Cited by 311Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Management and ResearchPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Quality of Diabetes Care in U.S. Academic Medical Centers

Open access
Grant, Richard W., Buse, John B., Meigs, James B., for the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Diabetes Benchmarking Project Team·2005·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE— To assess both standard and novel diabetes quality measures in a national sample of U.S. academic medical centers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2002. It involved 30 U.S. academic medical centers, which contributed data from 44 clinics (27 primary care clinics and 17 diabetes/endocrinology clinics). For 1,765 eligible adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with at least two clinic visits in the 24 months before 10 January 2002, including one visit in the 6 months before 10 January 2002, we assessed measurement and control of HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol and corresponding medical regimen changes at the most recent clinic visit. RESULTS— In this ethnically and economically diverse cohort, annual testing rates were very high (97.4% for HbA1c, 96.6% for blood pressure, and 87.6% for total cholesterol). Fewer patients were at HbA1c goal (34.0% <7.0%) or blood pressure goal (33.0% <130/80 mmHg) than lipid goals (65.1% total cholesterol <200 mg/dl, 46.1% with LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl). Only 10.0% of the cohort met recommended goals for all three risk factors. At the most recent clinic visit, 40.4% of patients with HbA1c concentrations above goal underwent adjustment of their corresponding regimens. Among untreated patients, few with elevated blood pressure (10.1% with blood pressure >130/80 mmHg) or elevated LDL cholesterol (5.6% with LDL >100 mg/dl) were started on corresponding therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes were no less likely to be intensified than patients with type 1 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS— High rates of risk factor testing do not necessarily translate to effective metabolic control. Low rates of medication adjustment among patients with levels above goal suggest a specific and novel target for quality improvement measurement.

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 · 10.2337/diacare.28.2.337

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Factors other than patient behavior-such as adequacy of medical management, diabetes duration, weight gain, comorbid illness, concomitant medication, poverty, access to care, and health insurance coverage-affect diabetes treatment outcomes.

    “Multiple factors other than patient behavior affect diabetes treatment outcomes, including adequacy of medical management, duration of diabetes, weight gain, and other health-related (e.g., comorbid illness and concomitant medication) and social-structural factors (e.g., poverty, access to care, health insurance coverage) (13–16).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grant, R. W., Buse, J. B., Meigs, J. B., & for the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) Diabetes Benchmarking Project Team
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2005-02-01
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
337-442
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2130203112
Cited by
311
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 22
FWCI
22.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK067452)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
diabetes care quality, academic medical centers, HbA1c control, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, metabolic control, medication intensification, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, quality improvement measures, primary health centers, endocrinology clinic
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, Cohort 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