Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Clinical Diabetes

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Diabetes
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Browse
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • COVID-19 Article Collection
    • Quality Improvement Sucess Stories
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care, Abridged
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
  • Advertising
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit Cover Art
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Journal Policies
Departments

Diabetes Quality Improvement: Rigor and Ridicule

  1. Tom A. Elasy, MD, MPH, Editor-in-Chief
    Clinical Diabetes 2009 Apr; 27(2): 49-51. https://doi.org/10.2337/diaclin.27.2.49
    PreviousNext
    • Article
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    Loading

    At least three distinct components are necessary to improve the quality of care. First, improving care requires adequate resources and infrastructure. Second, those in positions of authority must have the will to improve care. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), there must be a compelling rationale for improvement, a gap between where we are and where we should be.

    Most of the literature on quality improvement in both the lay and professional press has focused on the first two issues. For example, to improve care, one must first have the ability to measure and track variables that are deemed important. In diabetes, for example, it may be desirable to track such variables as glycemic control, blood pressure control, lipid control, smoking, microalbuminuria, eye and foot exams, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

    This kind of information (often presented via “dashboards” in electronic health records) allows physicians the ability to know both individual and population-level data on the patients they for whom they care. A vast, diverse, and largely intuitive literature exists on how this information can be used to influence behavior for the purpose of improvement. The challenge, of course, is getting access to electronic health records for the vast majority of practitioners, for whom the upfront costs of setting up such an infrastructure is often prohibitive.

    Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have recognized this difficulty and proposed various initiatives to address this structural obstacle. Indeed, the conversation has already progressed to how we would link health records (given the example of the Veterans Administration) even as we wait for a majority of practitioners to acquire electronic health records.

    The second component, the will to improve, is in part linked to the first component of infrastructure but goes well beyond upfront costs. By will, I largely mean incentives. Nearly all diabetes quality improvement initiatives involve “more.” More screening. More counseling. More medication. More time. More staffing to support more care. Most of the “more” involves more expense for practitioners for little increased revenue (notwithstanding the fledgling pay-for-performance projects). Even the advances in technology during the past several decades that have the potential to improve glycemic control (e.g., home blood glucose meters, insulin pumps, and continuous glucose sensors) are wonderful from a patient perspective, providing ease of monitoring, better delivery of insulin, and the ability to detect short-term trends in glucose control. But they are difficult from a practice perspective, in that few practices are willing to use limited staff time and resources to download and interpret the data from these devices.

    Unless market share were at risk, few businesses would undertake initiatives in which improvement is not linked to enhanced revenue. Undoubtedly, any enterprise that represents 15% of our gross domestic product (as health care is currently estimated to comprise) will have complex and occasionally conflicting incentives. Yet not all incentives are financial. Many, if not most, physicians genuinely want to do what is best for those who come to us for care. I find that I can convince most physicians to engage in improvement initiatives simply because it's what we should do.

    Although these first two components, perhaps rightly, garner interest and attention, the last component, involving getting to where we should be, seems sufficiently mundane that most would be expected simply to say, “Well, of course.”

    Well, maybe not. In this issue of Clinical Diabetes, we see the peril of assuming that we know where we should be.

    In our Landmark Studies department (p. 70), Associate Editor Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, reviews two large clinical trials from Japan1 and Scotland2 that do not support the use of low-dose aspirin as a primary cardiovascular preventive modality for individuals with diabetes. Although the Japanese study suggested an effect, the effect was not statistically significant. This calls into question the routine call for aspirin therapy as a primary preventive strategy for individuals with diabetes.

    In our Bridges to Excellence department (p. 78), Richard J. Comi, MD, et al. look at the effect of a dedicated inpatient glucose management service in improving inpatient glycemic control. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable quality improvement initiative addressing most of the components discussed above. However, the reporting of this effort is unfortunately juxtaposed with a recent inpatient initiative to improve glycemic control in critically ill hospitalized patients.3 The results of the NICE-SUGAR study showed an increase in mortality among Intensive Care Unit patients who achieved very tight control (average blood glucose of 115 mg/dl) compared to those with good control (average blood glucose of 144 mg/dl).

    Although the subjects in the NICE-SUGAR trial were different from those included in the study by Comi et al., it still raises concern about the third component of quality improvement. Do we know where we should be? How and why did we (most august groups advocate better inpatient glycemic control) decide to invest resources into improvement initiatives when they may have been unnecessary? I should note that the NICE-SUGAR study results did less to discredit efforts to ameliorate inpatient hyperglycemia than they did to raise caution about attempts to achieve very tight glycemic control.

    Still, many quality improvement initiatives, rigorously implemented, are subsequently ridiculed when new data emerge showing that previous standards of care were wrong. That is unfortunate. It is true that experiences such as this should cause us to exercise caution before issuing recommendations; there are too many recommendations to do more! But they should not deter initiatives to improve, which must be nimble to the reality of our ever-changing knowledge base. We should not abandon improvement initiatives because we occasionally get the where-should-we-be component wrong. Instead, we should strive to be less likely to go off on the wrong path by, in part, ensuring greater involvement from those who do not stand to gain or lose by the decision, and we must be prepared to recognize when, despite our best intentions, we get lost anyway.

    Footnotes

    • American Diabetes Association(R) Inc., 2009

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      1. Ogawa H,
      2. Nakayama M,
      3. Morimoto T,
      4. Uemura S,
      5. Kanauchi M,
      6. Doi N,
      7. Jinnouchi H,
      8. Sugiyama S,
      9. Saito Y,
      10. Japanese Primary Prevention of Atherosclerosis With Aspirin for Diabetes (JPAD) Trial Investigators
      : Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 300:2134-2141, 2008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Belch J,
      2. MacCuish A,
      3. Campbell I,
      4. Cobbe S,
      5. Taylor R,
      6. Prescott R,
      7. Lee R,
      8. Bancroft J,
      9. MacEwan S,
      10. Shepherd J,
      11. Macfarlane P,
      12. Morris A,
      13. Jung R,
      14. Kelly C,
      15. Connacher A,
      16. Peden N,
      17. Jamieson A,
      18. Matthews D,
      19. Leese G,
      20. McKnight J,
      21. zO'Brien I,
      22. Semple C,
      23. Petrie J,
      24. Gordon D,
      25. Pringle S,
      26. MacWalter R,
      27. Prevention of Progression of Arterial Disease and Diabetes Study Group,
      28. Diabetes Registry Group,
      29. Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh
      : The prevention of progression of arterial disease and diabetes (POPADAD) trial: factorial randomised placebo controlled trial of aspirin and antioxidants in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease. BMJ 337:a1840, 2008
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators,
      2. Finfer S,
      3. Chittock DR,
      4. Su SY,
      5. Blair D,
      6. Foster D,
      7. Dhingra V,
      8. Bellomo R,
      9. Cook D,
      10. Dodek P,
      11. Henderson WR,
      12. Hébert PC,
      13. Heritier S,
      14. Heyland DK,
      15. McArthur C,
      16. McDonald E,
      17. Mitchell I,
      18. Myburgh JA,
      19. Norton R,
      20. Potter J,
      21. Robinson BG,
      22. Ronco JJ
      : Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 360:1283-1297, 2009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    In this Issue

    March 2009, 27(2)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by Author
    Sign up to receive current issue alerts
    View Selected Citations (0)
    Print
    Download PDF
    Article Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Clinical Diabetes.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Diabetes Quality Improvement: Rigor and Ridicule
    (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Diabetes
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Clinical Diabetes web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Citation Tools
    Diabetes Quality Improvement: Rigor and Ridicule
    Clinical Diabetes Apr 2009, 27 (2) 49-51; DOI: 10.2337/diaclin.27.2.49

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Add to Selected Citations
    Share

    Diabetes Quality Improvement: Rigor and Ridicule
    Clinical Diabetes Apr 2009, 27 (2) 49-51; DOI: 10.2337/diaclin.27.2.49
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • REFERENCES
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Related Articles

    Cited By...

    More in this TOC Section

    Departments

    • Transitioning to Fixed-Ratio Combination Therapy: Five Frequently Asked Questions Health Care Providers Should Anticipate From Their Patients
    • Gvoke HypoPen: An Auto-Injector Containing an Innovative, Liquid-Stable Glucagon Formulation for Use in Severe Acute Hypoglycemia
    • Timely News and Notes for Primary Care Providers from the American Diabetes Association
    Show more Departments

    Editorial

    • Telemedicine: The 2020 House Call
    • Black Diabetic Lives Matter
    • COVID-19 and Diabetes
    Show more Editorial

    Similar Articles

    Navigate

    • Current Issue
    • Papers in Press
    • Abridged Standards of Care
    • Archives
    • Submit
    • Subscribe
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds

    More Information

    • About the Journal
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Reprints and Permissions
    • Advertising
    • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
    • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
    • Contact Us

    Other ADA Resources

    • Diabetes
    • Diabetes Care
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
    • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
    • Professional Books
    • Diabetes Forecast

     

    • DiabetesJournals.org
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • ADA's DiabetesPro
    • ADA Member Directory
    • Diabetes.org

    © 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Clinical Diabetes Print ISSN: 0891-8929, Online ISSN: 1945-4953.