From artisan to architect: the specialist and systems of provision of diabetes care in 2001

Chronic care model and shared care in diabetes: randomized trial of an electronic decision support system

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of a specialist telemedicine intervention for improving diabetes care using the chronic care model (CCM).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

As part of the CCM, 97 primary care physicians at 6 primary care practices in Rochester, MN, referred 639 patients to an on-site diabetes educator between July 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003. On first referral, physicians were centrally randomized to receive a telemedicine intervention (specialty advice and evidence-based messages regarding medication management for cardiovascular risk) or no intervention, keeping outcome assessors and data analysts blinded to group assignment. After each subsequent clinical encounter, endocrinologists reviewed an abstract from the patient's electronic medical record and provided management recommendations and supporting evidence to intervention physicians via e-mail. Control physicians received e-mail with periodic generic information about cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetes. Outcome measures included diabetes care processes (diabetes test completion), outcomes (metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, estimated coronary artery disease risk), and patient costs (payer perspective).

RESULTS

During the intervention, 951 (70%) of the 1361 endocrinology reviews detected performance gaps and resulted in a message; primary care physicians reported using 49% of messages in patient care. With a mean of 21 months' follow-up, the intervention, compared with control, did not significantly enhance metabolic outcomes or reduce estimated risk of coronary artery disease (adjusted mean difference, -1%; 95% confidence interval, -19% to 17%). The intervention group incurred lower costs (P=.02) but not in diabetes-related costs.

CONCLUSION

Specialty telemedicine did not significantly enhance the value of CCM in primary care.

A shared treatment decision-making approach between patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians: the case of diabetes

In this paper, we discuss the Charles et al. approach to shared treatment decision-making (STDM) as applied to patients with chronic conditions and their clinicians. We perceive differences between the type of treatment decisions (e.g. end-of-life care, surgical treatment of cancer) that generated existing approaches of shared decision-making for acute care conditions (including the Charles et al. model) and the treatment decisions that patients with chronic conditions need to make and revisit on an ongoing basis. For instance, treatment decisions in the chronic care setting are more likely to require a more active patient role in carrying out the decision and to offer a longer window of opportunity to make decisions and to revisit and reverse them without important loss than acute care decisions. The latter may require minimal patient participation to realize, are often urgent, and may be irreversible. Given these differences, we explore the applicability of the Charles et al. model of STDM in the chronic care context, especially chronic care that relies heavily on patient self-management (e.g. diabetes). To apply the Charles et al. model in this clinical context, we suggest the need to emphasize the patient-clinician relationship as one of partners in making difficult treatment choices and to add a new component to the shared decision-making approach: the need for an ongoing partnership between the clinical team (not just the clinician) and the patient. In the last section of the paper, we explore potential healthcare system barriers to STDM in chronic care delivery. Throughout the discussion we identify areas for further research.

Evidence-Based Endocrinology

Evidence-based medicine is the judicious, conscientious, and explicit use of the best available evidence from clinical research in making clinical decisions. This definition recognizes a hierarchy of evidence that arranges study designs by their susceptibility to bias. The top of the hierarchy includes n-of-1 trials, systematic reviews of randomized trials, and single randomized trials reporting patient-important outcomes. The bottom of the hierarchy includes physiologic studies and unsystematic clinical observations. The definition posits that evidence alone is never enough to guide clinical decisions. In addition to evidence from clinical research, decision making requires careful and expert assessment of the patient's circumstances and elicitation of the patient's values and preferences. The latter should drive decisions, particularly when the trade-offs (of benefit and risk) are close or unclear. The evidence-based medicine process involves: (i) asking an answerable question; (ii) acquiring the best available evidence; (iii) appraising the evidence to judge the strength of inference of its results; and (iv) applying the results to the individual patient. Evidence-based endocrinology is hindered by limited high-level evidence assessing patient-important outcomes, limited systematic summaries of this evidence, lack of time, and lack of systematic training of endocrinologists in evidence-based medicine. Current endocrine practice may require a redesign to enhance the role of endocrinologists as information brokers for colleagues and patients. In the last 10 years, evidence-based medicine has matured as a philosophy of clinical care and medical education. An appraisal of its role in endocrinology awaits the pervasion of its principles into all of endocrine practice.