Association Between Health Insurance Type and Adverse Outcomes for Children and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes and Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Health insurance coverage type differs significantly by socioeconomic status and racial group in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine whether publicly insured children and young adults with type 1 diabetes were more likely to experience adverse outcomes compared with privately insured patients with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Methods: Data from 619 patients with previously established type 1 diabetes who were <24 years of age with acute COVID-19 infections were analyzed from the T1D Exchange COVID-19 surveillance registry. Data for the registry was collected from 52 endocrinology clinics across the United States using an online survey tool. Each site completed the survey using electronic health record data between April 2020 and December 2021. Results: Of the 619 patients included in this study, 257 had public insurance and 362 had private insurance. Of the 257 publicly insured patients with COVID-19, 57 reported severe adverse outcomes (22%), defined as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or severe hypoglycemia. In comparison, there were 25 reported adverse outcomes (7%) among the 362 privately insured patients. Conclusion: Our data reveal high rates of hospitalization and DKA among publicly insured racial/ethnic minority children and young adults with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19.

Establishment of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI).

The T1D Exchange established a learning platform by evaluating the current state of care and engaging 10 diabetes clinics in collaborative quality improvement (QI) activities. Participating clinics are sharing data and best practices to improve care delivery for people with type 1 diabetes. This article describes the design and initial implementation of this platform, known as the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. This effort has laid a foundation for learning from variation in type 1 diabetes care delivery via QI methodology and has demonstrated success in improving processes through iterative testing cycles and transparent sharing of data.

Erratum. Establishment of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI). Clinical Diabetes 2020;38:141-151 (DOI: 10.2337/cd19-0032).

[This corrects the article on p. 141 in vol. 38, PMID: 32327886.].

Health-system-based interventions to improve care in pediatric and adolescent type 1 diabetes.

Despite significant advances in pharmacology and technology, glycemic targets are difficult to achieve for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and management remains burdensome for patients and their families. Quality improvement (QI) science offers a methodology to identify an aim, evaluate complex contributors to the goal, and test potential interventions to achieve outcomes of interest. Day-to-day management of diabetes is often an iterative process but interventions exist at all care levels: individual patient and family, clinic, and larger population and health system. This article reviews current literature and proposes novel QI interventions for enhancing health outcomes, with attention to essential determinants or drivers of improved glycemic control and patient experience for pediatric T1D in the context of the Chronic Care Model. In-depth consideration of key drivers of successful T1D care, including self-management and integration of technology, are explored, and examples of larger health systems with improved outcomes, including Learning Health Systems are highlighted.

Stakeholder Engagement in Type 1 Diabetes Research, Quality Improvement, and Clinical Care.

The integration of stakeholder engagement (SE) in research, quality improvement (QI), and clinical care has gained significant traction. Type 1 diabetes is a chronic disease that requires complex daily management and care from a multidisciplinary team across the lifespan. Inclusion of key stakeholder voices, including patients, caregivers, health care providers and community advocates, in the research process and implementation of clinical care is critical to ensure representation of perspectives that match the values and goals of the patient population. This review describes the current framework for SE and its application to research, QI, and clinical care across the lifespan.

A Master Protocol Template for Pediatric ARDS Studies.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric ARDS is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. High-quality data from clinical trials in children are limited due to numerous barriers to their design and execution. Here we describe the collaborative development of a master protocol as a tool to address some of these barriers and support the conduct of pediatric ARDS studies. METHODS: Using PubMed, we performed a literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric ARDS to characterize the current state and evaluate potential benefit of harmonized master protocols. We used a multi-stakeholder, collaborative, and team science-oriented process to develop a master protocol template with links to common data elements (CDEs) for pediatric ARDS trials. RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs that enrolled between 14-200 total subjects per trial. Interventions included mechanical ventilation, prone positioning, corticosteroids, and surfactant. Studies displayed significant heterogeneity in ARDS definition, design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reported outcomes. Mortality was reported in 91% of trials and ventilator-free days in 73%. The trial heterogeneity made pooled analysis unfeasible. These findings underscore the need for a method to facilitate combined analysis of future trials through standardization of trial elements. As a potential solution, we developed a master protocol, iteratively revised with input from a multidisciplinary panel of experts and organized into 3 categories: instructions and general information, templated language, and a series of text options of common pediatric ARDS trial scenarios. Finally, we linked master protocol sections to relevant CDEs previously defined for pediatric ARDS and captured in a series of electronic case report forms. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pediatric ARDS trials identified were small and heterogeneous in study design and outcome reporting. Using a master protocol template for pediatric ARDS trials with CDEs would support combining and comparing pediatric ARDS trial findings and increase the knowledge base.