Assessment of clinical inertia in people with diabetes within primary care
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives Clinical inertia, defined as a delay in treatment intensification, is prevalent in people with diabetes. Treatment intensification rates are as low as 37.1% in people with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values >7%. Intensification by addition of medication therapy may take 1.6 to more than 7 years. Clinical inertia increases the risk of cardiovascular events. The primary objective was to evaluate rates of clinical inertia in people whose diabetes is managed by both pharmacists and primary care providers (PCPs). Secondary objectives included characterizing types of treatment intensification, HbA1c reduction, and time between treatment intensifications. Method Retrospective chart review of persons with diabetes managed by pharmacists at an academic, safety-net institution. Eligible subjects were referred to a pharmacist-managed cardiovascular risk reduction clinic while continuing to see their PCP between October 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018. All progress notes were evaluated for treatment intensification, HbA1c value, and type of medication intensification. Results Three hundred sixty-three eligible patients were identified; baseline HbA1c 9.6% (7.9, 11.6) (median interquartile range [IQR]). One thousand one hundred ninety-two pharmacist and 1739 PCP visits were included in data analysis. Therapy was intensified at 60.5% (n = 721) pharmacist visits and 39.3% (n = 684) PCP visits (P Conclusion Pharmacist involvement in diabetes management may reduce the cli…
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?
Early therapeutic intensification within three months showed a 1.36-fold higher likelihood of achieving the HbA1c goal compared with late intensification within 10 to 15 months.
“Early therapeutic intensification within three months showed a 1.36-fold higher likelihood of achieving the HbA1c goal when compared to late intensification within 10 to 15 months [17].”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [17]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Meredith, A. H., Buatois, E. M., Krenz, J. R., Walroth, T., Shenk, M., Triboletti, J. S., Pence, L., & Gonzalvo, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Texas Tech University (US)
- Eskenazi Health (US)
- Cedarville University (US)
- Butler University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Meredith, Ashley H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-16
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-370
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W3034738729
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalCommons-Cedarville (Cedarville University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- clinical inertia, diabetes management, treatment intensification, pharmacist-managed care, primary care, HbA1c, GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, cardiovascular risk reduction
- MeSH terms
- Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Pharmacists, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies
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