Article

Getting Under the Skin of Clinical Inertia in Insulin Initiation The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Insulin Starts Project

General Internal Medicine and UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California, San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA.
The Diabetes Educator (Impact Factor: 1.92). 02/2012; 38(1):94-100. DOI: 10.1177/0145721711432649
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to explore primary care providers' (PCPs) perceptions about barriers to initiating insulin among patients. Studies suggest that many patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes do not receive insulin initiation by PCPs.
As part of the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes study, the authors conducted structured interviews in health systems in Indiana, New Jersey, and California, asking PCPs about the importance of insulin initiation and factors affecting this decision. The authors calculated proportions choosing each multiple-choice response option and listed the most frequently offered open-ended response categories.
Among 83 PCPs, 45% were women; 60% were white; and they averaged 13.4 years in practice. Four-fifths of PCPs endorsed guideline-concordant glycemic targets, but 54% individualized targets based on patient age, life expectancy, medical comorbidities, self-management capacity, and willingness. Most (64%) reported that many patients were resistant to new oral or insulin therapies due to fears about the therapy and what it meant about their disease progression. Two-thirds (64%) cited patient resistance as a barrier to insulin initiation, and 43% cited problems with patient self-management, including cognitive or mental health issues, dexterity, or ability to adhere. Eighty percent felt that patient nonadherence would dissuade them from initiating insulin at least some of the time.
PCPs perceived that patient resistance and poor self- management skills were significant barriers to initiating insulin. Future studies should investigate whether systems-level interventions to improve patient-provider communication about insulin and enhance providers' perceptions of patient self-management capacity can increase guideline-concordant, patient-centered insulin initiation.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David G Marrero, Aug 12, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To analyse whether care trajectories (CT) were associated with increased prevalence of parenteral hypoglycemic treatment (PHT=insulin or GLP-1 analogues), statin therapy or RAAS-inhibition. Introduced in 2009 in Belgium, CTs target patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in need for or with PHT. Retrospective study based on a registry with 97 general practitioners. The evolution in treatment since 2006 was compared between patients with vs. without a CT, using longitudinal logistic regression. Comparing patients with (N=271) vs. without a CT (N=4424), we noted significant differences (p<0.05) in diabetes duration (10.1 vs. 7.3 years), HbA1c (7.5 vs. 6.9%), LDL-C (85 vs. 98mg/dl), microvascular complications (26 vs. 16%). Moreover, in 2006, parenteral treatment (OR 52.1), statins (OR 4.1) and RAAS-inhibition (OR 9.6) were significantly more prevalent (p<0.001). Between 2006 and 2011, the prevalence rose in both groups regarding all three treatments, but rose significantly faster (p<0.05) after 2009 in the CT-group. Patients enrolled in a CT differ from other patients even before the start of this initiative with more intense hypoglycemic and cardiovascular treatment. Yet, they presented higher HbA1c-levels and more complications. Enrolment in a CT is associated with additional treatment intensification. Copyright © 2015 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Primary Care Diabetes 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.pcd.2015.01.008 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary objective was to assess associations between increases in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and medication adjustments among patients with diabetes. A secondary objective was to measure the effect of adjustments on subsequent HbA1c levels. A retrospective analysis of administrative data from a large health insurer in Hawaii of 7654 patients with diabetes mellitus type II, HbA1c levels greater than 7%, and who were taking oral diabetic medications. Patients were eligible if they had an HbA1c measurement in 2009, a prior measure 30 or more days previously, and at least 30 days of follow-up to identify medication adjustments. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on their extent of change in HbA1c levels. Patients were followed to determine the frequency of medication adjustments and to observe the possible benefit of making adjustments on subsequent HbA1c levels. Medication adjustments were the exception, occurring among less than a fourth of patients. Compared with patients without HbA1c increases, patients with <1% HbA1c increases made adjustments 20% more frequently, and patients with increased HbA1c levels of 1% or more made adjustments 60% more frequently. Patients with similar HbA1c increases were more likely to adjust their medications if they had higher baseline HbA1c levels. Medication adjustments were mostly for oral diabetes medications; insulin use was seldom initiated, and then primarily by patients with HbA1c levels of 9% or higher. Patients with medication adjustments averaged about 0.40% lower HbA1c levels when reassessed after 120 days or more. The results show limited responsiveness to increases in HbA1c levels and a low initiation rate of insulin use. Patients adjusting their medications, however, had clinically significant improvements in their HbA1c levels. Clinical inertia and patient concerns are discussed as factors possibly limiting the frequency of medication adjustments.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 01/2014; 48(1):41-7. DOI:10.1177/1060028013517870 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite advances in treatment for type 2 diabetes in recent decades, many patients are failing to achieve adequate glycemic control. Poor glycemic control has been shown to have a detrimental effect on patients' health and well-being, and to have significant negative financial implications for both patients and healthcare systems. Insulin therapy has been proven to significantly reduce glycated hemoglobin levels; however, both patients and physicians can be reluctant to initiate insulin therapy. Research shows that both patient and provider factors contribute to a delay in initiation of insulin therapy. This review discusses the most common barriers contributing to this delay with potential solutions to overcome them.
    The American Journal of Medicine 10/2014; 127(10S):S11-S16. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.07.003 · 5.30 Impact Factor