IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Processes and outcomes of diabetes mellitus care by different types of team primary care models

Author

Listed:
  • Fangjian Guo
  • Yu-Li Lin
  • Mukaila Raji
  • Bruce Leonard
  • Lin-Na Chou
  • Yong-Fang Kuo

Abstract

Background: Team care improves processes and outcomes of care, especially for patients with complex medical conditions that require coordination of care. This study aimed to compare the processes and outcomes of care provided to older patients with diabetes by primary care teams comprised of only primary care physicians (PCPs) versus team care that included nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs). Methods: We studied 3,524 primary care practices identified via social network analysis and 306,741 patients ≥66 years old diagnosed with diabetes in or before 2015 in Medicare data. Guideline-recommended diabetes care included eye examination, hemoglobin A1c test, and nephropathy monitoring. High-risk medications were based on recommendations from the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. Preventable hospitalizations were defined as hospitalizations for a potentially preventable condition. Results: Compared with patients in the PCP only teams, patients in the team care practices with NPs or PAs received more guideline-recommended diabetes care (annual eye exam: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00–1.08), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03–1.13), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05–1.15), and HbA1C test: aOR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04–1.18), 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02–1.20), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06–1.25) for PCP/NP, PCP/NP/PA, and PCP/PA teams). Patients in the PCP/NP and the PCP/PA teams had a slightly higher likelihood of being prescribed high-risk medications (aOR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00–1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02–1.11), respectively). The likelihood of preventable hospitalizations was similar among patients cared for by various types of practices. Conclusion: The team care practices with NPs or PAs were associated with better adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations for diabetes compared to PCP only practices. Both practices had similar outcomes. Further efforts are needed to explore new and cost-effective team-based care delivery models that improve process, outcomes, and continuity of care, as well as patient care experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fangjian Guo & Yu-Li Lin & Mukaila Raji & Bruce Leonard & Lin-Na Chou & Yong-Fang Kuo, 2020. "Processes and outcomes of diabetes mellitus care by different types of team primary care models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241516
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241516
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241516
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241516&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241516?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.