Original Article

Prevalence of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Reaching the American Diabetes Association’s Target Guidelines in a University Primary Care Setting

Authors: Gavin J. Putzer, MD, Arnold M. Ramirez, MD, Kevin Sneed, PHARMD, H.J. Brownlee, MD, Richard G. Roetzheim, MD, MSPH, Robert J. Campbell, MD

Abstract

Background: The success with which primary care physicians are able to meet American Diabetes Association (ADA) clinical goals is unknown.


Methods: Charts of 218 randomly sampled type 2 diabetic patients were abstracted to assess the attainment of six ADA treatment goals and receipt of four ADA-recommended health services.


Results: The mean number of ADA goals attained was 4.9 (SD, 1.6). Only one patient had attained all 10 goals. Most patients had attained ADA goals for triglycerides, diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and diabetic education. Most patients had not received an annual eye examination or urine microalbuminuria screening, most were not taking daily aspirin, and most had not attained treatment goals for high-density lipoprotein or systolic blood pressure.


Conclusion: ADA treatment goals may be quite difficult to attain in the primary care setting. Further studies are needed to understand the barriers to diabetes control.

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 purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

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. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes in the United States. Atlanta, GA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.
 
2. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2001; 24 (Suppl 1): S33–S43.
 
3. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837–853.
 
4. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998; 317: 703–713.
 
5. Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, et al. Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease: A subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 614–620.
 
6. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 977–986.
 
7. American Diabetes Association. Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2001; 24 (Suppl 1): S5–S20.
 
8. Brechner RJ, Cowie CC, Howie LJ, et al. Ophthalmic examination among adults with diagnosed diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1993; 270: 1714–1718.
 
9. Chin MH, Auerbach SB, Cook S, et al. Quality of diabetes care in community health centers. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 431–434.
 
10. Lawler FH, Viviani N. Patient and physician perspectives regarding treatment of diabetes: Compliance with practice guidelines. J Fam Pract 1997; 44: 369–373.
 
11. Marshall CL, Bluestein M, Chapin C, et al. Outpatient management of diabetes mellitus in five Arizona Medicare managed care plans. Am J Med Qual 1996; 11: 87–93.
 
12. Srinivasan M, Przybylski M, Swigonski N. The Oregon Health Plan: Predictors of office-based diabetic quality of care. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 262–267.
 
13. Weiner JP, Parente ST, Garnick DW, et al. Variation in office-based quality: A claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with diabetes. JAMA 1995; 273: 1503–1508.
 
14. Dalewitz J, Khan N, Hershey CO. Barriers to control of blood glucose in diabetes mellitus. Am J Med Qual 2000; 15: 16–25.
 
15. Helseth LD, Susman JL, Crabtree BF, et al. Primary care physicians’ perceptions of diabetes management: A balancing act. J Fam Pract 1999; 48: 37–42.
 
16. Freeman J, Loewe R. Barriers to communication about diabetes mellitus: Patients’ and physicians’ different view of the disease. J Fam Pract 2000; 49: 507–512.
 
17. Feder G, Griffiths C, Highton C, et al. Do clinical guidelines introduced with practice based education improve care of asthmatic and diabetic patients? A randomised controlled trial in general practices in east London. BMJ 1995; 311: 1473–1478.
 
18. Sutherland JE, Hoehns JD, O’Donnell B, et al. Diabetes management quality improvement in a family practice residency program. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14: 243–251.
 
19. Ruoff G, Gray LS. Using a flow sheet to improve performance in treatment of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. Fam Med 1999; 31: 331–336.
 
20. Fox CH, Mahoney MC. Improving diabetes preventive care in a family practice residency program: A case study in continuous quality improvement. Fam Med 1998; 30: 441–445.
 
21. Hempel RJ. Physician documentation of diabetes care: Use of a diabetes flow sheet and patient education clinic. South Med J 1990; 83: 1426–1432.
 
22. Ho M, Marger M, Beart J, et al. Is the quality of diabetes care better in a diabetes clinic or in a general medicine clinic? Diabetes Care 1997; 20: 472–475.
 
23. Kravitz RL, Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, et al. Recall of recommendations and adherence to advice among patients with chronic medical conditions. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 1869–1878.