Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 May;43(5):1016-1024.
doi: 10.2337/dc19-1622. Epub 2020 Mar 5.

Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System

Affiliations

Multilevel Variation in Diabetes Screening Within an Integrated Health System

Udoka Obinwa et al. Diabetes Care. 2020 May.

Abstract

Objective: Variation in diabetes screening in clinical practice is poorly described. We examined the interplay of patient, provider, and clinic factors explaining variation in diabetes screening within an integrated health care system in the U.S.

Research design and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of primary care patients aged 18-64 years with two or more outpatient visits between 2010 and 2015 and no diagnosis of diabetes according to electronic health record (EHR) data. Hierarchical three-level models were used to evaluate multilevel variation in screening at the patient, provider, and clinic levels across 12 clinics. Diabetes screening was defined by a resulted gold standard screening test.

Results: Of 56,818 patients, 70% completed diabetes screening with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (51-92%; P < 0.001). Of those meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) (69%) and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (36%) screening criteria, three-quarters were screened with a nearly twofold variation across clinics (ADA 53-92%; USPSTF 49-93%). The yield of ADA and USPSTF screening was similar for diabetes (11% vs. 9%) and prediabetes (38% vs. 36%). Nearly 70% of patients not eligible for guideline-based screening were also tested. The USPSTF guideline missed more cases of diabetes (6% vs. 3%) and prediabetes (26% vs. 19%) than the ADA guideline. After adjustment for patient, provider, and clinic factors and accounting for clustering, twofold variation in screening by provider and clinic remained (median odds ratio 1.97; intraclass correlation 0.13).

Conclusions: Screening practices vary widely and are only partially explained by patient, provider, and clinic factors available in the EHR. Clinical decision support and system-level interventions are needed to optimize screening practices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Diabetes Association 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care 2019;42(Suppl. 1):S13–S28 - PubMed
    1. Siu AL; U S Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:861–868 - PubMed
    1. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Diabetes Translation National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Estimates of Diabetes and Its Burden in the United States [Internet], 2017. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-stat.... Accessed 17 December 2019
    1. Bullard KM, Ali MK, Imperatore G, et al. . Receipt of glucose testing and performance of two US diabetes screening guidelines, 2007–2012. PLoS One 2015;10:e0125249. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kiefer MM, Silverman JB, Young BA, Nelson KM. National patterns in diabetes screening: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2012. J Gen Intern Med 2015;30:612–618 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms