Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System
Affiliations
- PMID: 32139383
- PMCID: PMC7171943
- DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1622
Abstract
Objective: Variation in diabetes screening in clinical practice is poorly described. We examined the interplay of patient, provider, and clinic factors explaining variation in diabetes screening within an integrated health care system in the U.S.
Research design and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of primary care patients aged 18-64 years with two or more outpatient visits between 2010 and 2015 and no diagnosis of diabetes according to electronic health record (EHR) data. Hierarchical three-level models were used to evaluate multilevel variation in screening at the patient, provider, and clinic levels across 12 clinics. Diabetes screening was defined by a resulted gold standard screening test.
Results: Of 56,818 patients, 70% completed diabetes screening with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (51-92%; P < 0.001). Of those meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) (69%) and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (36%) screening criteria, three-quarters were screened with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (ADA 53-92%; USPSTF 49-93%). The yield of ADA and USPSTF screening was similar for diabetes (11% vs. 9%) and prediabetes (38% vs. 36%). Nearly 70% of patients not eligible for guideline-based screening were also tested. The USPSTF guideline missed more cases of diabetes (6% vs. 3%) and prediabetes (26% vs. 19%) than the ADA guideline. After adjustment for patient, provider, and clinic factors and accounting for clustering, twofold variation in screening by provider and clinic remained (median odds ratio 1.97; intraclass correlation 0.13).
Conclusions: Screening practices vary widely and are only partially explained by patient, provider, and clinic factors available in the EHR. Clinical decision support and system-level interventions are needed to optimize screening practices.
© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.
Similar articles
- Detecting type 2 diabetes and prediabetes among asymptomatic adults in the United States: modeling American Diabetes Association versus US Preventive Services Task Force diabetes screening guidelines.Popul Health Metr. 2014 May 7;12:12. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-12-12. eCollection 2014.PMID: 24904239 Free PMC article.
- OPPORTUNISTIC SCREENING FOR DIABETES AND PREDIABETES USING HEMOGLOBIN A1C IN AN URBAN PRIMARY CARE SETTING.Endocr Pract. 2016 Feb;22(2):143-50. doi: 10.4158/EP15866.OR. Epub 2015 Oct 20.PMID: 26484404
- Analysis of guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus in an ambulatory population.Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Jan;85(1):27-35. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2009.0289.PMID: 20042558 Free PMC article.
- Evidence Brief: Comparative Effectiveness of Appointment Recall Reminder Procedures for Follow-up Appointments.2015 Jul. In: VA Evidence Synthesis Program Evidence Briefs [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2011–.PMID: 27606388 Free Books & Documents. Review.
- Evidence Brief: The Quality of Care Provided by Advanced Practice Nurses.2014 Sep. In: VA Evidence Synthesis Program Evidence Briefs [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2011–.PMID: 27606392 Free Books & Documents. Review.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario