Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2009 Jul;32(7):1158-63.
doi: 10.2337/dc08-2247. Epub 2009 Apr 14.

Customized feedback to patients and providers failed to improve safety or quality of diabetes care: a randomized trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Customized feedback to patients and providers failed to improve safety or quality of diabetes care: a randomized trial

Patrick J O'Connor et al. Diabetes Care. 2009 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether providing customized clinical information to patients and physicians improves safety or quality of diabetes care.

Research design and methods: Study subjects included 123 primary care physicians and 3,703 eligible adult diabetic patients with elevated A1C or LDL cholesterol, who were randomly assigned to receive customized feedback of clinical information as follows: 1) patient only, 2) physician only, 3) both the patient and physician, or 4) neither patient nor physician. In the intervention groups, patients received customized mailed information or physicians received printed, prioritized lists of patients with recommended clinical actions and performance feedback. Hierarchical models were used to accommodate group random assignment.

Results: Study interventions did not improve A1C test ordering (P = 0.35) and negatively affected LDL cholesterol test ordering (P < 0.001) in the 12 months postintervention. Interventions had no effect on LDL cholesterol values (P = 0.64), which improved in all groups over time. Interventions had a borderline unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C >or=7% (P = 0.10) and an unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C >or=8% (P < 0.01). Interventions did not reduce risky prescribing events or increase treatment intensification. Time to next visit was longer in all intervention groups compared with that for the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Providing customized decision support to physicians and/or patients did not improve quality or safety of diabetes care and worsened A1C control in patients with baseline A1C >or=8%. Future researchers should consider providing point-of-care decision support with redesign of office systems and/or incentives to increase appropriate actions in response to decision-support information.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00262197.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Hoerger TJ, Segel JE, Gregg EW, Saaddine JB: Is glycemic control improving in U.S. adults? Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 81– 86 - PubMed
    1. Minnesota Community Measurement. Minnesota health scores, [article online], 2008. Available from http://www.mnhealthcare.org/∼main.cfm. Accessed 14 November 2008
    1. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger AC, Cadoret C, Fish LS, Garber L, Kelleher M, Bates DW: Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA 2003; 289: 1107– 1116 - PubMed
    1. Schmittdiel JA, Uratsu CS, Karter AJ, Heisler M, Subramanian U, Mangione CM, Selby JV: Why don't diabetes patients achieve recommended risk factor targets? Poor adherence versus lack of treatment intensification. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 588– 594 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jha AK, Doolan D, Grandt D, Scott T, Bates DW: The use of health information technology in seven nations. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77: 848– 854 - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data