Documentation of hypoglycemia assessment among adults with diabetes during clinical encounters in primary care and endocrinology practices.

PURPOSE: To examine the proportion of diabetes-focused clinical encounters in primary care and endocrinology practices where the evaluation for hypoglycemia is documented; and when it is, identify clinicians' stated actions in response to patient-reported events. METHODS: A total of 470 diabetes-focused encounters among 283 patients nonpregnant adults (≥18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus in this retrospective cohort study. Participants were randomly identified in blocks of treatment strategy and care location (95 and 52 primary care encounters among hypoglycemia-prone medications (i.e. insulin, sulfonylurea) and others patients, respectively; 94 and 42 endocrinology encounters among hypo-treated and others, respectively). Documentation of hypoglycemia and subsequent management plan in the electronic health record were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 132 (46.6%) patients had documentation of hypoglycemia assessment, significantly more prevalent among hypo-treated patients seen in endocrinology than in primary care (72.3% vs. 47.4%; P = 0.001). Hypoglycemia was identified by patient in 38.2% of encounters. Odds of hypoglycemia assessment documentation was highest among the hypo-treated (OR 13.6; 95% CI 5.5-33.74, vs. others) and patients seen in endocrine clinic (OR 4.48; 95% CI 2.3-8.6, vs. primary care). After documentation of hypoglycemia, treatment was modified in 30% primary care and 46% endocrine clinic encounters; P = 0.31. Few patients were referred to diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES). CONCLUSIONS: Continued efforts to improve hypoglycemia evaluation, documentation, and management are needed, particularly in primary care. This includes not only screening at-risk patients for hypoglycemia, but also modifying their treatment regimens and/or leveraging DSMES.

Participants' awareness of ethical compliance, safety and protection during participation in pharmaceutical industry clinical trials: a controlled survey.

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase of industry-sponsored clinical research towards developing countries has led to potentially complex ethical issues to assess. There is scarce evidence about the perception of these participants about the ethical compliance, security, and protection. We sought to evaluate and contrast the awareness and perception of participants and non-participants of industry-sponsored research trials (ISRT) on ethical, safety, and protection topics. METHODS: A Cases-control survey conducted at twelve research sites in México. Previous and current participants of ISRT (cases) as well as non-participants (controls) with one of four chronic diseases, were asked to complete the survey which focused on ethical compliance and protection issues of ISRT, and the perception of participating in a trial. RESULTS: A total of 604 cases and 604 controls were surveyed. Cases significantly answered that ethics committees are aware of what is happening in studies (50.5% vs. 33.8%, P = ≤ 0.001), and that medical care of industry-sponsored research trials is better than their usual medical care (77.2% vs. 38.2%, P = < 0.001). The same proportion of cases and controls thought patients must receive economical reimbursement for participating in a research study (49.5% vs. 53.1%, P = 0.205). The informed consent of the pharmaceutical clinical trial was fully read by 90.4% of the cases. Most cases were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall study participation (35.6 and 62.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Previous and current participants of industry-sponsored research trials have a more positive attitude towards ethics committees, the quality of medical care of the research trials, and the main purpose of economical reimbursements, when compared to non-participants.