Effectiveness of the EMPOWER-PAR Intervention in Improving Clinical Outcomes of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The chronic care model was proven effective in improving clinical outcomes of diabetes in developed countries. However, evidence in developing countries is scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EMPOWER-PAR intervention (based on the chronic care model) in improving clinical outcomes for type 2 diabetes mellitus using readily available resources in the Malaysian public primary care setting. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel, matched pair, controlled trial using participatory action research approach, conducted in 10 public primary care clinics in Malaysia. Five clinics were randomly selected to provide the EMPOWER-PAR intervention for 1 year and another five clinics continued with usual care. Patients who fulfilled the criteria were recruited over a 2-week period by each clinic. The obligatory intervention components were designed based on four elements of the chronic care model i.e. healthcare organisation, delivery system design, self-management support and decision support. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%. Secondary outcomes were the change in proportion of patients achieving targets for blood pressure, lipid profile, body mass index and waist circumference. Intention to treat analysis was performed for all outcome measures. A generalised estimating equation method was used to account for baseline differences and clustering effect. RESULTS: A total of 888 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were recruited at baseline (intervention: 471 vs. CONTROL: 417). At 1-year, 96.6 and 97.8% of patients in the intervention and control groups completed the study, respectively. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups were comparable. The change in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c target was significantly higher in the intervention compared to the control group (intervention: 3.0% vs. CONTROL: -4.1%, P < 0.002). Patients who received the EMPOWER-PAR intervention were twice more likely to achieve HbA1c target compared to those in the control group (adjusted OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.34-3.50, P < 0.002). However, there was no significant improvement found in the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the EMPOWER-PAR intervention was effective in improving the primary outcome for type 2 diabetes in the Malaysian public primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with: ClinicalTrials.gov.: NCT01545401 . Date of registration: 1st March 2012.

Study protocol of EMPOWER participatory action research (EMPOWER-PAR): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of multifaceted chronic disease management strategies to improve diabetes and hypertension outcomes in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management presents enormous challenges to the primary care workforce because of the rising epidemic of cardiovascular risk factors. The chronic care model was proven effective in improving chronic disease outcomes in developed countries, but there is little evidence of its effectiveness in developing countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the EMPOWER-PAR intervention (multifaceted chronic disease management strategies based on the chronic care model) in improving outcomes for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension using readily available resources in the Malaysian public primary care setting. This paper presents the study protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial using participatory action research is underway in 10 public primary care clinics in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Five clinics were randomly selected to provide the EMPOWER-PAR intervention for 1 year and another five clinics continued with usual care. Each clinic consecutively recruits type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria over a 2-week period. The EMPOWER-PAR intervention consists of creating/strengthening a multidisciplinary chronic disease management team, training the team to use the Global Cardiovascular Risks Self-Management Booklet to support patient care and reinforcing the use of relevant clinical practice guidelines for management and prescribing. For type 2 diabetes mellitus, the primary outcome is the change in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%. For hypertension without type 2 diabetes mellitus, the primary outcome is the change in the proportion of patients achieving blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients achieving targets for serum lipid profile, body mass index and waist circumference. Other outcome measures include medication adherence levels, process of care and prescribing patterns. Patients' assessment of their chronic disease care and providers' perceptions, attitudes and perceived barriers in care delivery and cost-effectiveness of the intervention are also evaluated. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will provide objective evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention based on the chronic care model in resource-constrained public primary care settings. The evidence should instigate crucial primary care system change in Malaysia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01545401.

Value of Shock Index in prognosticating the short-term outcome of death for patients presenting with severe sepsis and septic shock in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of early recognition and treatment of sepsis and its effects on short-term survival outcome have long been recognized. Having reliable indicators and markers that would help prognosticate the survival of these patients is invaluable and would subsequently assist in the course of effective dynamic triaging and goal directed management. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognosticative value of Shock Index (SI), taken upon arrival to the emergency department and after 2 hours of resuscitation on the shortterm outcome of severe sepsis and septic shock patients. METHODOLOGY: This is a retrospective observational study involving 50 patients admitted to the University of Malaya Medical Centre between June 2009 and June 2010 who have been diagnosed with either severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients were identified retrospectively from the details recorded in the registration book of the resuscitation room. 50 patients were selected for this pilot study. The population comprised 19 males (38%) and 31 females (62%). The median (min, max) age was 54.5 (17.0, 84.0) years. The number of severe sepsis and septic shock cases were 31 (62%), and 19 (38%) respectively. There were 17 (34%) cases of pneumonias, 13 (26%) cases of urological sepsis, 8 (16%) cases of gastro intestinal tract related infections and 12 (24%) cases of other infections. There were a total of 23 (46%) survivors and 27 (54%) deaths. The value of the shock index is defined as systolic blood pressure divided by heart rate was calculated. Shock Index on presentation to ED (SI 1) and after 2 hours of resuscitation in the ED (SI 2). The median, minimum and maximum variables were tested using Mann-Whitney U and Chi square analysis. The significant parameters were re-evaluated for sensitivity, specificity and cut-off points. ROC curves and AUC values were generated among these variables to assess prognostic utility for outcome. RESULTS: Amongst all 7 variables tested, 2 were tested to be significant (p: < 0.05). From the sensitivity, specificity and ROC analysis, the best predictor for death was (SI 2) with a sensitivity of 80.8%, specificity of 79.2%, AUC value of 0.8894 [CI 95 0.8052, 0.9736] at a cut-off point of > or = 1.0. CONCLUSION: (SI 2) may potentially be utilized as a reliable predictor for death in patients presenting with septic shock and severe sepsis in an emergency department. This parameters should be further analyzed in a larger scale prospective study to determine its validity.