Utility of the Hospital Admission Risk Programme diabetes risk calculator in identifying patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of unplanned hospital presentations.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of hospitalisation is an important aspect of type 2 diabetes (T2D) management. AIMS: We retrospectively determined the utility of the Hospital Admission Risk Programme (HARP) diabetes risk calculator (HARP tool) in identifying patients with T2D more likely to have unplanned hospital presentations. METHODS: The HARP tool includes a clinical assessment score (Part A) and a psychosocial and self-management impact score (Part B), and categorises patients into low, medium, high or urgent risk of acute hospitalisation. It was completed for T2D patients attending Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, in 2013. RESULTS: Within the cohort of 278 patients (age 65.3 ± 10.5 years; 62.9% male; diabetes duration 10.7 ± 6.6 years), 67.3% were classified as low risk, 32.7% as medium risk and none as high or urgent risk. Following adjustment for confounders, a medium HARP score was associated with a 3.1-fold increased risk of unplanned hospital presentations in the subsequent 12 months (95% confidence interval: 1.35-7.31; P = 0.008). Part A scores were significantly higher for patients that presented to hospital compared to those that did not (14.2 ± 6.8 vs 11.4 ± 5.5; P = 0.034), whereas there was no difference in Part B scores (P = 0.860). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low and medium HARP scores, clinical features were more predictive of hospital presentations than certain psychosocial or self-management factors in the present cohort. Further studies are required to characterise unplanned hospitalisation in patients with higher HARP scores, or whether additional psychosocial assessments could improve the tool's predictability.

Identification of Patients With Diabetes Who Benefit Most From a Health Coaching Program in Chronic Disease Management, Sydney, Australia, 2013.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic disease management programs (CDMPs) that include health coaching can facilitate and coordinate diabetes management. The aim of this study was to assess changes in patients' general knowledge of diabetes, self-reported health status, diabetes distress, body mass index (BMI), and glycemic control after enrollment in a face-to-face CDMP group health coaching session (with telephone follow-up) compared with participation in telephone-only health coaching, during a 12-month period. METHODS: Patients with diabetes were enrolled in a health coaching program at Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, Australia, in 2013. Questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months, and the results were compared with baseline. Glycemic control, measured with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and BMI, were measured at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 238 patients attended a face-to-face CDMP session with telephone follow-up (n = 178) or participated in telephone-only health coaching (n = 60). We found no change in BMI in either group; however, HbA1c levels in patients with baseline above the current recommended target (>7%) decreased significantly from 8.5% (standard deviation [SD], 1.0%) to 7.9% (SD, 1.0%) (P = .03). Patients with the lowest self-reported health status at baseline improved from 4.4 (SD, 0.5) to 3.7 (SD, 0.9) (P = .001). Diabetes knowledge improved in all patients (24.4 [SD, 2.4] to 25.2 [SD, 2.4]; P < .001), and diabetes distress decreased among those with the highest levels of distress at baseline (3.0 [SD, 0.4] vs 3.8 [SD, 0.6]; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Diabetes health coaching programs can improve glycemic control and reduce diabetes distress in patients with high levels of these at baseline.