The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry: A Profile of the Demographics, Management, and Outcomes of Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes.

Objective: Clinical guidelines now define the standard of diabetes care, but few health care jurisdictions systematically assess their practicality and impact. The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry includes the electronic health records of >50 endocrinologists in three provinces and provides quarterly real-time outcome reports to each endocrinologist. This retrospective cohort study aimed to characterize the demographics, treatment regimens, and outcomes of the type 1 diabetes (T1D) patient population in the registry. Research Design and Methods: Adults were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of T1D, had seen an LMC endocrinologist between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018, and had follow-up >6 months. This study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04162067). Results: The resulting cohort included 3600 individuals with mean age of 43.9 ± 15.3 years and duration of diabetes of 21.5 ± 13.9 years. Mean hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) was 8.1% ± 1.5% and only 22.5% had achieved HbA1c ≤7.0%. In each measure, individuals in younger cohorts showed poorer glycemic control than older cohorts. Within each age cohort, insulin pump users showed a lower mean HbA1c than those using multiple daily injections, especially in cohorts who were also not using a continuous glucose monitor. Overall, 63.1% reported at least weekly hypoglycemia, whereas 3.6% reported severe hypoglycemia ≥1 per year. Conclusions: Despite receiving care in an advanced well-resourced environment, within a public health care system, from specialists armed with regular patient outcomes feedback, most individuals with T1D are unable to achieve the goals recommended by clinical practice guidelines.

Addressing a Care Gap in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Using the Diabetes Distress Scale in a Community Care Setting to Address Diabetes-Related Treatment Challenges.

OBJECTIVES: To bridge the gap between existing clinical evidence and recommendations around screening for diabetes-related distress (DD) and the observation of a low level of adoption of these suggestions in everyday clinical practice. We focused on the use of the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) by adult diabetes care specialists. METHODS: We conducted a survey of endocrinologists and diabetes educators in our clinics, examining the use of DD screening and assessment tools, including DDS-2, DDS-17 and T1-DDS-28. RESULTS: Our results indicated that very few practitioners surveyed are currently using the DD questionnaires, and highlighted their perceptions of the primary barriers to doing so. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss the results of our survey of colleagues' use of the DDS and provide suggestions about how to incorporate this tool, and tips about how to address the various facets of DD. We argue that integrating the assessment of DD in clinical practice, with the use of standardized and validated self-report questionnaires, is a necessary and very feasible step towards achieving further improvements in the health and quality of life of people living with type 1 diabetes.