Physician perspectives on de-intensifying diabetes medications.

Guidelines for diabetes care recommend that physicians select individualized glycemic goals based on life expectancy, diabetes duration, comorbidity, and resources/support. When patients have stable hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) levels, guidelines lack recommendations on when diabetes medications should be de-intensified.To understand physicians' perspectives on de-intensifying diabetes medications in patients with type 2 diabetes.Cross-sectional survey, (February-June, 2015).Academic medical center and suburban integrated health system.Primary care and endocrinology physicians.Physicians' self-reported: awareness, agreement, and frequency of individualizing HbA1C goals; practice of de-intensifying diabetes medications; HbA1C values at which physicians de-intensify diabetes medications; and other patient factors physicians consider when de-intensifying diabetes medications.Response rate was 73% (156/213). Most physicians (78%) responded they were familiar with recommendations to individualize HbA1C goals. For patients with stable HbA1C levels, 80% of physicians reported they had initiated conversations about stopping medications; however, physicians differed in predefined HbA1C levels used to initiate conversations (HbA1C < 5.7%: 14%; HbA1C < 6.0%: 31%; HbA1C < 6.5%: 22%; individualized level: 21%). In multiple logistic regression, women physicians (odds ratio [OR] 3.0; confidence interval [CI] 1.1-8.2; P = 0.03) and physicians practicing fewer than 20 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.01-7.7; P = 0.048) were more likely to report de-intensifying diabetes medications.Individualizing glycemic goals and de-intensifying treatments are concepts well accepted by physicians in our sample. However, physicians vary considerably in reporting how they carry out recommendations to individualize and may be missing opportunities to stop or taper diabetes medications based on patients' individualized glycemic goals.

A technology-based quality innovation to identify undiagnosed hypertension among active primary care patients.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to develop a technology-based strategy to identify patients with undiagnosed hypertension in 23 primary care practices and integrate this innovation into a continuous quality improvement initiative in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: In phase 1, we reviewed electronic health records (EHRs) using algorithms designed to identify patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. We then invited each at-risk patient to complete an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) protocol. In phase 2, we instituted a quality improvement process that included regular physician feedback and office-based computer alerts to evaluate at-risk patients not screened in phase 1. Study patients were observed for 24 additional months to determine rates of diagnostic resolution. RESULTS: Of the 1,432 patients targeted for inclusion in the study, 475 completed the AOBP protocol during the 6 months of phase 1. Of the 1,033 at-risk patients who remained active during phase 2, 740 (72%) were classified by the end of the follow-up period: 361 had hypertension diagnosed, 290 had either white-coat hypertension, prehypertension, or elevated blood pressure diagnosed, and 89 had normal blood pressure. By the end of the follow-up period, 293 patients (28%) had not been classified and remained at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our technology-based innovation identified a large number of patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension and successfully classified the majority, including many with hypertension. This innovation has been implemented as an ongoing quality improvement initiative in our medical group and continues to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of hypertension among primary care patients.