ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2011
Improving care in a resident practice for patients with diabetes.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Internal Medicine Resident Experiences With a 5-Month Ambulatory Panel Management Curriculum.Journal of graduate medical education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurricular redesign and introduction of the Chronic Care Model in our residency clinic during 2005-2007 achieved limited success in glycemic (glycated hemoglobin level [A(1c)]), lipid (low-density lipoprotein fraction [LDL]), and blood pressure (BP) control for patients with diabetes.
interventionBeginning in January 2008, ancillary staff performed previsit, protocol-driven reviews of medical records of patients with diabetes to identify those not at A(1c), LDL, and BP goals; inserted electronic prompts into the records regarding deficiencies; and obtained samples for A(1c) or lipid panel when needed. Faculty feedback regarding resident-specific panel reviews was added in May 2008, and point-of-care A(1c) testing was implemented in February 2009.
methodsWe conducted a 2-year retrospective study of all patients at our facility with diabetes mellitus, who had at least 1 visit during January to June 2008 (baseline) and 1 visit during July to December 2009 (follow-up). Measures included the most current A(1c), LDL, and BP results. Paired outcome results were compared using the McNemar χ(2) test.
resultsA total of 522 patients with diabetes mellitus were seen during the baseline and follow-up periods, and 456 patients (87.4%) had paired A(1c) results, with A(1c) < 7.0% for 138 of 456 patients (30.3%) at baseline and 166 of 456 patients (36.4%) at follow-up (P = .011). For LDL, 460 patients (88.1%) had paired results, with LDL < 100 mg/dL for 225 of 460 patients (48.9%) at baseline and 262 of 460 patients (57.0%) at follow-up (P = .004). A total of 513 patients (98.3%) had paired BP results in which the BP < 130/80 mm Hg for 124 of 513 patients (24.2%) at baseline and for 188 of 513 patients (36.6%) at follow-up (P < .001). There were 421 patients (80.7%) with paired results for all 3 measures, with 17 of 421 patients (4.0%) at goal at baseline and 41 of 421 patients (9.7%) at goal at follow-up (P = .001).
conclusionThe interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in the proportion of patients with diabetes who attained goal for A(1c), LDL, and BP levels. Our redesign elements may be useful in enhancing resident education and in improving patient care.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.