Quality of Care of the Initial Patient Cohort of the Diabetes Collaborative Registry ®

Abstract

Background Although guidelines and performance measures exist for patients with diabetes mellitus, achievement of these metrics is not well known. The Diabetes Collaborative Registry ® (DCR) was formed to understand the quality of diabetes mellitus care across the primary and specialty care continuum in the United States. Methods and Results We assessed the frequency of achievement of 7 diabetes mellitus–related quality metrics and variability across the Diabetes Collaborative Registry ® sites. Among 574 972 patients with diabetes mellitus from 259 US practices, median (interquartile range) achievement of the quality metrics across the practices was the following: (1) glycemic control: 19% (5–47); (2) blood pressure control: 80% (67–88); (3) angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with coronary artery disease: 62% (51–69); (4) nephropathy screening: 62% (53–71); (5) eye examination: 0.7% (0.0–79); (6) foot examination: 0.0% (0.0–2.3); and (7) tobacco screening/cessation counseling: 86% (80–94). In hierarchical, modified Poisson regression models, there was substantial variability in meeting these metrics across sites, particularly with documentation of glycemic control and eye and foot examinations. There was also notable variation across specialties, with endocrinology practices performing better on glycemic control and diabetes mellitus foot examinations and cardiology practices succeeding more in blood pressure control and use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers. Conclusions The Diabetes Collaborative Registry ® was established to document and improve the quality of outpatient diabetes mellitus care. While target achievement of some metrics of cardiovascular risk modification was high, achievement of others was suboptimal and highly variable. This may be attributable to fragmentation of care, lack of ownership among various specialists concerning certain domains of care, incomplete documentation, true gaps in care, or a combination of these factors.