Patient-Reported Outcomes Improve with a Virtual Diabetes Care Model that Includes Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Background: The objective was to examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with access to a virtual clinic model for diabetes care. Methods: Adults with diabetes (N = 234) received virtual care, including support for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) over a 6-month study period. Care was led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist and focused on optimizing self-management skills and response to glucose values observed on CGM. After 6 months of CGM use and access to diabetes education, participants could opt in to another 6 months of follow-up with access to the virtual care team. Participants completed PRO surveys and had health and glycemic measures collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Participants with type 1 diabetes (N = 160) were 44 ± 14 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 61 mmol/mol (7.7%). Participants with type 2 diabetes (N = 74) were 52 ± 12 years and had mean baseline HbA1c of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%). Compared with baseline levels, at 6 months participants experienced less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears while also experiencing greater satisfaction with glucose monitoring, diabetes technology and specifically with CGM, and confidence for managing hypoglycemic (p < 0.05). For participants with type 1 diabetes, more time in the target range for glucose levels (70-180 mg/dL) was associated with less depression, diabetes distress, and hypoglycemic fears. Conclusions: PROs improved for adults with diabetes utilizing virtual diabetes care, including support for CGM use. Paired with the glycemic improvements observed in this virtual clinic study, there were robust benefits on the quality of life of adults with diabetes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04765358.

Migraine care practices in primary care: results from a national US survey.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians play a critical role in diagnosis and treatment of migraine, yet barriers exist. This national survey assessed barriers to diagnosis and treatment of migraine, preferred approaches to receiving migraine education, and familiarity with recent therapeutic innovations. METHODS: The survey was created by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and Eli Lilly and Company and distributed to a national sample through the AAFP National Research Network and affiliated PBRNs from mid-April through the end of May 2021. Initial analyses were descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and Chi-Square tests. Individual and multivariate models were completed for: adult patients seen in a week; respondent years since residency; and adult patients with migraine seen in a week. RESULTS: Respondents who saw fewer patients were more likely to indicate unclear patient histories were a barrier to diagnosing. Respondents who saw more patients with migraine were more likely to indicate the priority of other comorbidities and insufficient time were barriers to diagnosing. Respondents who had been out of residency longer were more likely to change a treatment plan due to attack impact, quality of life, and medication cost. Respondents who had been out of residency shorter were more likely to prefer to learn from migraine/headache research scientists and use paper headache diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate differences in familiarity with migraine diagnosis and treatment options based on patients seen and years since residency. To maximise appropriate diagnosis within primary care, targeted efforts to increase familiarity and decrease barriers to migraine care should be implemented.

Understanding Nutritional Knowledge and Experiences in Families With a Child Newly Diagnosed With Type 1 Diabetes.

Nutrition is an integral part of diabetes management. Caregiver nutritional knowledge has been implicated in glycemic management of youth with type 1 diabetes. This study assessed the nutritional knowledge of parents/caregivers of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Findings suggest there is a need for more targeted support and training during the initial diagnosis and a desire for more technology-related resources such as virtual nutritionist-guided grocery shopping visits. Integrating these interventions into routine care for children with type 1 diabetes will help address the current gaps in caregiver nutritional literacy and their ability to provide appropriate care.

Increasing Use of Diabetes Devices: What Do Health Care Professionals Need?

Despite evidence of improved diabetes outcomes with diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, insulin pumps, and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery systems, these devices are underutilized in clinical practice for the management of insulin-requiring diabetes. This low uptake may be the result of health care providers' (HCPs') lack of confidence or time to prescribe and manage devices for people with diabetes. We administered a survey to HCPs in primary care, pediatric endocrinology, and adult endocrinology practices in the United States. Responding HCPs expressed a need for device-related insurance coverage tools and online data platforms with integration to electronic health record systems to improve diabetes technology uptake in these practice settings across the United States.

Continuous glucose monitoring for primary care patients with diabetes: Barriers, facilitators, & resources to support access.

Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes is associated with improved patient health outcomes including reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c) and hypoglycemia and is part of ADA Standards of Medical Care. CGM prescription often takes place in endocrinology practices. With limited access to endocrinologists, many patients could benefit from receiving CGM through primary care. Objective: The overall study aims to understand primary care clinicians' CGM prescribing experience and likelihood to prescribe, and identify resources needed to support prescribing CGM. This qualitative phase examines barriers and facilitators to prescribing, and resources to support prescribing. Study Design: Qualitative phase of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study following a cross-sectional online survey. Respondents were invited to participate in phone/virtual interviews to understand CGM prescribing attitudes and behaviors. Participants were stratified based on factors related to distance to an endocrinologist and prescribing behavior. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to understand relationships and trends, and identify resources to support CGM prescription in primary care. Setting: Two primary care research networks. Population studied: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers in the U.S. Outcome Measures: Resources needed, barriers, and facilitators to prescribing CGM. Results: 55 interviews were conducted. The following themes emerged in the analysis: Insurance and cost-related barriers were most commonly cited, as well as distance to endocrinology when > 40 miles away. Facilitators included training and experience with CGM and staff to support patient education and insurance navigation. Resources (e.g., webinars, online guides, conferences) to increase knowledge about CGM use and clinical outcomes and guidance with insurance processes/coverage could support CGM prescription in primary care. Conclusions: Increased understanding among primary care clinicians of the use and benefits of CGM can help with confidence in prescribing. CGM management in primary care could benefit patients with diabetes, especially those with access barriers to endocrinologists. Addressing cost and insurance barriers at a policy level can make CGM more attainable to underserved populations and reduce disparities in diabetes control.

Relationship of primary care clinician characteristics with continuous glucose monitoring use and confidence.

Context: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides clearer readings of blood glucose levels than traditional finger-stick glucose tests and is associated with improved diabetes outcomes such as reduced HbA1c. CGM can inform insulin dosing and diet decisions, and alert patients to hypoglycemia. A lack of endocrinologists in the majority of U.S. counties, particularly rural areas, and long wait times in many endocrinologists' offices create disparities in CGM access for patients with diabetes. Expanding use of CGM in primary care can improve care and patient diabetes outcomes. Objective: Understand primary care clinicians' experience with CGM to determine feasibility and resources needed to prescribe CGM. Study Design: Quantitative phase of explanatory sequential mixed methods study using cross-sectional online survey. Setting: Primary care. Population studied: Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers across the U.S. Outcome Measures: Past CGM prescribing behaviors, future likelihood to prescribe, resources needed to prescribe. Results: 632 respondents. Role: 72% attending physicians. Organization: Federally Qualified Health-Center (or similar) (27%), hospital-owned (27%), private practice (22%). Half (47%) had seen patients with CGM but never prescribed; two-fifths (39%) had prescribed CGM. Three-fifths (62%) moderately or very likely to prescribe CGM in the future. Likelihood to have prescribed CGM: Post-training physicians more likely than residents (OR=0.303, CI=.160-.575) or PA/NPs (OR=0.356, CI=.165-.766), part-time practice less likely than full-time (OR=0.546, CI=.305-.978), <75% time delivering primary care less likely than 75%+ (OR=0.595, CI=.371-.955), and location greater than 40 miles from an endocrinologist more likely than endocrinologist within 10 miles (OR=1.941, CI=1.17-3.21). Likelihood to prescribe with access to various resources greatest for consultation on insurance issues (72% moderately/very likely) and CGM education/training (72% moderately/very likely). Conclusions: Primary care clinicians have interest in prescribing CGM for patients with diabetes. Clinician type, percentage of time spent practicing, portion of time delivering primary care, and distance from endocrinologist are related to likelihood to prescribe CGM. Previous experience prescribing CGM may improve confidence and likelihood of future prescribing. Consultation, education and training on CGM for primary care clinicians may increase access to CGM.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care: Understanding and Supporting Clinicians' Use to Enhance Diabetes Care.

PURPOSE: Diabetes affects approximately 34 million Americans and many do not achieve glycemic targets. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is associated with improved health outcomes for patients with diabetes. Most adults with diabetes receive care for their diabetes in primary care practices, where uptake of CGM is unclear. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional web-based survey to assess CGM prescribing behaviors and resource needs among primary care clinicians across the United States. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable regression to identify characteristics associated with prescribing behaviors, openness to prescribing CGM, and to understand resources needed to support use of CGM in primary care. RESULTS: Clinicians located more than 40 miles from the nearest endocrinologist's office were more likely to have prescribed CGM and reported greater likelihood to prescribe CGM in the future than those located within 10 miles of an endocrinologist. Clinicians who served more Medicare patients reported favorable attitudes toward future prescribing and higher confidence using CGM to manage diabetes than clinicians with lower Medicare patient volume. The most-needed resources to support CGM use in primary care were consultation on insurance issues and CGM training. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians are interested in using CGM for patients with diabetes, but many lack the resources to implement use of this diabetes technology. Use of CGM can be supported with education in the form of workshops and consultation on insurance issues targeted toward residents, recent graduates, and practices without a nearby endocrinologist. Continued expansion of Medicare and Medicaid coverage for CGM can also support CGM use in primary care.

Personal Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Efficacy and Economic Impacts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews recent clinical efficacy research and economic analysis of the use of personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). RECENT FINDINGS: Studies from the past 5 years include a variety of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other studies which generally favor CGM over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in T2D, especially among people with T2D treated with insulin. Concurrently, some studies show no significant difference, but there is no evidence of worse outcomes with CGM. CGM is frequently associated with greater reduction in HbA1c than is SMBG. HbA1c reductions tend to be greater when baseline HbA1c is higher. Reductions in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia have also been demonstrated with CGM in people with T2D, as have comfort with, preference for, and psychosocial benefits of CGM compared to SMBG. There is a small but growing evidence base on the economics and cost-effectiveness of CGM in T2D. CGM has been clearly demonstrated to have clinical benefits in people with T2D, especially among those treated with insulin. Economic and cost-effectiveness data are more scant but are generally favorable. CGM should be an important consideration in the management of T2D, and its use is likely to increase as efficacy data accumulate further and as costs associated with CGM gradually decrease.

A Systematic Scoping Review of How Healthcare Organizations Are Facilitating Access to Fruits and Vegetables in Their Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: There is compelling evidence on the impact of diet as preventative medicine, and with rising health care costs healthcare organizations are attempting to identify interventions to improve patient health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to characterize existing healthcare organization-based interventions to improve access to fruits and vegetables (F&V) for their patient populations. In addition, we aimed to review the impact of identified interventions on dietary intake and health outcomes. METHODS: Titles and abstracts were searched in PubMed® (MEDLINE®), Embase®, CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Library® from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2019. To be selected for inclusion, original studies must have included a healthcare organization and have had a programmatic focus on increasing access to or providing fresh F&V to patients in an outpatient, naturalistic setting. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used to assess study quality in 6 domains (selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, and withdrawals and dropouts). RESULTS: A total of 8876 abstracts were screened, yielding 44 manuscripts or abstracts from 27 programs. Six program models were identified: 1) a cash-back rebate program, 2) F&V voucher programs, 3) garden-based programs, 4) subsidized food box programs, 5) home-delivery meal programs, and 6) collaborative food pantry-clinical programs. Only 6 of 27 studies included a control group. The overall quality of the studies was weak due to participant selection bias and incomplete reporting on data collection tools, confounders, and dropouts. Given the heterogeneity of outcomes measured and weak study quality, conclusions regarding dietary and health-related outcomes were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare-based initiatives to improve patient access to F&V are novel and have promise. However, future studies will need rigorous study designs and validated data collection tools, particularly related to dietary intake, to better determine the effect of these interventions on health-related outcomes.

Social Media in the Diabetes Community: a Novel Way to Assess Psychosocial Needs in People with Diabetes and Their Caregivers.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is a chronic disease that, regardless of type, requires intensive, ongoing self-management. As a result, people with diabetes (PWD) often have complex environmental, social, behavioral, and informational needs, many of which are unmet in healthcare settings and systems. To help meet these needs, many PWD interact with diabetes online communities (DOCs), including platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, to share real-life support, problems, and concerns with other PWD, offering a rich source of data on patient-reported outcomes. This article reviews recent psychosocial needs and outcomes identified by studies of DOCs and/or their users. RECENT FINDINGS: Participation in DOCs appears driven by a need for psychosocial support, unmet by providers and the healthcare system, as well as a sense of duty to provide it to others. The most common activities observed in DOCs are giving and receiving various types of support: psychosocial, technical, informational, and self-management. General and specific challenges (e.g., continuous glucose monitoring) as well as frustrations and worries associated with those challenges are commonly expressed, leading to reciprocal sharing, support, and encouragement, in a judgment-free manner, from other PWD. This leads users to feel more understood, empowered, validated, less alone, and more supported. Negative findings were reported very rarely and focused more on how other participants used social media rather than on the exchange of misplaced or dangerous information or advice. Diabetes online communities have grown from unmet needs for problem-solving and psychosocial support for living with a complex condition and from the availability of a new communications medium (i.e., social media). This has enabled communities of peers to both seek and receive support for living with diabetes, providing an important supplement to what is provided in healthcare settings and offering valuable information about what is most important to PWD and their families, with the potential to improve psychosocial care.

Challenges and Successes in Raising a Child With Type 1 Diabetes and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires numerous decisions and actions by people with T1D and their caregivers and poses many daily challenges. For those with T1D and a developmental disorder such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), more complex challenges arise, though these remain largely unstudied. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators of raising a child with T1D and ASD. Secondary analysis of web-based content (phase 1) and telephone interviews (phase 2) were conducted to further expand the existing knowledge on the challenges and successes faced by these families. METHODS: Phase 1 involved a qualitative analysis of publicly available online forums and blog posts by caregivers of children with both T1D and ASD. Themes from phase 1 were used to create an interview guide for further in-depth exploration via interviews. In phase 2, caregivers of children with both T1D and ASD were recruited from Penn State Health endocrinology clinics and through the web from social media posts to T1D-focused groups and sites. Interested respondents were directed to a secure web-based eligibility assessment. Information related to T1D and ASD diagnosis, contact information, and demographics were collected. On the basis of survey responses, participants were selected for a follow-up telephone interview and were asked to complete the adaptive behavior assessment system, third edition parent form to assess autism severity and upload a copy of their child's most recent hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) result. Interviews were transcribed, imported into NVivo qualitative data management software, and analyzed to determine common themes related to barriers and facilitators of raising a child with both ASD and T1D. RESULTS: For phase 1, 398 forum posts and blog posts between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Common themes related to a lack of understanding by the separate ASD and T1D caregiver communities, advice on coping techniques, rules and routines, and descriptions of the health care experience. For phase 2, 12 eligible respondents were interviewed. For interviewees, the average age of the child at diagnosis with T1D and ASD was 7.92 years and 5.55 years, respectively. Average self-reported and documented HbA1c levels for children with T1D and ASD were 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) and 8.7% (72 mmol/mol), respectively. Common themes from the interviews related to increased emotional burden, frustration surrounding the amount of information they are expected to learn, and challenges in the school setting. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of children with both T1D and ASD face unique challenges, distinct from those faced by caregivers of individuals who have either disorder alone. Understanding these challenges may help health care providers in caring for this unique population. Referral to the diabetes online community may be a potential resource to supplement the care received by the medical community.

Continuous glucose monitoring among nurse practitioners in primary care: Characteristics associated with prescribing and resources needed to support use.

BACKGROUND: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can improve health for people with diabetes but is limited in primary care (PC). Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in PC can improve diabetes management through CGM, but NPs' interest in CGM and support needed are unclear. PURPOSE: We describe behaviors and attitudes related to CGM for diabetes management among NPs in PC. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional web-based survey of NPs practicing in PC settings used descriptive statistics to describe CGM experience and identify resources to support prescribing. We used multivariable regression to explore characteristics predicting prescribing and confidence using CGM for diabetes. RESULTS: Nurse practitioners in hospital-owned settings were twice as likely to have prescribed CGM (odds ratio [OR] = 2.320, 95% CI [1.097, 4.903]; p = .002) than private practice; those in academic medical centers were less likely (OR = 0.098, 95% CI [0.012, 0.799]; p = .002). Past prescribing was associated with favorability toward future prescribing (coef. = 0.7284, SE = 0.1255, p < .001) and confidence using CGM to manage diabetes (type 1: coef. = 3.57, SE = 0.51, p < .001; type 2: coef. = 3.49, SE = 0.51, p < .001). Resources to prescribe CGM included consultation with an endocrinologist (62%), educational website (61%), and endocrinological e-consultations (59%). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioners are open to prescribing CGM and can improve diabetes management and health outcomes for PC patients. IMPLICATIONS: Research should explore mechanisms behind associations with CGM experience and attitudes. Efforts to advance CGM should include educational websites and endocrinology consultations for NPs in PC.

Assessment of a Recognition Program in an Academic Family Medicine Department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Burnout is prevalent among clinicians and faculty. We sought to understand the impact of a recognition program designed to reduce burnout and affect engagement and job satisfaction in a large academic family medicine department. METHODS: A recognition program was created in which three clinicians and faculty from the department were randomly selected each month to be recognized ("awardees"). Each awardee was asked to honor a person who had supported them (a "hidden hero" [HH]). Clinicians and faculty not recognized or selected as an HH were considered "bystanders." Interviews were completed with 12 awardees, 12 HHs, and 12 bystanders for a total of 36 interviews. We used content analysis to qualitatively evaluate the program. RESULTS: Assessment of the "We Are" Recognition Program resulted in the categories of impact (subcategories: process positives, process negatives, and fairness of program) and HHs (subcategories: teamwork and awareness of the program). We conducted interviews on a rolling basis and made iterative changes to the program based on feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This recognition program helped create a sense of value for clinicians and faculty in a large, geographically dispersed department. It represents a model that would be easy to replicate, requires no special training or significant financial investment, and can be implemented in a virtual format.

A Team-Based Training for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Care: Mixed Methods Pilot Implementation Study in Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) develops and maintains continuing medical education that is relevant to modern primary care practices. One continuing medical education modality is AAFP TIPS, which are comprised of resources designed for family medicine physicians and their care teams that aid in quick and accessible practice improvement strategies, with actionable steps. Evaluating physicians' use of and satisfaction with this modality's content and implementation strategies has not been prioritized previously. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) plays an increasing role in the treatment of diabetes; uptake occurs more rapidly in endocrinology settings than in primary care settings. To help address such differences in CGM uptake and diabetes care, AAFP TIPS on Continuous Glucose Monitoring (AAFP TIPS CGM) was developed, using published evidence and input from content experts (family medicine faculty; AAFP staff; and an advisory group comprised of other primary care physicians, patients, a pharmacist, and a primary care practice facilitator). A pilot implementation project was conducted in 3 primary care practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AAFP TIPS CGM in primary care practices, the research team assessed use of and satisfaction with the content and assessed barriers to and facilitators for strategy and workflow implementation. METHODS: In total, 3 primary care practices participated in a mixed methods pilot implementation of AAFP TIPS CGM between June and October 2021. Practice champions at each site completed AAFP TIPS CGM and baseline practice surveys to evaluate practice characteristics and CGM prescribing. They conducted team trainings (via webinars or in person), with the goals of implementing CGM into practice and establishing or improving CGM workflows. Practice champions and team training participants completed posttraining surveys to evaluate the training, AAFP TIPS materials, and likelihood of implementing CGM. Interviews were conducted with 6 physicians, including practice champions, 2 months after team training. Satisfaction surveys were also distributed to those who completed the AAFP TIPS CGM course via the internet during the study period. RESULTS: Of the 3 practices, 2 conducted team trainings. The team training evaluation survey showed that practice staff understood their role in implementing CGM in practice (19/20, 95%), and most (11/20, 55%) did not have questions after the training. Insurance coverage for CGM was a remaining knowledge gap and potential barrier to implementing CGM in practice. Physicians and interdisciplinary care team members who took the AAFP TIPS CGM course via the internet, as well as those who attended in-person team training, expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the education, content, and applicability of the course. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot implementation of AAFP TIPS CGM offers pertinent and timely information for primary care practices that desire to initiate or expand CGM use to best meet the needs of their patients with diabetes.

Awareness and interest in osteopathic manipulative treatment in allopathic medical students.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is utilized by clinicians to diagnose and treat a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including acute and chronic pain, and other medical conditions. Previous studies have examined attitudes of allopathic (MD) residents toward OMT and have implemented residency-based curricula; however, literature is lacking on the attitudes of MD students toward OMT. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine MD students' familiarity with OMT and to evaluate their interest in an elective osteopathic curriculum. METHODS: A 15-item online survey was electronically sent to 600 MD students at a large allopathic academic medical center. The survey assessed familiarity with OMT, interest in OMT and in participating in an OMT elective, educational format preference, and interest in pursuing primary care. Educational demographics were also collected. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were utilized for categorical variables, and nonparametric tests were utilized for the ordinal and continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 313 MD students submitted responses (response rate=52.1 %), of which 296 (49.3 %) responses were complete and utilized for analysis. A total of 92 (31.1 %) students were aware of OMT as a modality in treating musculoskeletal disorders. Among the respondents who indicated "very interested" in learning a new pain treatment modality, the majority: (1) observed OMT in a prior clinical or educational setting (85 [59.9 %], p=0.02); (2) had a friend or family member treated by a DO physician (42 [71.2 %], p=0.01); (3) were pursuing a primary care specialty (43 [60.6 %], p=0.02); or (4) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (47 [62.7 %], p=0.01). Among those interested in developing some OMT competency, the majority: (1) were pursuing a primary care specialty (36 [51.4 %], p=0.01); (2) applied to osteopathic schools (47 [54.0], p=0.002); or (3) interviewed at an osteopathic medical school (42 [56.8 %], p=0.001). A total of 230 (82.1 %) students were somewhat or very interested in a 2-week elective course in OMT; among all respondents, hands-on labs were the preferred method for delivery of OMT education (272 [94.1 %]). CONCLUSIONS: The study found a strong interest in an OMT elective by MD students. These results will inform OMT curriculum development aimed at interested MD students and residents in order to provide them with OMT-specific theoretical and practical knowledge.

Comprehensive Telehealth Model to Support Diabetes Self-Management.

Importance: As the number of patients with diabetes continues to increase in the United States, novel approaches to clinical care access should be considered to meet the care needs for this population, including support for diabetes-related technology. Objective: To evaluate a virtual clinic to facilitate comprehensive diabetes care, support continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) integration into diabetes self-management, and provide behavioral health support for diabetes-related issues. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a prospective, single-arm, remote study involving adult participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were referred through community resources. The study was conducted virtually from August 24, 2020, to May 26, 2022; analysis was conducted at the clinical coordinating center. Intervention: Training and education led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist for CGM use through a virtual endocrinology clinic structure, which included endocrinologists and behavioral health team members. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included CGM-measured mean glucose level, coefficient of variation, and time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with values greater than 180 mg/dL or 250 mg/dL, and time with values less than 70 mg/dL or 54 mg/dL. Hemoglobin A1c was measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Results: Among the 234 participants, 160 had type 1 diabetes and 74 had type 2 diabetes. The mean (SD) age was 47 (14) years, 123 (53%) were female, and median diabetes duration was 20 years. Median (IQR) CGM use over 6 months was 96% (91%-98%) for participants with type 1 diabetes and 94% (85%-97%) for those with type 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in those with type 1 diabetes decreased from 7.8% (1.6%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (1.0%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -0.6%, 95% CI, -0.8% to -0.5%; P < .001), with an 11% mean TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 9% to 14%; P < .001). Mean HbA1c in participants with type 2 diabetes decreased from 8.1% (1.7%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (0.9%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -1.0%; 95% CI, -1.4% to -0.7%; P < .001), with an 18% TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 13% to 24%; P < .001). In participants with type 1 diabetes, mean percentage of time with values less than 70 mg/dL and less than 54 mg/dL decreased over 6 months by 0.8% (95% CI, -1.2% to -0.4%; P = .001) and by 0.3% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.2%, P < .001), respectively. In the type 2 diabetes group, hypoglycemia was rare (mean [SD] percentage of time <70 mg/dL, 0.5% [0.6%]; and <54 mg/dL, 0.07% [0.14%], over 6 months). Conclusions and Relevance: Results from this cohort study demonstrated clinical benefits associated with implementation of a comprehensive care model that included diabetes education. This model of care has potential to reach a large portion of patients with diabetes, facilitate diabetes technology adoption, and improve glucose control.

Glycemic Targets and Glucose Monitoring.

Assessing glycemia over time remains a standard recommendation in the care of all people with diabetes. Glycemic assessment methods range from laboratory- and office-based methods to patient-based methods. Assessing A1c has long been the most common method of assessing overall glycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can also be used, especially via glucose management indicator or time-in-range, which can be useful especially when A1c might be impractical, unreliable, or inaccurate, or for glycemia assessment over a shorter interval. Other measures of glycemia, including hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, are becoming increasingly important in many cases and are also available via CGM.

An Innovative, Paradigm-Shifting Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Glucose Excursions With the Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Educate, Motivate, and Activate Adults With Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes: Pilot Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a growing epidemic in the United States, and metabolic control has not been improved over the last 10 years. Glycemic excursion minimization (GEM) is an alternative lifestyle treatment option focused on reducing postnutrient glucose excursions rather than reducing weight. GEM has been proven to be superior to routine care when delivered face to face, and equivalent or superior to conventional weight loss therapy, but it has not been evaluated among patients newly diagnosed with T2D or in a self-administered format. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a self-administered version of GEM, augmented with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), to improve metabolic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]) while diminishing or delaying the need for diabetes medications in adults recently diagnosed with T2D. These primary objectives were hypothesized to be achieved by reducing carbohydrate intake and increasing physical activity to diminish CGM glucose excursions, leading to the secondary benefits of an increase in diabetes empowerment and reduced diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and BMI. METHODS: GEM was self-administered by 17 adults recently diagnosed with T2D (mean age 52 years, SD 11.6 years; mean T2D duration 3.9 months, SD 2.5 months; mean HbA1c levels 8.0%, SD 1.6%; 40% female; 33.3% non-White), with the aid of a 4-chapter pocket guide and diary, automated motivational text messaging, and feedback from an activity monitor, along with CGM and supplies for the 6-week intervention and the 3-month follow-up. Treatment was initiated with one telephone call reviewing the use of the technology and 3 days later with a second call reviewing the use of the GEM pocket guide and intervention. RESULTS: At 3-month follow-up, 67% of the participants' diabetes was in remission (HbA1c levels <6.5%), and only one participant started taking diabetes medication. Participants demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c levels (-1.8%; P<.001). Participants also experienced significant reductions in high-glycemic-load carbohydrates routinely consumed, CGM readings that were >140 mg/dL, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and BMI. Participants felt that use of the CGM was the most significant single element of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: GEM augmented with CGM feedback may be an effective initial intervention for adults newly diagnosed with T2D. A self-administered version of GEM may provide primary care physicians and patients with a new tool to help people recently diagnosed with T2D achieve remission independent of medication and without weight loss as the primary focus. Future research is needed with a larger and more diverse sample.

Challenges in Effective Faculty and Provider Recognition to Enhance Engagement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Burnout is associated with reduction in patient care time and leaving academic medicine, and is prevalent among faculty, residents, and advanced practice providers. Recognition may positively impact workplace well-being and reduce attrition. The objective of this study was to understand needs and preferences regarding recognition among faculty and providers in a large academic department. METHODS: A survey including quantitative and qualitative elements was sent to faculty and providers to identify whether additional recognition was needed and, if so, to seek potential opportunities to improve recognition, with mixed-methods assessment of results. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants completed the survey (35.9% response rate; 53.8% female, 59.6% faculty); 26.9% reported performing duties at work that are not being recognized, and 19.2% reported seriously considering leaving the institution because they did not feel appreciated. Females were more likely to want tangible goods as a source of recognition (P=.008). While providers preferred to have recommendations for recognition made by office staff (P=.007), associate professors did not (P=.005). Qualitative responses to the survey also revealed concerns regarding favoritism and risk of feeling unappreciated if a recognition system is perceived as unfair. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrated a deficit of recognition and a lack of consensus regarding how or when faculty and providers should be recognized. There were concerns regarding fairness of recognition. Efforts to enhance recognition should avoid assumptions about faculty and provider preferences, and should be attuned to fairness and inclusion.