Search

Merel M Ruissen,1– 3 Jacob K Sont,2 Heidi A van Vugt,4,5 Marleen Kunneman,2,3 Guy EHM Rutten,4 Eelco JP de Koning1 1Department of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands; 2Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands; 3Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of General Practice, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 5Dutch Diabetes Federation, Amersfoort, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Eelco JP de Koning, Department of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands, Tel +31 71 52 62085, Fax +31 71 52 66881, Email e.j.p.de_koning@lumc.nlPurpose: Understanding which factors are important for healthcare decisions of patients with diabetes in clinical practice is important to personalise diabetes care strategies and tailor care plans to the individual. The main drivers for these healthcare decisions remain unclear. This study assessed which key factors are relevant for healthcare decisions during clinical consultations for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM), according to healthcare professionals.Materials and Methods: Annual diabetes reviews were performed as part of a trial assessing the impact of a consultation model facilitating person-centred diabetes care in six hospital outpatient clinics. After each consultation, we asked healthcare professionals to choose a maximum of three out of 20 factors that were most relevant for healthcare decisions about treatment goals and the professional support needed during the upcoming year. Factors were characterised as either person or disease-related. Percentages reflect the number of annual diabetes reviews in which the key factor was reported.Results: Seventeen physicians and eight diabetes specialist nurses reported t

AIMS: To assess the planned diabetes care for the coming year and its associated factors in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have a person-centered annual consultation.METHODS: Implementation study of a new consultation model in 47 general practices (primary care) and 6 outpatient clinics (secondary care); 1200 patients from primary and 166 from secondary care participated. Data collection took place between November 2015 and February 2017. Outcomes: preferred monitoring frequency; referral to other health care provider(s); medication change. One measurement at the end of the consultation. We performed logistic regression analyses. Differences between primary and secondary care were analyzed.RESULTS: Many patients arranged a monitoring frequency <4 times per year (general practices 19.5%, outpatient clinics 40%, p < .001). Type of provider (physician/nurse, OR 3.83, p < .001), baseline HbA1c (OR 1.02, p = .017), glucose lowering medication; and setting treatment goals (OR .65, p = .048) were associated with the chosen frequency. Independently associated with a referral were age (OR .99, p = .039), baseline glucose lowering medication and patients' goal setting (OR 1.52, p = .016). Medication change was associated with type of provider, baseline HbA1c, blood glucose lowering medication, quality of life (OR .80, p = .037) and setting treatment goals (OR 2.64, p = .001).CONCLUSIONS: Not only disease but also person related factors, especially setting treatment goals, are independently associated with planned care use in person-centered diabetes care.

Aim: This study explored the relationship between insulin use and patient activation (a person's internal readiness and capabilities to undertake health-promoting actions) in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and aimed to identify demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors involved in patient activation.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, baseline data from a Dutch nationwide study were analyzed. Patient activation was assessed with the Patient Activation Measure 13. A linear mixed model was used to take clustering into account.Results: In total, 1,189 persons were included (310 of whom were on insulin), enrolled via 47 general practices and six hospitals. Their mean Patient Activation Measure 13 score was 59±12. We found no association between insulin therapy and patient activation. In the multivariable analysis, individuals with a better health status, very good or very poor social support (vs good social support), individuals who felt they had greater control over their illness and those with a better subjective understanding of their illness showed higher patient activation. Individuals with a lower educational level and those who expected their illness to continue showed a lower activation level.Conclusion: Patient activation does not differ between individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin therapy and those on other therapies.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed both from a patient and provider perspective the usefulness and added value of a consultation model that facilitates person-centered diabetes care.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The model consists of 1) inventory of disease and patient-related factors; 2) setting personal goals; 3) choosing treatment; and 4) determination of required care. It was implemented in 47 general practices and 6 hospital outpatient clinics. Providers were trained, and patients were recommended to prepare their visit. All filled out a questionnaire after every consultation. Differences between primary and secondary care practices and between physician-led and nurse-led consultations were analyzed.RESULTS: Seventy-four physicians and thirty-one nurses participated, reporting on 1,366 consultations with type 2 diabetes patients. According to providers, the model was applicable in 72.4% (nurses 79.3% vs. physicians 68.5%, P < 0.001). Physicians more often had a consultation time <25 min (80.4% vs. 56.9%, P < 0.001). According to providers, two of three patients spoke more than half of the consultation time (outpatient clinics 75.2% vs. general practices 66.6%, P = 0.002; nurses 73.2% vs. physicians 64.4%, P = 0.001). Providers stated that person-related factors often determined treatment goals. Almost all patients (94.4%) reported that they made shared decisions; they felt more involved than before (with physicians 45.1% vs. with nurses 33.6%, P < 0.001) and rated the consultation 8.6 of 10. After physician-led consultations, 52.5% reported that the consultation was better than before (nurse visit 33.7%, P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: A consultation model to facilitate person-centered care seems well applicable and results in more patient involvement, including shared decision making, and is appreciated by a substantial number of patients.

Heidi A van Vugt,1,2,* Anne Meike Boels,1,* Inge de Weerdt,2 Eelco JP de Koning,3 Guy EHM Rutten1 1Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 2Dutch Diabetes Federation, Amersfoort 3818 LE, the Netherlands; 3Department of Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands *These authors contributed equally to this work Aim: This study explored the relationship between insulin use and patient activation (a person’s internal readiness and capabilities to undertake health-promoting actions) in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and aimed to identify demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors involved in patient activation.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, baseline data from a Dutch nationwide study were analyzed. Patient activation was assessed with the Patient Activation Measure 13. A linear mixed model was used to take clustering into account.Results: In total, 1,189 persons were included (310 of whom were on insulin), enrolled via 47 general practices and six hospitals. Their mean Patient Activation Measure 13 score was 59±12. We found no association between insulin therapy and patient activation. In the multivariable analysis, individuals with a better health status, very good or very poor social support (vs good social support), individuals who felt they had greater control over their illness and those with a better subjective understanding of their illness showed higher patient activation. Individuals with a lower educational level and those who expected their illness to continue showed a lower activation level.Conclusion: Patient activation does not differ between individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin therapy and those on other therapies.Keywords: provider–patient communication, patient participation in health care, social support, patient activation, insulin th