Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
Among factors that affect nursesâ€™ role in caring for patients with diabetes are the complexity of the health care system, inadequate measurement ofÂ nursingÂ performance, and reimbursement issues. Most diabetes care occurs in outpatient settings. But there are no specific models or frameworks other than case management to guide nurses in supporting diabetes self-management education interventions. Because theyâ€™re not well defined and measured,Â nursingÂ interventions arenâ€™t considered a discrete component of care. Few if any third-party payors recognizeÂ nursingÂ services that arenâ€™t bundled with medical management and, therefore,Â nursingÂ services are not directly reimbursed. Nursesâ€™ work depends on medical management plans, and physiciansâ€™ slowness to adopt evidence-based treatments may interfere with nursesâ€™ establishment of successful patient self-management plans.
MODELS OF OUTPATIENT CARE
A review of the literature yielded few studies on outpatientÂ nursingÂ and delivery of diabetes care. Three studies of nurses as diabetes case managers produced excellent short-term outcomes.Â In all three studies, nurses were assigned to a specific subset of patients and were responsible for assessment. The nurse case manager created a self-management plan and followed up with patients by phone, home visits, and other reminders to come in for lab work and other screenings. These interventions resulted in improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAIc) and in patient satisfaction. But the studies did not address the questions of whether results could be maintained beyond the short term and whether this level of resources could be sustained. Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
A systematic review ofÂ nursingÂ interventions for patients with chronic conditions showed that patients benefited by nurse follow-up. This review noted that patients with diabetes showed health benefits and improved psychosocial outcomes whenÂ nursingÂ follow-up was part of their care.
In a systematic review of diabetes management in primary care, Renders and colleagues examined 41 studies that targeted changing either system elements (such as a revision of professional roles or changes in medical records) or health professionalsâ€™ behavior (often through educational meetings).Â They found significant improvements in both patient outcomes and processes of care when these interventions included enhanced roles for RNs, such as patient education. However, nurses were just part of the solution; multifaceted professional and organizational interventions leading to regular patient review were the key to improving care.
When van Dam and colleagues reviewed eight randomized, controlled trials examining the effect of patientâ€“provider interaction and provider consulting style on patient self-care and diabetes outcomes, they found that outcomes were better when interventions were patient-centered rather than those that changed provider behavior.
According to a study conducted in Washington state, although about 90% of diabetes management is provided to outpatients in primary care settings, health care systems are designed to meet acute care needs.Â The Chronic Care Model emphasizes collaborative interaction between well-prepared health care providers and patients to promote improved care delivery and cost-effective, quality care for chronic conditions.Â (See Figure 1, â€œThe Chronic Care Model,â€ in â€œDiabetes Care: The Need for Change,â€ page 14.) While the Chronic Care Model does help to refocus attention on chronic conditions, it does not address or acknowledge any one disciplineâ€™s contribution. But there is a strong nod to supporting best medical practice and use of the best medicalÂ evidence.
MEASURINGÂ NURSINGâ€˜S CONTRIBUTIONS
Many of the major randomized, controlled diabetes trials haveÂ nursing-based protocols for patient management and follow-up. Yet these interventions have not been reported as separate, independent variables, and their effects have not been directly measured. This omission underscores the lack of recognition forÂ nursingâ€˜s contribution to outcomes.
Funnell and colleagues surveyed 361 certified diabetes educators, most of whom were RNs practicing in outpatient settings and providing direct clinical care, diabetes education, and outreach.Â Their programs used empowerment and patient-centered and behavior-change curricula more often than older didactic models. Respondents indicated that while they had control over the content and delivery of their education programs, they had much less control over program budgets. The diabetes educators felt that physicians did not fully understand or value their contribution to patient care.
In an effort to identify the essential interventions of diabetes educators and link them to measurable outcomes, the American Association of Diabetes Educators has developed the National Diabetes Education Outcomes System (NDEOS).Â The system generates a database that not only serves the individual educator but also contributes to a national database on diabetes education outcomes. The focus is on seven areas of behavioral change: eating, activity level, medication management, monitoring, problem solving, risk reduction, and coping.
As part of the NDEOS, tools have been developed to use with patients and to systematically collect data from which performance reports can be generated.Â These tools enable measurement of diabetes education processes and outcomes. Nurses who maintain a diabetes treatment practice can receive feedback regarding their own effectiveness while at the national level the aggregated data may offer the power to determine specific effects of diabetes education. The University of Pittsburgh recently reported positive outcomes of using this NDEOS approach within the context of the Chronic Care Model.Â This may be the first viable model for refocusing and refining the delivery of outpatient diabetes care. (See â€œA Diabetes Self-Management Education Programâ€ on page 62 for more on how this program has been financially successful.)
In the past 15 years, evidence has mounted showing that good glycemic control can prevent the long-term complications of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.Â There is a growing awareness that poor glycemic control and adverse outcomes are not solely a function of the patientâ€™s behavior.Â For example, a treatment that is not well matched to the patientâ€™s condition and circumstances may not result in the desired outcome. A patient with type 2 diabetes may be prescribed diet and exercise, as well as metformin (Glucophage and others), upon diagnosis. But if the diagnosis occurs late in the disease, insulin production may already be markedly reduced, and additional hypoglycemic agents may be needed. The patient may be fully compliant, but the treatment is not sufficient to achieve glycemic targets. As a result, the patient may become frustrated and indifferent to the need for diligent self-management.
The lag in appropriate medical management, including follow-up and intensification of medical therapy as needed, is called â€œclinical inertia.â€Â Even in trials in which fewer than 40% of subjects achieved glycemic targets, providers were not inclined to intensify therapy.Â Berlowitz and colleagues found that clinical inertia in diabetes care can be measured by a predictive modeling approach, using number of patient visits, intensity of treatment, and HbAIcÂ values.Â The researchers found that application of their model provided a measure of clinical inertia that predictably correlated with poor glycemic control.
Ziemer and colleagues found higher rates of treatment intensification in patients at a diabetes clinic than in those at an internal medicine clinic.Â Only the diabetes clinic used a team approach that included a strongÂ nursingÂ component. But the authors dismissed this as an explanation for the better outcomes in the diabetes clinic patients because previous research had shown that patient education without pharmacotherapy has only a modest effect. The truth may be that both approaches are necessary to achieve targeted outcomes. Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
Clinical inertia may occur because busy practices inadvertently overlook important aspects of care. Griffin and Kinmonth reviewed five trials involving 1,058 people and found that a computerized recall system that prompted general practitioners and patients led to both more organized delivery of care and better patient outcomes.Â Yet a systematic review of the literature on audit and feedback cautioned that automated cues and prompts resulted in only small to moderate benefits in practice outcomes.Â The reviewers concluded that cueing and feedback systems, such as reminders for ordering measurement of HbAIc and follow-up visits, are necessary but not sufficiently robust by themselves to produce and sustain improvements in outcomes. Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
For nurses engaged in diabetes care, clinical inertia is significant because self-management education and care planning flow from an accurate diagnosis and an appropriate medical treatment plan. â€œMedical clinical inertiaâ€ resulting in inadequate medical treatment plans impedes or unnecessarily delays nurses in establishing effective patient self-management plans. Nurses, too, must keep up with evolving patient care.
The costs associated with diabetes treatmentâ€”$92 billion in 2002â€”have garnered the attention of both private insurance and government payors, which determine who treats and educates patients and what supplies and equipment will be used with their reimbursement policies. Insurers are looking at diabetes management programs that attempt to control costs and improve quality, which could include programs that encourage better self-management and increase patient responsibility for compliance with the care plan. Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
Coverage by many third-party payors is based on treatment outcomes, especially those that are easily tracked and have been shown to reduce costs.Â The evidence is clear that glycemic control for patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes can slow or prevent end-organ damage.Â Specific pharmacologic agents have been shown to be effective in preventing, in particular, eye, kidney, and nerve damage. There is also evidence to support behavioral changes, specifically diet and exercise, as ways to prevent or delay the onset of diabetes.Â The challenge is to incorporate these changes into clinical practice in an affordable way.
Third-party reimbursement also is predicated on industry standards of quality set by accreditation agencies. The National Committee for Quality Assurance measures the quality of managed care services, using the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set targets.Â Diabetes targets include performance of eye and foot examinations and monitoring HbAIcÂ levels. At present, there are no comparable targets forÂ nursing practice, either for patient self-management education or for follow-up. Topic: Care Delivery Challenges for Nursing
Industry standards are also affected by Medicare, which sets the structure for fees, types of services, frequency of contact, and type of provider for patients older than age 65.Â NursingÂ is directly influenced by Medicareâ€™s reimbursement process because of its determination of the frequency and number of hours for education, and the amount and conditions of payment. Nurses need to be a valued and distinctly visible part of this payment system.Â At the present time,Â nursingÂ practice in support of diabetes self-management is not specifically identified, measured, or tracked in any standardized way.
A concerted effort is needed to better define and increase the visibility ofÂ nursingÂ practice in diabetes self-management. Changes must be well grounded in evidence, with better studies ofÂ nursingÂ interventions and outcomes and use of evidence to supportÂ nursingÂ activities.Â NursingÂ practice must be tracked to demonstrate that self-management interventions improve patient outcomes and are cost-effective. Only in this way is reimbursement forÂ nursingÂ services likely to become a reality.
2. Peters AL, et al. Management of patients with diabetes by nurses with support of subspecialists.Â HMO PractÂ 1995; 9(1):8â€“13.
4. McCulloch DK, et al. A population-based approach to diabetes management in a primary care setting: early results and lessons learned.Â Eff Clin PractÂ 1998;1(1):12â€“22.
5. Frich LM.Â NursingÂ interventions for patients with chronic conditions.Â J Adv NursÂ 2003;44(2):137â€“53.
6. Renders CM, et al. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review.Â Diabetes CareÂ 2001;24(10):1821â€“33.
7. van Dam HA, et al. Provider-patient interaction in diabetes care: effects on patient self-care and outcomes. A systematic review.Â Patient Educ CounsÂ 2003;51(1):17â€“28.
8. Wagner EH. Population-based management of diabetes care.Â Patient Educ CounsÂ 1995;26(1â€“3):225â€“30.
9. Wagner EH, et al. Improving outcomes in chronic illness.Â Manag Care QÂ 1996;4(2):12â€“25.
10. Funnell MM, et al. A study of certified diabetes educators: influences and barriers.Â Diabetes EducÂ 2006;32(3):359â€“62, 364â€“6, 368â€“72.
11. Toobert DJ, et al. The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale.Â Diabetes CareÂ 2000;23(7):943â€“50.
12. Peeples M, et al. The conceptual framework of the National Diabetes Education Outcomes System (NDEOS).Â Diabetes EducÂ 2001;27(4):547â€“62.
13. Mulcahy K, et al. An educatorâ€™s guide to the diabetes outcomes measurement systems.Â Diabetes EducÂ 2001;27(6):830â€“4, 836â€“8, 840â€“2.
14. Siminerio LM, et al. Deploying the chronic care model to implement and sustain diabetes self-management training programs.Â Diabetes EducÂ 2006;32(2):253â€“60.
15. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group.Â N Engl J MedÂ 1993; 329(14):977â€“86.
16. Knowler WC, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.Â N Engl J MedÂ 2002;346(6):393â€“403.
17. Grant RW, et al. Clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes metabolic risk factors.Â Diabet MedÂ 2004;21(2):150â€“5.
18. Phillips LS, et al. Clinical inertia.Â Ann Intern MedÂ 2001; 135(9):825â€“34.
19. Berlowitz DR, et al. Developing a quality measure for clinical inertia in diabetes care.Â Health Serv ResÂ 2005;40(6 Pt 1): 1836â€“53.
20. Ziemer DC, et al. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting.Â Diabetes EducÂ 2005; 31(4):564â€“71.
21. Wagner EH, et al. Chronic care clinics for diabetes in primary care: a system-wide randomized trial.Â Diabetes CareÂ 2001;24(4):695â€“700.
22. Griffin S, Kinmonth AL. Diabetes care: the effectiveness of systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes.Â Cochrane Database Syst RevÂ 2000(2):CD000541.
23. Jamtvedt G, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.Â Cochrane Database Syst RevÂ 2006(2):CD000259.
24. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.Â National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States.Â 2005. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005..
25. Kongstvedt P.Â Managed care: what it is and how it worksÂ 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2004.
26. Rosenthal MB, et al. Pay for performance in commercial HMOs.Â N Engl J MedÂ 2006;355(18):1895â€“902.
27. NCQA: National Committee for Quality Assurance.Â HEDISâ€”health plan employer data and information set.Â The Committee. 2007..