2.3.0.0 Strate­gies for Sys­tem-‍Level Im­prove­ment

Op­ti­mal di­a­betes man­age­ment re­quires an or­ga­nized, sys­tematic ap­proach and the in­volve­ment of a co­or­di­nat­ed team of ded­i­cat­ed health care pro­fes­sion­als work­ing in an en­vi­ron­ment where pa­tient-centered high-‍qual­i­ty care is a pri­or­i­ty (7,14,15). While many di­a­betes pro­cess­es of care have im­proved na­tion­al­ly in the past decade, the over­all qual­i­ty of care for pa­tients with di­a­betes re­mains subop­ti­mal (3). Ef­forts to in­crease the qual­i­ty of di­a­betes care in­clude pro­vid­ing care that is con­cor­dant with ev­i­dence-‍based guide­lines (16); ex­pan­ding the role of teams to im­ple­ment more in­ten­sive dis­ease man­age­ment strate­gies (7,17,18); track­ing med­i­ca­tion ­tak­ing be­hav­ior at a sys­tems level (19); rede­signing the or­ga­ni­za­tion of the care pro­cess (20); im­ple­menting elec­tron­ic health record tools (21,22); em­pow­er­ing and ed­u­cat­ing pa­tients (23,24); remov­ing finan­cial bar­ri­ers and re­duc­ing pa­tient out-‍of-‍pocket costs for di­a­betes ed­u­ca­tion, eye exams, di­a­betes tech­nol­o­gy, and nec­es­sary med­i­ca­tions (7); as­sessing and ad­dress­ing psychoso­cial is­sues (25,26); and iden­ti­fy­ing, de­vel­op­ing, and en­gag­ing com­mu­ni­ty re­sources and pub­lic poli­cies that sup­port healthy lifestyles (27). The Na­tion­al Di­a­betes Ed­u­ca­tion Pro­gram main­tains an on­line re­source (www.bet­terdi­a­betescare.nih.gov) to help health care pro­fes­sion­als de­sign and im­ple­ment more ef­fec­tive health care de­liv­ery sys­tems for those with di­a­betes.

The care team, which cen­ters around the pa­tient, should avoid ther­a­peu­tic in­er­tia and pri­or­i­tize time­ly and ap­pro­pri­ate in­ten­sification of lifestyle and/‍or phar­ma­co­log­ic ther­a­py for pa­tients who have not achieved the rec­om­mend­ed metabol­ic tar­gets (28-30). Strate­gies shown to im­prove care team be­hav­ior and there­by cat­alyze re­duc­tions in A1C, blood pres­sure, and/‍or LDL choles­terol in­clude en­gag­ing in ex­plic­it and col­lab­o­ra­tive goal set­ting with pa­tients (31,32); iden­ti­fy­ing and ad­dress­ing lan­guage, nu­mer­a­cy, or cul­tural bar­ri­ers to care (33-35); in­te­grat­ing ev­i­dence-‍based guide­lines and clin­i­cal in­for­ma­tion tools into the pro­cess of care (16,36,37); so­lic­it­ing per­for­mance feed­back, set­ting re­minders, and pro­vid­ing struc­tured care (e.g., guide­lines, for­mal case man­age­ment, and pa­tient ed­u­ca­tion re­sources) (7); and in­cor­po­rat­ing care man­age­ment teams in­clud­ing nurs­es, di­eti­tians, phar­ma­cists, and other pro­viders (17,38). Ini­tia­tives such as the Pa­tient-‍Cen­tered Med­i­cal Home show promise for im­prov­ing health out­comes by fos­ter­ing com­pre­hen­sive pri­ma­ry care and of­fer­ing new op­por­tu­ni­ties for team-‍based chron­ic dis­ease man­age­ment (39).

Telemedicine is a grow­ing field that may in­crease ac­cess to care for pa­tients with di­a­betes. Telemedicine is defined as the use of telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions to fa­cil­i­tate re­mote de­liv­ery of health-‍re­lat­ed ser­vices and clin­i­cal in­for­ma­tion (40). A grow­ing body of ev­i­dence sug­gests that var­i­ous telemedicine modal­i­ties may be ef­fec­tive at re­duc­ing A1C in pa­tients with type 2 di­a­betes com­pared with usual care or in ad­di­tion to usual care (41). For rural pop­u­la­tions or those with lim­it­ed phys­i­cal ac­cess to health care, telemedicine has a grow­ing body of ev­i­dence for its ef­fec­tiveness, par­tic­u­lar­ly with re­gard to glycemic con­trol as mea­sured by A1C (42-44). In­ter­ac­tive strate­gies that fa­cil­i­tate com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­tween pro­viders and pa­tients, in­clud­ing the use of web-‍based por­tals or text mes­sag­ing and those that in­cor­po­rate med­i­ca­tion ad­just­ment, ap­pear more ef­fec­tive. There is lim­it­ed data avail­able on the cost-‍ef­fec­tiveness of these strate­gies.

Suc­cess­ful di­a­betes care also re­quires a sys­tematic ap­proach to sup­porting pa­tients’ be­hav­ior change ef­forts. High-‍qual­i­ty di­a­betes self-‍man­age­ment ed­u­ca­tion and sup­port (DSMES) has been shown to im­prove pa­tient self man­age­ment, sat­is­fac­tion, and glu­cose out­comes. Na­tion­al DSMES stan­dards call for an in­te­grat­ed ap­proach that in­cludes clin­i­cal con­tent and skills, be­hav­ioral strate­gies (goal set­ting, prob­lem solv­ing), and en­gage­ment with psychoso­cial con­cerns (26). For more in­for­ma­tion on DSMES, see Sec­tion 5 “Lifestyle Man­age­ment.”

In de­vis­ing ap­proach­es to sup­port dis­ease self-‍man­age­ment, it is no­table that in 23% of cases, uncon­trolled A1C, blood pres­sure, or lipids were as­so­ci­at­ed with poor med­i­ca­tion-tak­ing be­hav­iors (“med­i­ca­tion ad­her­ence”) (19). At a sys­tem level, “ad­e­quate” med­i­ca­tion tak­ing is defined as 80% (cal­cu­lat­ed as the num­ber of pills taken by the pa­tient in a given time pe­ri­od di­vid­ed by the num­ber of pills pre­scribed by the physi­cian in that same time pe­ri­od) (19). If med­i­ca­tion tak­ing is 80% or above and treat­ment goals are not met, then treat­ment in­ten­sification should be con­sid­ered (e.g., up­ti­tra­tion). Bar­ri­ers to med­i­ca­tion tak­ing may in­clude pa­tient fac­tors (finan­cial lim­i­ta­tions, re­mem­ber­ing to ob­tain or take med­i­ca­tions, fear, de­pres­sion, or health be­liefs), med­i­ca­tion fac­tors (com­plexity, mul­ti­ple daily dos­ing, cost, or side ef­fects), and sys­tem fac­tors (inad­e­quate fol­low-‍up or sup­port). Suc­cess in over­com­ing bar­ri­ers to med­i­ca­tion tak­ing may be achieved if the pa­tient and pro­vider agree on a tar­get­ed ap­proach for a specific bar­ri­er (12).

The Af­ford­able Care Act has re­sult­ed in in­creased ac­cess to care for many in­di­vid­u­als with di­a­betes with an em­pha­sis on the pro­tec­tion of peo­ple with pre­ex­ist­ing con­di­tions, health pro­mo­tion, and dis­ease pre­ven­tion (45). In­ fact, health in­sur­ance cov­er­age in­creased from 84.7% in 2009 to 90.1% in 2016 for adults with di­a­betes aged 18–64 years. Cov­er­age for those ≥65 years re­mained near uni­ver­sal (46). Pa­tients who have ei­ther pri­vate or pub­lic in­sur­ance cov­er­age are more like­ly to meet qual­i­ty in­di­ca­tors for di­a­betes care (47). As man­dat­ed by the Af­ford­able Care Act, the Agen­cy for Health­care Re­search and Qual­i­ty de­vel­oped a Na­tion­al Qual­i­ty Strat­e­gy based on the triple aims that in­clude im­prov­ing the health of a pop­u­la­tion, over­all qual­i­ty and pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ence of care, and per capi­ta cost (48,49). As health care sys­tems and prac­tices adapt to the chang­ing land­scape of health care, it will be im­por­tant to in­te­grate tra­di­tion­al dis­ease-‍specific met­rics with mea­sures of pa­tient ex­pe­ri­ence, as well as cost, in as­sessing the qual­i­ty of di­a­betes care (50,51). In­for­ma­tion and guid­ance specific to qual­i­ty im­prove­ment and prac­tice trans­for­ma­tion for di­a­betes care is avail­able from the Na­tion­al Di­a­betes Ed­u­ca­tion Pro­gram prac­tice trans­for­ma­tion web­site and the Na­tion­al In­sti­tute of Di­a­betes and Di­ges­tive and Kid­ney Dis­eases re­port on di­a­betes care and qual­i­ty (52,53). Using pa­tient reg­istries and elec­tron­ic health records, health sys­tems can eval­u­ate the qual­i­ty of di­a­betes care being de­liv­ered and per­form in­ter­ven­tion cy­cles as part of qual­i­ty im­prove­ment strate­gies (54). Crit­i­cal to these ef­forts is pro­vider ad­her­ence to clin­i­cal prac­tice rec­om­men­da­tions and ac­cu­rate, re­li­able data met­rics that in­clude so­ciode­mo­graph­ic vari­ables to ex­am­ine health eq­ui­ty with­in and across pop­u­la­tions (55).

In ad­di­tion to qual­i­ty im­prove­ment ef­forts, other strate­gies that si­mul­ta­ne­ously im­prove the qual­i­ty of care and po­ten­tial­ly re­duce costs are gain­ing mo­men­tum and in­clude re­im­burse­ment struc­tures that, in con­trast to visit-‍based billing, re­ward the pro­vi­sion of ap­pro­pri­ate and high-‍qual­i­ty care to achieve metabol­ic goals (56) and in­cen­tives that ac­com­mo­date per­sonalized care goals (7,57).