Evaluating the impact of onsite diabetes education teams in primary care on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of integrating diabetes education teams in primary care on glycemic control, lipid, and blood-pressure management in type 2 diabetes patients. METHODS: A historical cohort design was used to assess the integration of teams comprising nurse and dietitian educators in 11 Ontario primary-care sites, which delivered individualized self-management education. Of the 771 adult patients with A1C ≥ 7% recruited, 487 patients attended appointments with the diabetes teams, while the remaining 284 patients did not. The intervention's primary goal was to increase the proportion of patients with A1C ≤7%. Secondary goals were to reduce mean A1C, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol-high density lipoprotein, and diastolic and systolic blood pressure, as recommended by clinical-practice guidelines. RESULTS: After 12 months, a higher proportion of intervention-group patients reached the target for A1C, compared with the control group. Mean A1C levels fell significantly among all patients, but the mean reduction was larger for the intervention group than the control group. Although more intervention-group patients reached targets for all clinical outcomes, the between-group differences were not statistically significant, except for A1C. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse and dietitian diabetes-education teams can have a clinically meaningful impact on patients' ability to meet recommended A1C targets. Given the study's historical cohort design, results are generalizable and applicable to day-to-day primary-care practice. Longer follow-up studies are needed to investigate whether the positive outcomes of the intervention are sustainable.

Food Insecurity Screening Among Families of Children With Diabetes.

Little is known about screening in clinical settings for food insecurity (FI) among households of children with diabetes. This study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of an FI screening initiative in a pediatric diabetes clinic that was implemented to help diabetes dietitian educators tailor management plans for families of children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes facing FI. The initiative comprised three validated screening questions, a care algorithm, a community resource handout, and a poster. In total, 50 families of children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes were screened for FI. In-person semi-structured interviews combining open-ended and Likert-scale questions were conducted with 37 of the screened families and the three diabetes dietitian educators who conducted the screening. Perceived barriers and facilitators of the screening initiative were identified using content analysis, and Likert-scale questionnaires rated interviewees' comfort level with the screening questions. A reflective journal kept by an onsite research interviewer also facilitated the data interpretation process. Most families felt comfortable answering the screening questions. Families with FI appreciated the opportunity to express their concerns and learn about affordable food resources. However, ∼20% of these families described stigma and fear of judgment by clinicians if they screened positive for FI. Diabetes educators also felt comfortable with the screening questions but reported lack of time to screen all families and to follow-up with resources after a positive screen. A self-reported intake form was recommended to ensure that everyone is systematically screened. A standardized and respectful method of assessing FI could help clinicians better tailor treatment plans and support for families of children with diabetes who face FI. Based on these findings, similar FI screening initiatives should be implemented in other clinical settings as part of routine clinical practice.

Exploring interprofessional collaboration during the integration of diabetes teams into primary care.

BACKGROUND: Specialised diabetes teams, specifically certified nurse and dietitian diabetes educator teams, are being integrated part-time into primary care to provide better care and support for Canadians living with diabetes. This practice model is being implemented throughout Canada in an effort to increase patient access to diabetes education, self-management training, and support. Interprofessional collaboration can have positive effects on both health processes and patient health outcomes, but few studies have explored how health professionals are introduced to and transition into this kind of interprofessional work. METHOD: Data from 18 interviews with diabetes educators, 16 primary care physicians, 23 educators' reflective journals, and 10 quarterly debriefing sessions were coded and analysed using a directed content analysis approach, facilitated by NVIVO software. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged related to challenges faced, strategies adopted, and benefits observed during this transition into interprofessional collaboration between diabetes educators and primary care physicians: (a) negotiating space, place, and role; (b) fostering working relationships; (c) performing collectively; and (d) enhancing knowledge exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into how healthcare professionals who have not traditionally worked together in primary care are collaborating to integrate health services essential for diabetes management. Based on the experiences and personal reflections of participants, establishing new ways of working requires negotiating space and place to practice, role clarification, and frequent and effective modes of formal and informal communication to nurture the development of trust and mutual respect, which are vital to success.

Impact of diabetes education teams in primary care on processes of care indicators.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of the integration of onsite diabetes education teams in primary care on processes of care indicators according to practice guidelines. METHODS: Teams of nurse and dietitian educators delivered individualized self-management education counseling in 11 Ontario primary care sites. Of the 771 adult patients with HbA1c ≥7% who were recruited in a prospective cohort study, 487 patients attended appointments with the education teams, while the remaining 284 patients did not (usual care group). Baseline demographic, clinical information, and patient care processes (diabetes medical visit, HbA1c test, lipid profile, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and albumin-to-creatinine ratio, measuring blood pressure, performing foot exams, provision of flu vaccine, and referral for dilated retinal exam) were collected from patient charts one year before (pre period) and after (post period) the integration began. A multi-level random effects model was used to analyze the effect of group and period on whether the process indicators were met based on practice guidelines. RESULTS: Compared to the usual care group, patients seen by the education teams had significant improvements on indicators for semi-annual medical visit and annual foot exam. No significant improvements were found for other process of care indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Onsite education teams in primary care settings can potentially improve diabetes management as shown in two process of care indicators: medical visits and foot exams. The results support the benefits of having education teams in primary care settings to increase adherence to practice guidelines.

Implementing Specialized Diabetes Teams in Primary Care in Southern Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores the implementation processes of integrating specialized diabetes teams into primary care in southern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 patients, 20 diabetes educators and 16 primary care physicians. In addition, group debriefing sessions were conducted and field notes were collected from diabetes educators and diabetes education program managers to further explore the day-to-day issues of implementation. Data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Analysis revealed 3 main themes: Right Place, Right Time, Right Service: the convenience and comfort of local care, timely, preventive management and delivering person-centred care; Creating Partnerships: generating intervention buy-in, formal discussion, service agreements, site orientation and team development; Operational Complexities and Strategies: access to electronic medical records and documentation, referral and scheduling procedures, and costs and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Because situating diabetes teams in primary care currently involves using existing healthcare structures and human resources, pragmatic methods of fostering successful implementation of this model of practice are required. The utility of this model was perceived as being viable, and benefits were visible to all study participants. Strategies to facilitate implementation include outlining roles and expectations by educators and the primary care providers' team in the beginning, investment in the intervention by all stakeholders, and clear channels of communication that allow educators to perform their roles and leverage opportunities for team collaboration in patient care. Further evaluation of implementation processes can serve to expand this model of practice, which has proven so far to be favourable to the players involved.

Monitoring gender equity in mental health in a low-, middle-, and high-income country in the Americas.

OBJECTIVE: Gender disparities in mental health highlight the need to include gender equity measures when planning, implementing, and evaluating mental health programs at national, state or provincial, and municipal levels. This study aimed to identify, select, and assess the feasibility of comparing gender-sensitive mental health indicators in a low- (Peru), middle- (Colombia), and high- (Canada) income country. METHODS: The indicators were selected by a multidisciplinary group of experts who used criteria and a framework proposed by the World Health Organization. Data from national, population-based databases from each country were used to measure the indicators. RESULTS: Seven indicators (12-month prevalence of the following: depression, psychological distress, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide attempts, alcohol dependence, mental health service use, and psychological impairment) were feasible for measurement in at least two countries. Only five indicators were comparable between two countries, and only one was comparable among all countries (suicide attempts). The indicators that showed the greatest inequities between men and women were depression, anxiety, suicide attempts, use of mental health services, and alcohol dependence. Female-to-male ratios for prevalence of mental illness ranged from .1 to 2.3, and ratios for service use ranged from 1.3 to 1.9. Significant trends were found when the indicators were considered by age, education, marital status, and income. CONCLUSIONS: Some of these indicators can be used to identify populations most vulnerable to gender inequities in mental health. The results from this study may provide useful information to program planners who aim to implement, improve, and monitor national mental health strategies that reduce gender inequities under different national conditions.

Monitoring gender equity in health using gender-sensitive indicators: a cross-national study.

BACKGROUND: As gender is known to be a major determinant of health, monitoring gender equity in health systems remains a vital public health priority. Focusing on a low-income (Peru), middle-income (Colombia), and high-income (Canada) country in the Americas, this study aimed to (1) identify and select gender-sensitive health indicators and (2) assess the feasibility of measuring and comparing gender-sensitive health indicators among countries. METHODS: Gender-sensitive health indicators were selected by a multidisciplinary group of experts from each country. The most recent gender-sensitive health measures corresponding to selected indicators were identified through electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, LIPECS, Latindex, and BIREME) and expert consultation. Data from population-based studies were analyzed when indicator information was unavailable from reports. RESULTS: Twelve of the 17 selected gender-sensitive health indicators were feasible to measure in at least two countries, and 9 of these were comparable among all countries. Indicators that were available were not stratified or adjusted by age, education, marital status, or wealth. The largest between-country difference was maternal mortality, and the largest gender inequity was mortality from homicides. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that gender inequities in health exist in all countries, regardless of income level. Economic development seemed to confer advantages in the availability of such indicators; however, this finding was not consistent and needs to be further explored. Future initiatives should include identifying health system factors and risk factors associated with disparities as well as assessing the cost-effectiveness of including the routine monitoring of gender inequities in health.

Examining gender equity in health policies in a low- (Peru), middle- (Colombia), and high- (Canada) income country in the Americas.

Gender inequities in health prevail in most countries despite ongoing attempts to eliminate them. Assessment of gender-sensitive health policies can be used to identify country specific progress as well as gaps and issues that need to be addressed to meet health equity goals. This study selected and measured the existence of gender-sensitive health policies in a low- (Peru), middle- (Colombia), and high (Canada)-income country in the Americas. Investigators selected 10 of 20 gender-sensitive health policy indicators and found eight to be feasible to measure in all three countries, although the wording and scope varied. The results from this study inform policy makers and program planners who aim to develop, improve, implement, and monitor national gender-sensitive health policies. Future studies should assess the implementation of policy indicators within countries and assess their performance in increasing gender equity.