization and delivery in the postpandemic NHS.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN Registry 14093266; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14093266

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s13063-018-2953-4

Update on Approaches to Improve Delivery and Quality of Care for People with Diabetes

To translate improvements in diabetes management into improved outcomes, it is essential to improve care delivery. To help guide clinicians and health organizations in their efforts to achieve these improvements, this article briefly describes key components underpinning effective diabetes care and six categories of innovations in approaches to improve diabetes care delivery: (1) team-based clinical care; (2) cross-specialty collaboration/integration; (3) virtual clinical care/telehealth; (4) use of community health workers (CHWs) and trained peers to provide pro-active self-management support; (5) incorporating screening for and addressing social determinants of health into clinical practice; and (6) cross-sectoral clinic/community partnerships.

Population Health Management in Diabetes Care: Combining Clinical Audit, Risk Stratification, and Multidisciplinary Virtual Clinics in a Community Setting to Improve Diabetes Care in a Geographically Defined Population. An Integrated Diabetes Care Pilot in the North East Locality, Oxfordshire, UK

BACKGROUND

Disparities in diabetes care are prevalent, with significant inequalities observed in access to, and outcomes of, healthcare. A population health approach offers a solution to improve the quality of care for all with systematic ways of assessing whole population requirements and treating and monitoring sub-groups in need of additional attention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CARE PRACTICE

Collaborative working between primary, secondary and community care was introduced in seven primary care practices in one locality in England, UK, caring for 3560 patients with diabetes and sharing the same community and secondary specialist diabetes care providers. Three elements of the intervention included 1) clinical audit, 2) risk stratification, and 3) the multi-disciplinary virtual clinics in the community.

METHODS

This paper evaluates the acceptability, feasibility and short-term impact on primary care of implementing a population approach intervention using direct observations of the clinics and surveys of participating clinicians.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Eighteen virtual clinics across seven teams took place over six months between March and July 2017 with organisation, resources, policies, education and approximately 150 individuals discussed. The feedback from primary care was positive with growing knowledge and confidence managing people with complex diabetes in primary care.

CONCLUSION

Taking a population health approach helped to identify groups of people in need of additional diabetes care and deliver a collaborative health intervention across traditional organisational boundaries.

Impact and efficacy of mobile health intervention in the management of diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

With the continuous development of science and technology, mobile health (mHealth) intervention has been proposed as a treatment strategy for managing chronic diseases. In some developed countries, mHealth intervention has been proven to remarkably improve both the quality of care for patients with chronic illnesses and the clinical outcomes of these patients. However, the effectiveness of mHealth in developing countries remains unclear. Based on this fact, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of mHealth on countries with different levels of economic development. To this end, we searched Pubmed, ResearchGate, Embase and Cochrane databases for articles published from January 2008 to June 2019. All of the studies included were randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed using the Stata software. A total of 51 articles (including 13 054 participants) were eligible for our systematic review and meta-analysis. We discovered that mHealth intervention did not only play a major role in improving clinical outcomes compared with conventional care, but also had a positive impact on countries with different levels of economic development. More importantly, our study also found that clinical outcomes could be ameliorated even further by combining mHealth with human intelligence rather than using mHealth intervention exclusively. According to our analytical results, mHealth intervention could be used as a treatment strategy to optimize the management of diabetes and hypertension in countries with different levels of economic development.

Recent Avenues in Novel Patient-Friendly Techniques for the Treatment of Diabetes

Background:

Diabetes is one of the most common chronic metabolic disorders which affect the quality of human life worldwide. As per the WHO report, between 1980 to 2014, the number of diabetes patients increases from 108 million to 422 million, with a global prevalence rate of 8.5% per year. Diabetes is the prime reason behind various other diseases like kidney failure, stroke, heart disorders, glaucoma, etc. It is recognized as the seventh leading cause of death throughout the world. The available therapies are painful (insulin injections) and inconvenient due to higher dosing frequency. Thus, to find out a promising and convenient treatment, extensive investigations are carried out globally by combining novel carrier system (like microparticle, microneedle, nanocarrier, microbeads etc.) and delivery devices (insulin pump, stimuli-responsive device, inhalation system, bioadhesive patch, insulin pen etc.) for more precise diagnosis and painless or less invasive treatment of disease.

Objective:

The review article is made with an objective to compile information about various upcoming and existing modern technologies developed to provide greater patient compliance and reduce the undesirable side effect of the drug. These devices evade the necessity of daily insulin injection and offer a rapid onset of action, which sustained for a prolonged duration of time to achieve a better therapeutic effect.

Conclusion:

Despite numerous advantages, various commercialized approaches, like Afrezza (inhalation insulin) have been a failure in recent years. Such results call for more potential work to develop a promising system. The novel approaches range from the delivery of non-insulin blood glucose lowering agents to insulin-based therapy with minimal invasion are highly desirable.

Management of people with Type 2 diabetes shared between a specialized outpatient clinic and primary health care is noninferior to management in a specialized outpatient clinic: a randomized, noninferiority trial

AIM

To evaluate whether management of people with Type 2 diabetes shared between a specialized outpatient clinic and primary health care has noninferior HbA_1c outcomes compared with mono-sectorial management in a specialized outpatient clinic.

METHODS

A randomized controlled, noninferiority study. People with moderate hyperglycaemia, hypertension and/or incipient complications were eligible for the study. All participants had annual comprehensive check-ups at the outpatient clinic. Quarterly check-ups were conducted by general practitioners (GPs) for the shared care group and by endocrinologists at the outpatient clinic for the control group. The primary outcome was the mean difference in HbA_1c from baseline to 12 months of follow-up. The noninferiority margin for HbA_1c was 4.4 mmol/mol.

RESULTS

A total of 140 people were randomized [age 65.0 ± 0.9 years, HbA_1c 52 ± 0.8 mmol/mol (6.9 ± 0.1%), systolic BP 135.6 ± 1.1 mmHg; all mean ± sem]. Peripheral neuropathy was present in 68% of participants and microalbuminuria in 19%; 15% had history of a previous major cardiovascular event. Among study completers (n = 133), HbA_1c increased by 2.3 mmol/mol (0.2%) in the shared care group and by 1.0 mmol/mol (0.1%) in the control group, with a between-group difference of 1.3 mmol/mol [90% confidence interval (CI) -1.3, 3.9] (0.1%, 90% CI -0.1, 0.4). Noninferiority was confirmed in both per protocol and intention to treat analyses.

CONCLUSION

We found that our shared care programme was noninferior to specialized outpatient management in maintaining glycaemic control in this group of people with Type 2 diabetes. Shared care should be considered for the future diabetes management of Type 2 diabetes.

Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the study was to determine if a Beacon model of integrated care utilising general practitioners (GPs) with special interests could achieve similar clinical outcomes to a hospital-based specialist diabetes outpatient clinic.

METHODS

This pragmatic non-inferiority multisite randomised controlled trial assigned individuals with complex type 2 diabetes to care delivered by a Beacon clinic or to usual care delivered by a hospital outpatient department, in a 3:1 ratio. Owing to the nature of the study, researchers were only blinded during the allocation process. Eligible participants were aged 18 or over, had been referred by their usual GP to the hospital central referral hub with type 2 diabetes and had been triaged to be seen within 30 or 90 days. The intervention consisted of diabetes management in primary care by GPs with a special interest who had been upskilled in complex diabetes under the supervision of an endocrinologist. The primary outcome was HbA_1c at 12 months post-recruitment. The non-inferiority margin was 4.4 mmol/mol (0.4%). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses are reported.

RESULTS

Between 27 November 2012 and 14 July 2015, 352 individuals were recruited and 305 comprised the intention-to-treat sample (71 in usual care group and 234 in the Beacon model group). The Beacon model was non-inferior to usual care for both the per-protocol (difference -0.38 mmol/mol [95% CI -4.72, 3.96]; -0.03% [95% CI -0.43, 0.36]) and the intention-to-treat (difference -1.28 mmol/mol [95% CI -5.96, 3.40]; -0.12% [95% CI -0.55, 0.31]) analyses. Non-inferiority was sustained in a sensitivity analysis at 12 months. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of BP, lipids or quality of life as measured by the 12 item short-form health survey (SF-12v2) and the diabetes-related quality of life (DQoL-Brief) survey. Safety indicators did not differ between groups. Participant satisfaction on the eight-item client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was good in both groups, but scores were significantly higher in the Beacon model group than the usual care group (mean [SD] 28.4 [4.9] vs 25.6 [4.9], respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In individuals with type 2 diabetes, a model of integrated care delivered in the community by GPs with a special interest can safely achieve clinical outcomes that are not inferior to those achieved with gold-standard hospital-based specialist outpatient clinics. Individuals receiving care in the community had greater satisfaction. Further studies will determine the cost of delivering this model of care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000380897 FUNDING: The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1001157).

Video clinics versus standard face-to-face appointments for liver transplant patients in routine hospital outpatient care: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised evaluation of myVideoClinic

Background

Video clinics, where patients can have a hospital appointment with their clinician from home, are emerging in practice, but their effectiveness is unclear. This study will evaluate whether a video clinic implemented at the University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) NHS Foundation Trust improves patient satisfaction compared to standard face-to-face appointments for liver transplant patients.

Methods

This will be a parallel, two-arm, statistician-blinded, randomised evaluation. Clinically stable liver patients at 1 to 5 years post-transplant (n = 180) will be randomised in equal numbers to video clinic appointments (intervention) or standard face-to-face appointments (control). The intervention group will have outpatient appointments from home via a secure video link accessed through the UHB patient portal. All patients will complete baseline questionnaires before randomisation and electronic follow-up questionnaires after each follow-up appointment during the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome is the difference in scores between groups for three domains of patient satisfaction, namely ‘convenience of location’, ‘getting through to the office by phone’ and ‘length of time waiting’ (modified Visit-Specific Satisfaction Instrument). Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), costs, clinical contacts and user experience. Statistical analysis will be descriptive and performed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome will be analysed using baseline and 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month questionnaires (according to patient follow-up appointment frequency) and comparisons made between study arms. A within-trial cost consequences analysis will be undertaken on the economic data. Patients (n = 8), carers/family members (n = 6) and health professionals (n = 14) will be interviewed about the experience of video clinics and the interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis.

Discussion

This study will allow an in depth understanding of whether video clinics can improve patient satisfaction with their care. In addition, the intervention could save patients time and costs, removing the need to travel long distances for outpatient appointments. Video clinics may be applicable to a wide range of other clinical settings and health conditions. The study has been approved by the NHS Health Research Authority and a National Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/WM/0338) and research governance approval has been obtained from UHB (Ref: RRK6080).

Trial registration

ISRCTN: 14093266 (25/03/2018; retrospectively registered).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2953-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving risk factor management for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of healthcare interventions in primary care and community settings

OBJECTIVES

Poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major international health problem. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, specifically targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM, which seek to improve glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk in primary care settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Primary care and community settings.

INCLUDED STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting patients with poor glycaemic control were identified from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Poor glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c over 59 mmol/mol (7.5%).

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions were classified as organisational, patient-oriented, professional, financial or regulatory.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis explored the effects of intervention type, baseline HbA1c, study quality and study duration. Meta-regression analyses were undertaken to investigate identified heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Forty-two RCTs were identified, including 11 250 patients, with most undertaken in USA. In general, studies had low risk of bias. The main intervention types were patient-directed (48%) and organisational (48%). Overall, interventions reduced HbA1c by -0.34% (95% CI -0.46% to -0.22%), but meta-analyses had high statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses suggested that organisational interventions and interventions on those with baseline HbA1c over 9.5% had better improvements in HbA1c. Meta-regression analyses suggested that only interventions on those with population HbA1c over 9.5% were more effective. Interventions had a modest improvement of blood pressure and lipids, although baseline levels of control were generally good.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that interventions for T2DM, in primary care, are better targeted at individuals with very poor glycaemic control and that organisational interventions may be more effective.

Prospective evaluation of a virtual urology outpatient clinic

BACKGROUND

Outpatient department (OPD) clinics account for a significant proportion of healthcare expenditure. We report on a pilot study of a virtual outpatient clinic (VC) for urology patients as an alternative to a general urology clinic review.

AIMS

The study aims to assess the safety and cost-effectiveness of a virtual clinic as an alternative to general OPD review.

METHODS

A prospective study performed between March 2015 and December 2015 investigated the effectiveness of a VC in our institution. Eligible patients were recruited from general urology outpatient visits, from medical team members and from general practitioners (GP). Data recorded on each VC review included patient demographics, indication for referral to VC, outcome of VC and method of communication with the patient and their GP after the VC.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty-five patients were registered for the VC. Indications for referral included review of imaging results (n = 136), doctor or patient query (n = 112) and review of laboratory results (n = 67). Outcomes after VC review included general OPD follow-up (n = 134), discharge from urology care (n = 39), referral for urological intervention (n = 29) and referral for radiological investigation (n = 23). VC review prevented 217 OPD clinic visits, saved €17,360 and provided a failsafe mechanism for reviewing investigation results. Two patients booked for OPD review following VC review did not receive appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual clinic is a safe and cost-effective alternative to general OPD review in appropriately selected patients.