D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62/PubMedCentral/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013

I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES, p. S12 A. Classification of diabetes B. Diagnosis of diabetes C. Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes) II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS, p. S13 A. Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults B. Testing for type 2 diabetes in children C. Screening for type 1 diabetes III. DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS, p. S15 IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES, p. S16 V. DIABETES CARE, p. S16 A. Initial evaluation B. Management C. Glycemic control 1. Assessment of glycemic control a. Glucose monitoring b. A1C 2. Glycemic goals in adults D. Pharmacologic and overall approaches to treatment 1. Therapy for type 1 diabetes 2. Therapy for type 2 diabetes E. Diabetes self-management education F. Medical nutrition therapy G. Physical activity H. Psychosocial assessment and care I. When treatment goals are not met J. Hypoglycemia K. Intercurrent illness L. Bariatric surgery M. Immunization VI. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS, p. S27 A. Cardiovascular disease 1. Hypertension/blood pressure control 2. Dyslipidemia/lipid management 3. Antiplatelet agents 4. Smoking cessation 5. Coronary heart disease screening and treatment B. Nephropathy screening and treatment C. Retinopathy screening and treatment D. Neuropathy screening and treatment E. Foot care VII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, p. S38 A. Children and adolescents 1. Type 1 diabetes Glycemic control a. Screening and management of chronic complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes i. Nephropathy ii. Hypertension iii. Dyslipidemia iv. Retinopathy v. Celiac disease vi. Hypothyroidism b. Self-management c. School and day care d. Transition from pediatric to adult care 2. Type 2 diabetes 3. Monogenic diabetes syndromes B. Preconception care C. Older adults D. Cystic fibrosis–related diabetes VIII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS, p. S43 A. Diabetes care in the hospital 1. Glycemic targets in hospitalized patients 2. Anti-hyperglycemic agents in hospitalized patients 3. Preventing hypoglycemia 4. Diabetes care providers in the hospital 5. Self-management in the hospital 6. Diabetes self-management education in the hospital 7. Medical nutrition therapy in the hospital 8. Bedside blood glucose monitoring 9. Discharge planning IX. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE, p. S46

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011

Developed more than a decade ago, the Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a widely adopted approach to improving ambulatory care that has guided clinical quality initiatives in the United States and around the world. We examine the evidence of the CCM’s effectiveness by reviewing articles published since 2000 that used one of five key CCM papers as a reference. Accumulated evidence appears to support the CCM as an integrated framework to guide practice redesign. Although work remains to be done in areas such as cost-effectiveness, these studies suggest that redesigning care using the CCM leads to improved patient care and better health outcomes.

/pdf/evidence-on-the-chronic-care-model-in-the-new-millennium-5132qmic5r.pdf

Evidence On The Chronic Care Model In The New Millennium

This article develops a conceptual model of cultural competency's potential to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities, using the cultural competency and disparities literature to lay the foundation for the model and inform assessments of its validity. The authors identify nine major cultural competency techniques: interpreter services, recruitment and retention policies, training, coordinating with traditional healers, use of community health workers, culturally competent health promotion, including family/community members, immersion into another culture, and administrative and organizational accommodations. The conceptual model shows how these techniques could theoretically improve the ability of health systems and their clinicians to deliver appropriate services to diverse populations, thereby improving outcomes and reducing disparities. The authors conclude that while there is substantial research evidence to suggest that cultural competency should in fact work, health systems have little evidence about which cultural competency techniques are effective and less evidence on when and how to implement them properly.

/pdf/can-cultural-competency-reduce-racial-and-ethnic-health-4htna7echh.pdf

Can Cultural Competency Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities? A Review and Conceptual Model:

Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information

/pdf/ten-attributes-of-health-literate-health-care-organizations-1mtcee6ij7.pdf

Ten Attributes of Health Literate Health Care Organizations

Improving health outcomes relies on patients’ full engagement in prevention, decision-making, and self-management activities. Health literacy, or people’s ability to obtain, process, communicate, a...

Cindy Brach

Papers

Evidence On The Chronic Care Model In The New Millennium

Can Cultural Competency Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities? A Review and Conceptual Model:

Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information

Ten Attributes of Health Literate Health Care Organizations

A Proposed ‘Health Literate Care Model’ Would Constitute A Systems Approach To Improving Patients’ Engagement In Care