Educating resident physicians using virtual case-based simulation improves diabetes management: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To test a virtual case-based Simulated Diabetes Education intervention (SimDE) developed to teach primary care residents how to manage diabetes. METHOD: Nineteen primary care residency programs, with 341 volunteer residents in all postgraduate years (PGY), were randomly assigned to a SimDE intervention group or control group (CG). The Web-based interactive educational intervention used computerized virtual patients who responded to provider actions through programmed simulation models. Eighteen distinct learning cases (L-cases) were assigned to SimDE residents over six months from 2010 to 2011. Impact was assessed using performance on four virtual assessment cases (A-cases), an objective knowledge test, and pre-post changes in self-assessed diabetes knowledge and confidence. Group comparisons were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, controlling for clustering of residents within residency programs and differences in baseline knowledge. RESULTS: The percentages of residents appropriately achieving A-case composite clinical goals for glucose, blood pressure, and lipids were as follows: A-case 1: SimDE = 21.2%, CG = 1.8%, P = .002; A-case 2: SimDE = 15.7%, CG = 4.7%, P = .02; A-case 3: SimDE = 48.0%, CG = 10.4%, P < .001; and A-case 4: SimDE = 42.1%, CG = 18.7%, P = .004. The mean knowledge score and pre-post changes in self-assessed knowledge and confidence were significantly better for SimDE group than CG participants. CONCLUSIONS: A virtual case-based simulated diabetes education intervention improved diabetes management skills, knowledge, and confidence for primary care residents.

Using simulation technology to teach diabetes care management skills to resident physicians.

BACKGROUND: Simulation is widely used to teach medical procedures. Our goal was to develop and implement an innovative virtual model to teach resident physicians the cognitive skills of type 1 and type 2 diabetes management. METHODS: A diabetes educational activity was developed consisting of (a) a curriculum using 18 explicit virtual cases, (b) a web-based interactive interface, (c) a simulation model to calculate physiologic outcomes of resident actions, and (d) a library of programmed feedback to critique and guide resident actions between virtual encounters. Primary care residents in 10 U.S. residency programs received the educational activity. Satisfaction and changes in knowledge and confidence in managing diabetes were analyzed with mixed quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Pre- and post-education surveys were completed by 92/142 (65%) of residents. Likert scale (five-point) responses were favorably higher than neutral for general satisfaction (94%), recommending to colleagues (91%), training adequacy (91%), and navigation ease (92%). Finding time to complete cases was difficult for 50% of residents. Mean ratings of knowledge (on a five-point scale) posteducational activity improved by +0.5 (p < .01) for use of all available drug classes, +0.9 (p < .01) for how to start and adjust insulin, +0.8 (p < .01) for interpreting blood glucose values, +0.8 (p < .01) for individualizing treatment goals, and +0.7 (p < .01) for confidence in managing diabetes patients. CONCLUSIONS: A virtual diabetes educational activity to teach cognitive skills to manage diabetes to primary care residents was successfully developed, implemented, and well liked. It significantly improved self-assessed knowledge and confidence in diabetes management.

Are benefits from diabetes self-management education sustained?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether outcomes from diabetes self-management education for patients with suboptimal control were sustained. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of 623 adults with type 2 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) > 7% assigned to receive conventional individual education (IE), group education (GE) using US Diabetes Conversation Maps, or usual care (UC) with no education. METHODS: A1C tests, Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES), Recommended Food Score (RFS), physical activity, and medication use were quantified at baseline and 1 year of follow-up through electronic health records and quarterly mailed surveys. Short-term (mean 6.8 months) and long-term (12.8 months) outcomes were evaluated using linear mixed models. In addition, follow-up trajectories were plotted in a random effects generalized additive model with smooth splines. RESULTS: Compared with UC, IE resulted in long-term improved DES and PAID scores (DES, +.11, P = .03 and PAID, -2.94, P = .04), but not significantly improved long-term RFS or physical activity change. The A1C trajectory declined more steeply in IE than GE and UC for the first 150 days post randomization. However, by 250 days, there was no treatment group A1C difference. The model fit likelihood ratio test for A1C intervention trends was significant for 3 distinct non-linear trajectories (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional IE (but not GE) resulted in significant and sustained improvements in self-efficacy and reduced diabetes distress compared with UC, but short-term improvements in A1C, nutrition, and physical activity were not sustained. Patients may need ongoing reinforcement to achieve lasting behavioral change and glucose control.

Comparative effectiveness of patient education methods for type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Group education for patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes has not been rigorously studied. METHODS: A total of 623 adults from Minnesota and New Mexico with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) concentrations of 7% or higher were randomized to (1) group education (using the US Diabetes Conversation Map program), (2) individual education, or (3) usual care (UC; ie, no assigned education). Both education methods covered content as needed to meet national standards for diabetes self-management education and were delivered through accredited programs from 2008 to 2009. General linear mixed-model methods assessed patient-level changes between treatment groups in mean HbA(1c) levels from baseline to follow-up at 6.8 months. Secondary outcomes included mean change in general health status (Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Diabetes Self-Efficacy (DES-SF), Recommended Food Score (RFS), and Physical Activity (PA, min/wk). RESULTS: Mean HbA(1c) concentration decreased in all groups but significantly more with individual (-0.51%) than group education (-0.27%) (P = .01) and UC (-0.24%) (P = .01). The proportion of subjects with follow-up HbA(1c) concentration lower than 7% was greater for individual education (21.2%) than for group (13.9%) and UC (12.8%) (P = .03). Compared with UC, individual education (but not group) improved SF-12 physical component score (+1.88) (P = .04), PA (+42.95 min/wk) (P = .03), and RFS (+0.63) (P = .05). Compared with group education, individual education reduced PAID (-3.62) (P = .02) and increased self-efficacy (+0.1) (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Individual education for patients with established suboptimally controlled diabetes resulted in better glucose control outcomes than did group education using Conversation Maps. There was also a trend toward better psychosocial and behavioral outcomes with individual education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00652509.

A comparative analysis of recruitment methods used in a randomized trial of diabetes education interventions.

Recruitment methods heavily impact budget and outcomes in clinical trials. We conducted a post-hoc examination of the efficiency and cost of three different recruitment methods used in Journey for Control of Diabetes: the IDEA Study, a randomized controlled trial evaluating outcomes of group and individual diabetes education in New Mexico and Minnesota. Electronic databases were used to identify health plan members with diabetes and then one of the following three methods was used to recruit study participants: 1. Minnesota Method 1--Mail only (first half of recruitment period). Mailed invitations with return-response forms. 2. Minnesota Method 2--Mail and selective phone calls (second half of recruitment period). Mailed invitations with return-response forms and subsequent phone calls to nonresponders. 3. New Mexico Method 3--Mail and non-selective phone calls (full recruitment period): Mailed invitations with subsequent phone calls to all. The combined methods succeeded in meeting the recruitment goal of 623 subjects. There were 147 subjects recruited using Minnesota's Method 1, 190 using Minnesota's Method 2, and 286 using New Mexico's Method 3. Efficiency rates (percentage of invited patients who enrolled) were 4.2% for Method 1, 8.4% for Method 2, and 7.9% for Method 3. Calculated costs per enrolled subject were $71.58 (Method 1), $85.47 (Method 2), and $92.09 (Method 3). A mail-only method to assess study interest was relatively inexpensive but not efficient enough to sustain recruitment targets. Phone call follow-up after mailed invitations added to recruitment efficiency. Use of return-response forms with selective phone follow-up to non-responders was cost effective.