Phillips Lawrence S, Ziemer David C, Doyle Joyce P, Barnes Catherine S, Kolm Paul, Branch William T, Caudle Jane M, Cook Curtiss B, Dunbar Virginia G, El-Kebbi Imad M, Gallina Daniel L, Hayes Risa P, Miller Christopher D, Rhee Mary K, Thompson Dennis M, Watkins Clyde
Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct;28(10):2352-60. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.10.2352.
Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes.
A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient's visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both.
Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA1c (A1C) with feedback + reminders (deltaA1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (deltaA1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P < 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P = NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001).
Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings.
在基层医疗环境中,糖尿病管理常常未达最佳状态,医疗服务提供者在血糖水平较高时往往未能加强治疗,这一问题被称为临床惰性。我们探讨了针对临床惰性的干预措施是否能改善治疗效果。
在一家大型学术医疗中心的市立医院基层医疗诊所进行了一项为期3年的对照试验。我们研究了所有2型糖尿病患者(共4138例),这些患者在连续性诊所接受了345名内科住院医师的诊治,并被随机分为对照组或接受三种干预措施之一。干预措施并非咨询建议,而是硬拷贝形式的计算机化提醒,在每次患者就诊时提供针对个体的管理建议,每两周进行5分钟的个人面对面绩效反馈,或两者皆有。
在干预地点,患者平均随访15个月,接受反馈+提醒的患者糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c,A1C)改善情况及最终A1C水平(A1C变化0.6%,最终A1C 7.46%)显著优于对照组(A1C变化0.2%,最终A1C 7.84%,P<0.02);仅接受反馈和仅接受提醒的患者变化较小(与对照组相比,P=无显著差异)。收缩压(sBP)和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的变化趋势相似但不显著。多变量分析显示,反馈干预独立促进了美国糖尿病协会A1C和sBP目标的实现。在两年期间,干预地点的总体血糖控制得到改善,而其他基层医疗地点则未改变(最终A1C分别为7.5%和8.2%,P<0.001)。
针对内科住院医师基层医疗服务提供者的绩效反馈,旨在克服临床惰性,可改善血糖控制。在其他基层医疗环境中,让全科医生与糖尿病专科医生合作对于加强糖尿病管理可能很重要。