Original Article

Integration of Personalized Health Planning and Shared Medical Appointments for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Authors: Connor Drake, MPA, Caroline Meade, BS, Sharon K. Hull, MD, MPH, Ashley Price, PhD, MPH, Ralph Snyderman, MD

Abstract

Objectives: This study describes the feasibility of implementing personalized health planning (PHP) within shared medical appointments (SMAs) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The PHP-SMA approach was designed to synergize the benefits of SMAs with those of PHP, enabling greater patient engagement focused on meeting individualized therapeutic goals in a group setting.

Methods: Patients were assigned randomly to a PHP-SMA or a standard eight-session SMA series. Standard SMAs included an interactive educational curriculum delivered in group medical encounters. The PHP-SMA included the addition of a patient self-assessment, health risk assessment, shared patient-provider goal setting, creation of a personal health plan, and follow-up on clinical progress. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes and qualitative data from focus groups with patients, providers, and administrative staff were used for evaluation. Qualitative data explored facilitators and barriers to implementation of the PHP-SMA. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to provide insight into implementation factors.

Results: PHP was successfully integrated into SMAs in a primary care setting. Patients in the PHP-SMA (n = 12) were more likely to attend ≥5 sessions than patients assigned to the standard SMA (n = 7; 58% PHP, 28.5% control). Qualitative data evaluation described the advantages and barriers to PHP, the team-based approach to care, and patient participation. The PHP-SMA group experienced reductions in hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein, blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as successful attainment of health goals.

Conclusions: The PHP-SMA is a proactive and participatory approach to chronic care delivery that synergizes the benefits of PHP within SMAs. This study describes the components of this intervention; collects evidence on feasibility, acceptability, and clinical outcomes; and identifies implementation barriers and facilitators. The PHP-SMA warrants further evaluation as an approach to improve health outcomes in patients with common chronic conditions.

 

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Levine JA. Poverty and obesity in the U.S. Diabetes 2011;60:2667-2668.
 
2. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, et al. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20:64-78.
 
3. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996;74:511-544.
 
4. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 2003;26:1-7.
 
5. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:207-214.
 
6. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, et al. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 2004;39(4 Part 1):1005-1026.
 
7. Fisher EB, Earp JA, Maman S, et al. Cross-cultural and international adaptation of peer support for diabetes management. Fam Pract 2010;27(suppl 1):i6-i16.
 
8. Peers for Progress. What is peer support? http://peersforprogress.org/learn-about-peer-support/what-is-peer-support. Published 2017. Accessed March 8, 2017.
 
9. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes-2016. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/suppl/2015/12/21/39.Supplement_1.DC2/2016-Standards-of-Care.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed September 6, 2018.
 
10. Peikes D, Genevro J, Scholle S, Torda P. The patient-centered medical home: strategies to put patients at the center of primary care. https://pcmh.ahrq.gov/page/patient-centered-medical-home-strategies-put-patients-center-primary-care. Published 2011. Accessed September 6, 2018.
 
11. Snyderman R. Personalized health care: from theory to practice. Biotechnol J 2012;7:973-979.
 
12. Snyderman R, Drake CD. Personalized health care: unlocking the potential of genomic and precision medicine. https://www.thejournalofprecisionmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SNYDERMAN.pdf. Published October 2015. Accessed September 6, 2018.
 
13. Edelman D, Oddone EZ, Liebowitz RS, et al. A multidimensional integrative medicine intervention to improve cardiovascular risk. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:728-734.
 
14. Burnette R, Simmons LA, Snyderman R. Personalized health care as a pathway for the adoption of genomic medicine. J Pers Med 2012;2:232-240.
 
15. Musich S, Klemes A, Kubica MA, et al. Personalized preventive care reduces healthcare expenditures among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Am J Manag Care 2014;20:613-620.
 
16. Simmons L, Drake C, Gaudet T, et al. Personalized health planning in primary care settings. Fed Pract 2016;33:27-34.
 
17. Edelman D, Gierisch JM, McDuffie JR, et al. Shared medical appointments for patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:99-106.
 
18. Housden LM, Wong ST. Using group medical visits with those who have diabetes: examining the evidence. Curr Diab Rep 2016;16:134.
 
19. Ramdas K, Darzi A. Adopting innovations in care delivery-the case of shared medical appointments. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1105-1107.
 
20. Damschroder LJ, Goodrich DE, Robinson CH, et al. A systematic exploration of differences in contextual factors related to implementing the MOVE! weight management program in VA: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:248.
 
21. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv Res 2005;40(6 Part 1):1918-1930.
 
22. Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Fitzgerald JT, et al. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care 2000;23:739-743.
 
23. DeSalvo KB, Jones TM, Peabody J, et al. Health care expenditure with a single-item, self-rated health measure. Med Care 2009;47:440-447.
 
24. Arroll B, Goodyear-Smith F, Crengle S, et al. Validation of PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 to screen for major depression in the primary care population. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:348-353.
 
25. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stock R, et al. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Serv Res 2007;42:1443-1463.
 
26. Greene J, Hibbard JH. Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:520-526.
 
27. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores’. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:216-222.
 
28. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Shi Y, et al. Taking the long view: how well do patient activation scores predict outcomes four years later? Med Care Res Rev 2015;72:324-337.
 
29. Mitchell SE, Gardiner PM, Sadikova E, et al. Patient activation and 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:349-355.
 
30. Anderson RM, Fitzgerald JT, Gruppen LD, Funnell MM, Oh MS. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF). Diabetes Care 2003;26:1641-1642.
 
31. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:267-275.