Higher Referrals for Diabetes Education in a Medical Home Model of Care

13Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The medical home model has been gaining attention from the health care community as a strategy for improved outcomes for management of chronic disease, including diabetes. The purpose of this study was to compare referrals for diabetes education among patients receiving care from a medical home model versus a traditional practice. Methods: Data were obtained from a large, university-affiliated primary care patient data registry. All patients (age 18-96 years) with a diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes and seen by a physician at least twice during 2011 to 2013 were selected for inclusion. Multivariate regression models measuring the association between medical home status and referral to diabetes education were computed before and after adjusting for covariates. Results: A significantly (P ≤ .001) higher percentage of patients in a medical home than without a medical home (23.9% vs 13.5%) received a referral for diabetes education. After adjusting for covariates, medical home patients were 2.7 times more likely to receive a referral for diabetes education (odds ratio, 2.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.35). Conclusion: Patients in a medical home model were more likely to receive referrals for diabetes education than patients in a standard university-affiliated family medicine practice. Future longitudinal designs that match characteristics of patients with a medical home with those of patients without one will provide strong evidence to determine whether referral to diabetes education is a result of the medical home model of care independent of confounding factors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Manard, W. T., Syberg, K., Behera, A., Salas, J., Schneider, F. D., Armbrecht, E., … Scherrer, J. (2016). Higher Referrals for Diabetes Education in a Medical Home Model of Care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 29(3), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150370

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free