1 / 22

Disparity in LDL-C Testing of Dually Enrolled Patients with Diabetes Patient and Practitioner Factors

Disparity in LDL-C Testing of Dually Enrolled Patients with Diabetes Patient and Practitioner Factors Ruth Medak, MD Senior Clinical Coordinator OMPRO AHQA Technical Conference Analytic Methodologies Track 11:10 am, February 1, 2002 Project Goal

Patman
Download Presentation

Disparity in LDL-C Testing of Dually Enrolled Patients with Diabetes Patient and Practitioner Factors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disparity in LDL-C Testing of Dually Enrolled Patients with DiabetesPatient and Practitioner Factors Ruth Medak, MD Senior Clinical Coordinator OMPRO AHQA Technical Conference Analytic Methodologies Track 11:10 am, February 1, 2002

  2. Project Goal • Investigate causes of performance disparities in diabetes indicator tests between • Dually enrolled:Oregon patients on Medicare FFS + Medicaid • Non-dually enrolled:Oregon patients on Medicare FFS • Design and implement interventions based on factors

  3. Performance Disparity in Diabetes Indicator Tests for Oregon Medicare FFS Patients • Significant disparity in LDL-C testing (12.2%) between dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled Oregon Medicare FFS patients with diabetes • No significant disparity in HbA1c testing • Significant disparity in dilated eye exams (7.5% —below CMS threshold) Data source: 1997–1998 Oregon Medicare FFS diabetes claims

  4. Project Design Interviews + baseline medical record abstraction Hypothesis development Intervention development Intervention implementation Remeasurement(medical record abstraction and claims)

  5. Semistructured Interviewsand Medical Records Abstraction Sampling criteria: physicians with >5 DE and >10 NDE patients Sample: 40 physicians Recruited: 18 physicians Interviewed: 16 physicians Records abstracted: 244 patients of 15 physicians* 5 diabetes specialists 6 general internists 4 family physicians *1 physician withdrew following the interview

  6. Semistructured Interviews Fifteen physicians and staff • use of lipid testing guidelines • lipid testing practices • barriers to testing • characteristics of dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled patients with diabetes • use of diabetes management systems

  7. Baseline Measurement: Retrospective Medical Record Abstraction 66 DE records and 178 NDE records abstracted • test dates and results • blood pressure • hyperlipidemia treatment • use of systems • patient comorbidities • patient behavior (missed appointments,treatment refusal, etc.)

  8. Analytic Methods • Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods • Results from semi-structured interviews analyzed using Nud*Ist qualitative software • Results from medical record data abstraction analyzed using MS Access and SPSS • Statistical analysis: Chi-square test was used to check for statistically significant differences between variables at the α=0.05 level of significance

  9. Results: Practitioner Interviews LDL-C testing goals • compatible with CMS quality indicators and ADA guidelines Reasons not to test • advanced terminal illness • normal LDL-C without medications • patient indifference to treatment Patient indifference • perceived as common among to treatment Medicaid patients • most physicians not discouraged by initial patient indifference regarding glycemic and lipid treatment

  10. Results: Practitioner Interviews (continued) Delegation • no standing order protocol for LDL-C testing • most reported referring patients to nurse educator or CDE for education Systems approach • 7 of 15 reported use of flow sheet • 10 of 15 reported obtaining lab prior to visit more often than not • 10 of 15 reported using flow sheet or obtaining lab prior to visit

  11. Results: Performance in LDL-C and HbA1c Testing for DE and NDE Patients of Interviewed Physicians • Significant disparity (23.4%) in LDL-C testing between dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled patients with diabetes • No significant disparity in HbA1c testing Data source: March 1, 1999–February 28, 2001 medical record abstraction

  12. Results: Factors Associated with Dually Enrolled Patients Medicare patients with Medicaid coverage: • More likely than patients without Medicaid coverage to have • mobility limitation • nephropathy • insulin therapy • psychiatric disorder

  13. Results: Patient Factors Associated with LDL-C Testing For the aggregate sample: • Less likely to receive testing • mobility limitation • nephropathy Although some patient factors were significantly more common among DE patients, no significant association was found with LDL-C testing disparity between DE and NDE

  14. Results: Use of a System (Flow Sheet or Planned Visit) Diabetes specialists were significantly more likely to use systems Use of a diabetes management system was not significantly more likely to be found in the charts of non-dually enrolled patients Aggregate Data source: March 1, 1999–February 28, 2001 medical record abstraction

  15. Results: LDL-C Tests Among Patients Whose Charts Show Use of a System, by Patient Coverage • Use of a diabetes management system was significantly associated with LDL-C testing • aggregate • non-dually enrolled patients Data source: March 1, 1999–February 28, 2001 medical record abstraction

  16. Results: LDL-C Tests Among Patients Whose Charts Show Use of a System, by Provider Type No significant performance difference between specialists and nonspecialists Data source: March 1, 1999-February 28, 2001 medical record abstraction

  17. Conclusions from Interviews and Chart Abstraction The interviews and abstracted chart data did not explain the disparity in LDL-C testing between dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled patients with diabetes.

  18. Conclusions from Interviews and Chart Abstraction(continued) Factors associated with receivinga biennial LDL-C test: • documented diagnosis of hyperlipidemia • treatment by a diabetes specialist • use of a diabetes management system Factors associated with not receivinga biennial LDL-C test: • mobility limitations • nephropathy

  19. Hypothesis for Intervention Implementation of a patient management system will lead to increased LDL-C testing of both dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled patients with diabetes • Implementation may not reduce LDL-C testing disparity between dually enrolled and non-dually enrolled patients with diabetes

  20. Intervention: Tools • Data support for systems change • Practitioner-specific performance data (automatically generated) • Flow sheet • Electronic registry • Planned visit concept paper • Systems change concept paper

  21. Intervention: Participants and Methods Participants • Project participants • Additional target practitioners treating 25% of Oregon Medicare FFS dually enrolled patients Methods • Detailing visits to project participants • Detailing visits to 1/3 to 1/2 of target practitioners • Mail packets to remaining target practitioners

  22. Remeasurement Interim measurements Medical record abstractions* • laboratory tests and results • blood pressure • use of systems Final measurement Medicare FFS claims data CY 2001–2002 *5–6 months after interviews and 5–6 months after intervention

More Related