Acknowledging and allocating responsibility for clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study
Abstract
Aims Failure to intensify treatment in patients with Type 2 diabetes with suboptimal blood glucose control has been termed clinical inertia and has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. We aimed to identify and explore perceptions about clinical inertia from the perspective of primary healthcare providers. Methods A qualitative study was conducted in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, UK. Purposive sampling was based on healthcare providers working in primary care settings with 'higher' and 'lower' target achievement based on routine data. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted, face-to-face or by telephone. Thematic analysis was informed by the constant comparative approach. Results An important broad theme that emerged during the analysis was related to attribution and explanation of responsibility for clinical inertia. This included general willingness to accept a degree of responsibility for clinical inertia. In some cases, however, participants had inaccurate perceptions about levels of target achievement in their primary care centres, as indicated by routine data. Participants sought to lessen their own sense of accountability by highlighting patient-level barriers such as comorbidities and human fallibility, and also system-level barriers, particularly time constraints. Perceptions about ways of addressing the problem of clinical inertia were not seen as straightforward, further emphasizing a complex and cumulative pattern of barriers. Conclu…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most participants could offer relevant explanations of the concept of clinical inertia despite being unaware of the term.
“Surprisingly, Zafar et al. [27] reported that most of the participants (physician or nurse) were unaware of the term “clinical inertia” or its meaning, but they could offer relevant explanations of the concept.”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Most participants (physicians or nurses) were unaware of the term "clinical inertia" or its meaning.
“Zafar et al. [27] reported that most of the participants were unaware of the term “clinical inertia”.”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Patient-level barriers to treatment intensification include non-compliance to prescribed medications, failure to attend appointments, conflicting priorities, lack of awareness about the fatality of type 2 diabetes mellitus, lack of symptoms, human error, comorbidities, polypharmacy, complex nature of the disease, deprivation, and communication barrier.
“At the patient level, barriers included non-compliance to prescribed medications, failure to attend appointments, conflicting priorities (such as perceptions, beliefs, or work commitments), lack of awareness about the fatality of T2DM, lack of symptoms, human error, comorbidities, polypharmacy, complex nature of the disease, deprivation, and communication barrier [27].”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Some physicians admit their responsibility for clinical inertia because they think health professional factors far outweigh factors at the patients' end.
“Interestingly, at the provider level, some of the physicians admit their responsibility for clinical inertia because they think that health professional factors far outweigh the factors at the patients’ end.”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Some physicians directly blamed their patients for not complying with instructions or not visiting their clinic on time.
“At the same time, some physicians directly blamed their patients for not complying with their instructions or not visiting their clinic on time [27].”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Some physicians think they should be firmer to reach the target HbA1c.
“They also think that they should be a bit firmer to reach the target HbA1c [27].”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Some physicians defended their patients by referring to a lack of knowledge and took responsibility for not improving their patients' awareness.
“Even some physicians defended their patients by referring to a lack of knowledge and taking the responsibility by not improving their patients’ awareness.”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
Stratton, I. M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405 · Cited by 9,059 · see citing works
Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0802987 · Cited by 7,397 · see citing works
Phillips, L. S., Branch, W. T., Cook, C. B., Doyle, J. P., El-Kebbi, I. M., Gallina, D. L., Miller, C. D., Ziemer, D. C., & Barnes, C. S. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00012 · Cited by 1,370 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Identification of barriers to insulin therapy and approaches to overcoming them
Russell‐Jones, D., Pouwer, F., & Khunti, K. (2018) · Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism · doi:10.1111/dom.13132 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Self-citationStatin non-adherence and residual cardiovascular risk: There is need for substantial improvement
Banach, M., Stulc, T., Dent, R., & Toth, P. P. (2016) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.09.075 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Phillip, M., Bergenstal, R. M., Close, K. L., Danne, T., Garg, S. K., Heinemann, L., Hirsch, I. B., Kovatchev, B. P., Laffel, L. M., Mohan, V., et al. (2021) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2020.0375 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Andreozzi, F., Candido, R., Corrao, S., Fornengo, R., Giancaterini, A., Ponzani, P., Ponziani, M. C., Tuccinardi, F., & Mannino, D. (2020) · Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome · doi:10.1186/s13098-020-00559-7 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
Almigbal, T. H., Alzarah, S. A., Aljanoubi, F. A., Alhafez, N. A., Aldawsari, M. R., Alghadeer, Z. Y., & Alrasheed, A. A. (2023) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina59010182 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“2015 UK [27] Acknowledging and allocating responsibility for clinical inertia in the management of Type 2 diabetes in primary care: a qualitative study Qualitative study 20 interviews (with 19 GPs and 1 nurse) managing T2DM patients”
BackgroundInfluentialTherapeutic inertia amongst general practitioners with interest in diabetes
Seidu, S., Than, T., Kar, D., Lamba, A., Brown, P., Zafar, A., Hussain, R., Amjad, A., Capehorn, M., Martin, E., et al. (2018) · Primary Care Diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2017.09.001 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Zafar, A., Stone, M. A., Davies, M. J., & Khunti, K.
- Affiliations
- Diabetes Research Unit Leicester Diabetes Centre Leicester UK
- Corresponding author
- Zafar, A.
- Venue
- Diabetic Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 407-413
- ISSN
- 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5491
- OpenAlex
- W2097269681
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 5.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Diabetes UK
- National Institute for Health (NIHR) Research Collaboration
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- clinical inertia, type 2 diabetes, primary care, accountability, attribution of responsibility, time constraints, comorbidities, human fallibility
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Social Responsibility, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management
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