Cited by 16Diabetes Management and EducationPrimary Care and Health OutcomesChronic Disease Management Strategies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

Effectiveness of Diabetes Resource Nurse Case Management and Physician Profiling in a Fee-For-Service Setting: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Open access

Abstract

Nurses with advanced training-diabetes resource nurses (DRNs)-can improve care for people with diabetes in capitated payment settings. Their effectiveness in fee-for-service settings has not been investigated. We conducted a 12-month practice-randomized trial involving 22 practices in a fee-for-service metropolitan network with 92 primary care physicians caring for 1891 Medicare patients ≥65 years with diabetes mellitus. Each practice was randomized to one of three intervention groups: physician feedback on process measures using Medicare claims data; Medicare claims feedback plus feedback on clinical measures from medical record (MR) abstraction; or both types of feedback plus a practice-based DRN. The primary endpoint investigated was hemoglobin A(1c) level. Other measures were low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, blood pressure, annual hemoglobin A(1c) testing, annual LDL screening, annual eye exam, annual foot exam, and annual renal assessment. Data were collected from medical chart abstraction and Medicare claims. The number of patients with hemoglobin A(1c) <9% increased by 4 (0.9%) in the Claims group; 9 (2.1%) in the Claims + MR group (comparison with Claims: P = 0.97); and 16 (3.8%) in the DRN group (comparison with Claims: P = 0.31). Results were similar for the other clinical outcomes, with no differences significant at P = 0.10. For process of care measures, decreases were seen in all groups, with no significant differences in change scores. Quality improvement strategies must be evaluated in the appropriate setting. Initiatives that have been effective in capitated systems may not be effective in fee-for-service environments.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08998280.2006.11928137

Cites

44 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Herrin 2006 found no statistically significant difference in the proportion of adequate glucose control when adding patient-specific clinical data from medical records to administrative data feedback (adjusted RD = 1.9%, patient outcome; P = 0.97).

    “They also did not find a statistically significant difference in the proportion of adequate glucose control (adjusted RD = 1.9%, patient outcome; P = 0.97).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001, Improving Care for Diabetes Patients Through Intensive Therapy and a Team Approach [Report No. 02-0005].
  2. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group, 1993, N Engl J Med, 329, 977
  3. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group, 1998, Lancet, 352, 837
  4. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group, 1998, BMJ, 317, 703
  5. Greenfield S, 1995, JAMA, 274, 1436, 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180030026 · DOI
  6. National Diabetes Quality Improvement Alliance, 2005, Performance Measurement Set for Adult Diabetes.
  7. American Diabetes Association, 2004, Diabetes Care, 27, S15
  8. Claritas Inc., 1999, REZIDE: The National ZIP Code Encyclopedia. Population and Housing Profiles of All US Residential 5-Digit ZIP Codes.
  9. Tsai AC, 2005, Am J Manag Care, 11, 478

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Herrin, J., Nicewander, D. A., Hollander, P. A., Couch, C. E., Winter, F. D., Haydar, Z. R., Warren, S. S., & Ballard, D. J.
Corresponding author
Ballard, David J.
Venue
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings
Published
2006-04
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
95-102
ISSN
  • 0899-8280 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3252
OpenAlex
W1605633581
Cited by
16
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Kaiser Permanente
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
nurse case management, physician profiling, fee-for-service, Medicare beneficiaries, diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, HbA1c, primary care, physician feedback, quality improvement, process of care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review