Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases

XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education 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, 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 more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are 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 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.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

ContextClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to improve the
quality of health care for many chronic conditions. Pay-for-performance initiatives
assess physician adherence to interventions that may reflect CPG recommendations.ObjectiveTo evaluate the applicability of CPGs to the care of older individuals
with several comorbid diseases.Data SourcesThe National Health Interview Survey and a nationally representative
sample of Medicare beneficiaries (to identify the most prevalent chronic diseases
in this population); the National Guideline Clearinghouse (for locating evidence-based
CPGs for each chronic disease).Study SelectionOf the 15 most common chronic diseases, we selected hypertension, chronic
heart failure, stable angina, atrial fibrillation, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes
mellitus, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and osteoporosis,
which are usually managed in primary care, choosing CPGs promulgated by national
and international medical organizations for each.Data ExtractionTwo investigators independently assessed whether each CPG addressed
older patients with multiple comorbid diseases, goals of treatment, interactions
between recommendations, burden to patients and caregivers, patient preferences,
life expectancy, and quality of life. Differences were resolved by consensus.
For a hypothetical 79-year-old woman with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, hypertension, and osteoarthritis, we aggregated
the recommendations from the relevant CPGs.Data SynthesisMost CPGs did not modify or discuss the applicability of their recommendations
for older patients with multiple comorbidities. Most also did not comment
on burden, short- and long-term goals, and the quality of the underlying scientific
evidence, nor give guidance for incorporating patient preferences into treatment
plans. If the relevant CPGs were followed, the hypothetical patient would
be prescribed 12 medications (costing her $406 per month) and a complicated
nonpharmacological regimen. Adverse interactions between drugs and diseases
could result.ConclusionsThis review suggests that adhering to current CPGs in caring for an
older person with several comorbidities may have undesirable effects. Basing
standards for quality of care and pay for performance on existing CPGs could
lead to inappropriate judgment of the care provided to older individuals with
complex comorbidities and could create perverse incentives that emphasize
the wrong aspects of care for this population and diminish the quality of
their care. Developing measures of the quality of the care needed by older
patients with complex comorbidities is critical to improving their care.

/pdf/clinical-practice-guidelines-and-quality-of-care-for-older-4dkwbw3b1x.pdf

Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance.

Quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.

Background: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions have been previously validated as a 3-item screen for alcohol misuse and implemented nationwide in Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient clinics. However, the AUDIT-C's validity and optimal screening threshold(s) in other clinical populations are unknown.

Methods: This cross-sectional validation study compared screening questionnaires with standardized interviews in 392 male and 927 female adult outpatients at an academic family practice clinic from 1993 to 1994. The AUDIT-C, full AUDIT, self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, and an augmented CAGE questionnaire were compared with an interview primary reference standard of alcohol misuse, defined as a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. alcohol use disorder and/or drinking above recommended limits in the past year.

Results: Based on interviews with 92% of eligible patients, 128 (33%) men and 177 (19%) women met the criteria for alcohol misuse. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for the AUDIT-C were 0.94 (0.91, 0.96) and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in men and women, respectively (p=0.04). Based on AUROC curves, the AUDIT-C performed as well as the full AUDIT and significantly better than self-reported risky drinking, AUDIT question #3, or the augmented CAGE questionnaire (p-values <0.001). The AUDIT-C screening thresholds that simultaneously maximized sensitivity and specificity were ≥4 in men (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.89) and ≥3 in women (sensitivity 0.73, specificity 0.91).

Conclusions: The AUDIT-C was an effective screening test for alcohol misuse in this primary care sample. Optimal screening thresholds for alcohol misuse among men (≥4) and women (≥3) were the same as in previously published VA studies.

AUDIT-C as a Brief Screen for Alcohol Misuse in Primary Care

Objectives. We sought to determine the amount of time required for a primary care physician to provide recommended preventive services to an average patient panel. Methods. We used published and es...

Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?

PURPOSE Despite the availability of national practice guidelines, many patients fail to receive recommended chronic disease care. Physician time constraints in primary care are likely one cause.

METHODS We applied guideline recommendations for 10 common chronic diseases to a panel of 2,500 primary care patients with an age-sex distribution and chronic disease prevalences similar to those of the general population, and estimated the minimum physician time required to deliver high-quality care for these conditions. The result was compared with time available for patient care for the average primary care physician.

RESULTS Eight hundred twenty-eight hours per year, or 3.5 hours a day, were required to provide care for the top 10 chronic diseases, provided the disease is stable and in good control. We recalculated this estimate based on increased time requirements for uncontrolled disease. Estimated time required increased by a factor of 3. Applying this factor to all 10 diseases, time demands increased to 2,484 hours, or 10.6 hours a day.

CONCLUSIONS Current practice guidelines for only 10 chronic illnesses require more time than primary care physicians have available for patient care overall. Streamlined guidelines and alternative methods of service delivery are needed to meet recommended standards for quality health care.

https://www.annfammed.org/content/annalsfm/3/3/209.full.pdf

Is There Time for Management of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care

Despite the availability of national practice guidelines, many patients fail to receive recommended chronic disease care. Physician time constraints in primary care are likely one cause.

Associations among family support, family stress, and personal functional health status

Delivery of preventive health services in primary care is lacking. One of the main barriers is lack of time. We estimated the amount of time primary care physicians spend on important preventive health services. We analyzed a large dataset of primary care (family and internal medicine) visits using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2001–4); analyses were conducted 2007–8. Multiple linear regression was used to estimate the amount of time spent delivering each preventive service, controlling for demographic covariates. Preventive visits were longer than chronic care visits (M = 22.4, SD = 11.8, M = 18.9, SD = 9.2, respectively). New patients required more time from physicians. Services on which physicians spent relatively more time were prostate specific antigen (PSA), cholesterol, Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, mammography, exercise counseling, and blood pressure. Physicians spent less time than recommended on two "A" rated ("good evidence") services, tobacco cessation and Pap smear (in preventive visits), and one "B" rated ("at least fair evidence") service, nutrition counseling. Physicians spent substantial time on two services that have an "I" rating ("inconclusive evidence of effectiveness"), PSA and exercise counseling. Even with limited time, physicians address many of the "A" rated services adequately. However, they may be spending less time than recommended for important services, especially smoking cessation, Pap smear, and nutrition counseling. Future research is needed to understand how physicians decide how to allocate their time to address preventive health.

/pdf/estimated-time-spent-on-preventive-services-by-primary-care-x181ebry31.pdf

J. Lloyd Michener

Papers

Primary care: is there enough time for prevention?

Is There Time for Management of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care

Is There Time for Management of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care

Associations among family support, family stress, and personal functional health status

Estimated time spent on preventive services by primary care physicians