Registry-Managed Care Coordination and Education for Patients With Co-occurring Diabetes and Serious Mental Illness
Abstract
Objective:
Longitudinal changes in health outcomes of patients with serious mental illness and co-occurring diabetes were examined after introduction of an intervention involving electronic disease management, care coordination, and personalized patient education.
Methods:
This observational cohort study included 179 patients with serious mental illness and diabetes mellitus type 2 at a behavioral health home in Chicago. The intervention employed a care coordinator who used a diabetes registry to integrate services; patients also received personalized diabetes self-management education. Outcomes included glucose, lipid, and blood pressure levels as assessed by glycosylated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and systolic/diastolic values from electronic medical records and completion of specialty visits confirmed with optometrists and podiatrists. Interrupted time-series segmented random-effects regression models tested for level changes in the eight study quarters following intervention implementation compared with eight preimplementation study quarters, controlling for clinic site and preimplementation secular trends.
Results:
Significant declines were found in levels of glucose, lipids, and blood pressure postimplementation. In addition, completed optometry referrals increased by 44% and completed podiatry referrals increased by 60%.
Conclusions:
Significant improvement in medical outcomes was found among patients of a behavioral health home who had comorbid diabetes and mental illness after introduction of a multicomponent care coordination intervention, regardless of which clinic they attended.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
To address disproportionately high levels of co-occurring serious mental illness and type 2 diabetes, a new intervention employed a care coordinator who used a diabetes registry to integrate services and generate personalized diabetes education for patients.
•
With the intervention, significant improvement was observed in patients’ blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure indicators, and completion of recommended eye and foot care appointments also increased significantly.
•
This combination of evidence-based intervention components, previously found effective for other populations, was associated with improvement in a population of individuals with co-occurring diabetes and serious mental illness.
The prevalence of diabetes among adults with serious mental illness is two- to threefold higher than in the general population (1, 2), yet only one-third receive a diagnosis and treatment (3) and care is often subpar (4, 5). Although the benefits of integrated primary and behavioral health care for this population are acknowledged (6, 7), less is known about how to integrate specialized diabetes care (8). Integration strategies tested in the general population include care coordination (9), use of electronic registries (10), and personalized diabetes self-management education (11). This study examined changes in patient-level outcomes among adults with diabetes and serious mental illness following introduction of an intervention incorporating these strategies.
Care coordination involves connecting patients with health care providers, monitoring their treatment plans, educating them about their conditions, and sharing information to enhance effective care (12, 13). Studies show that introducing dedicated staff who coordinate health care for people with serious mental illness significantly improves the quality and outcomes of primary care (14). Recipients in one study of care coordination utilized more preventive services and more evidence-based cardiometabolic care (15), and those in another study saw significantly improved mean scores for their physical health after 1 year (16). Despite this promising evidence, care coordination for diabetes management among individuals with serious mental illness is rare.
Disease registries are electronic databases containing medical information for patients with specific types of chronic illnesses that is used to facilitate delivery of evidence-based care (17). Registries notify providers of abnormal test results and missed appointments, track the progress of high-risk patients, and enable health outcomes management at individual and clinic levels (18, 19). One study of a diabetes registry introduced to primary care clinics found significant reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) test levels (20), and another study of a diabetes registry adopted by primary care practices found significant improvement in A1c, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and blood pressure outcomes (21). These studies suggest the promise of registries in the delivery of integrated care for patients with co-occurring diabetes and serious mental illness.
Diabetes patient education is designed to increase understanding of the disease and enhance skills and motivation for successful self-management (22). Effective delivery involves personalizing the information to patients’ specific medical situations and incorporating their needs, goals, culture, and life experiences (23). Research shows that people with co-occurring diabetes and serious mental illness seldom receive diabetes education (5, 24, 25), although evidence indicates its effectiveness for this population (26, 27). However, there are few diabetes education programs geared toward the specific needs of people with mental illness.
Medical homes deliver primary care that is patient centered, comprehensive, team based, coordinated, and focused on quality and safety (28). Behavioral health homes integrate this kind of general medical care with services for patients with mental illness (29, 30). One type of behavioral health home involves colocating primary care providers in community behavioral health care settings (31, 32), with advanced practice nurses often delivering care (33, 34). Patients report high satisfaction with colocation (35, 36), and studies have found significantly improved A1c, blood pressure, and LDL levels among patients using this model (37, 38).
This study examined the medical outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at a behavioral health home with colocated primary care providers after introduction of a practice enhancement program that included care coordination, registry-managed care, and personalized diabetes education. We hypothesized that there would be significant improvement over time in patients’ A1c, LDL, triglyceride, and blood pressure values and that significant increases would occur in proportions receiving dilated eye and comprehensive foot examinations.
Methods
Research Setting
The behavioral health home consisted of two primary care clinics operated by the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) College of Nursing that were colocated in an outpatient mental health program called Thresholds on the north and south sides of Chicago (39). Serving over 900 patients annually (40), each clinic was staffed by two or three advanced practice registered nurses authorized to provide primary care services without oversight of a medical doctor in the state of Illinois. A medical assistant performed clerical duties, such as reception and scheduling, and clinical functions, such as taking vital signs and drawing blood (41). Clinics used a team approach to care, rather than individual patient assignments.
Patients with diabetes were asked to keep daily logs of their blood sugar levels, but this occurred inconsistently. They often missed appointments or did not follow through on prescribed treatments and referrals. Even with colocation, the electronic health record (EHR) used by clinic staff was separate from that used by the mental health program, and the former required specialized programming to generate automated reports for patient tracking and clinic management. Thus, a registry was needed to bridge this gap. The latest audit prior to study inauguration found that 24% of diabetes patients with co-occurring hypertension had uncontrolled blood pressure and 33% did not meet the clinics’ standard for glycemic control. This presented an ideal situation for introduction of care coordination by using an electronic registry, dedicated care manager, and personalized educational materials.
Study Population
The study included 179 clinic patients with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type 2. Time since diagnosis ranged from 6 months to 20 years, and patients had high rates of co-occurring hypertension, coronary artery disease, kidney disease, and obesity. Most were covered by Medicaid (N=104, 58%) or Medicare (N=57, 32%), 5% (N=9) had private insurance, and 5% (N=9) were uninsured. At study inauguration, 89% (N=159) of clinic patients were prescribed metformin, 65% (N=116) ACE inhibitors, 28% (N=50) insulin, 32% (N=57) glitazones, and 19% (N=34) sulfonylurea. Study procedures were approved by the UIC Institutional Review Board.
Intervention
The registry contained EHR information specific to diabetes management, including diagnoses of general medical and mental health conditions, laboratory results, appointment data, referrals for specialty care, and lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking and diet). Registry data were used to generate specialized reports for patients, providers, and administrators. For providers, patient-specific reports generated before each visit summarized recent lab values and test results and flagged out-of-range values for further attention. For patients, user-friendly “report cards” showed trends over time in A1c, LDL, and blood pressure and included reminders for upcoming eye or foot exams. Reports for administrators summarized patient outcomes and appointment attendance by clinic and across clinics.
A care coordinator split work time to 50% at each clinic and was tasked with linking behavioral and primary care providers via e-mail and telephone, enhancing communication between the two groups, and sorting out glitches in appointment scheduling and transportation. She also populated the registry with lab values and appointment information and generated all reports. Direct patient contact included reminding patients by telephone of appointments, accompanying patients to specialty care visits, discussing report card results, and providing diabetes education. The coordinator also facilitated specialty care by negotiating specific blocks of appointment time with university outpatient eye and podiatry clinics, arranging transportation with mental health case managers, and scheduling appointments with eye and foot specialists willing to conduct examinations on site.
University researchers worked with the coordinator, primary care providers, mental health program staff, people with lived experience of diabetes and mental illness, and medical students to develop patient self-management education materials. These were packaged as an online diabetes education toolkit of didactic information linked to care standards and related podcasts for use with patients in the clinic. A central part of the toolkit was a “library” of one-page information sheets. These were written at a grade-school level to accommodate low levels of health literacy and numeracy (a patient’s ability to interpret and act on quantitative and probabilistic health information in making effective health decisions) commonly found among people with serious mental illness (42–44). The library covered a variety of topics linked to treatment regimens, co-occurring conditions, and strategies for diabetes self-management. To personalize education for each patient, the coordinator selected topics based on out-of-range lab values, poor health indicators, or clinical goals for that patient. Attaching educational materials to patient-specific reports prompted medical providers to review them with patients and send them home for sharing with family and other supporters. The same materials were sent by the coordinator to case managers with reminders to review them at the patient’s next behavioral health visit. Behavioral health care provider participation included reviewing and reinforcing diabetes education and treatment regimens, providing transportation to specialty appointments, and sharing treatment plans with the care coordinator and clinic medical staff.
Study Design
Because of the highly vulnerable nature of the patient population, random assignment was not considered practical or ethical. Instead, we used a one-group pre-post interrupted time-series design, one of the strongest quasi-experimental research designs (45). For this approach, data on all participants are collected at equally spaced time points (in this case quarterly) before and after an intervention is implemented (46). The main objective is to examine whether data patterns observed postimplementation are different from those observed preimplementation by using segmented regression analysis (45, 47). The preintervention segment acts as a control for secular trends in outcomes that may occur and that are unrelated to the intervention (45, 48).
Measures
Registry data were extracted for all patients with type 2 diabetes served in the eight quarters prior to intervention implementation (April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2012) who also had one or more lab values in the eight quarters following implementation (April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2014), with extraction ending March 31, 2014. Values were grouped by study quarter; when there were multiple measures in a quarter, the last measure in the quarter was used. Values included A1c, LDL, triglycerides, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Occurrence of eye and foot examinations was verified with patients’ podiatry and optometry providers and calculated as the proportion completed annually per American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (49).
Analysis
Standard descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the distributions and measures of central tendency of all variables. The characteristics of each clinic’s patients were compared and tested for significant differences. Next, paired t tests were computed to assess change following intervention implementation by using the approach of Fesseha and colleagues (50) in which baseline A1c was defined as the final measure during the preimplementation period and compared with the nadir A1c, which was defined as the single lowest postimplementation measurement. Use of nadir LDL, triglyceride, and blood pressure values also followed published analyses (51–53). Multivariable interrupted time-series segmented random-effects regression models were used to examine changes in values over 16 quarters of data (eight pre- and eight postimplementation). The models accounted for autocorrelation of repeated measures by using first-order autoregressive covariance structures and controlled for study site to adjust for differences in clinic populations and for number of outcome measurements. Potential seasonal effects on outcomes were accounted for by use of 4 years of data with equal seasonal exposures before and after the intervention (54). We posited an impact model that would show no significant preintervention trends in outcome measures and a statistically significant postintervention level change in outcomes. To measure change in specialty eye and foot care, we calculated the percentage completing each examination during the 12-month period at the end of the first eight quarters (April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012) and the end of the second eight quarters (April 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014). Analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics, version 25, and SAS, version 9.4.
Results
Table 1 presents the background characteristics of 179 patients, in total and by clinic location. Around two-thirds were male, and the average age was 51.2. Approximately a third (31%) did not complete high school. Most had a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia (38%, N=68) or schizoaffective disorder (24%, N=43), 19% had bipolar disorder, and 19% had major depressive disorder. Clinic patient populations were highly similar, except for significantly higher proportions of African American patients at the south location and Whites at the north location, reflecting the racial makeup of their surrounding communities. When this group of 179 was compared with the 48 patients excluded because they lacked lab values in the postimplementation period, no significant differences (p<0.05) in age, gender, race, education, or psychiatric diagnosis were found.
| Total | North clinic | South clinic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N=179) | (N=88) | (N=91) | ||||
| Characteristic | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 119 | 66 | 60 | 68 | 59 | 65 |
| Female | 60 | 34 | 28 | 32 | 32 | 35 |
| Race-ethnicity | ||||||
| Black | 107 | 62* | 40 | 47 | 67 | 77 |
| White | 49 | 28* | 36 | 41 | 13 | 15 |
| Hispanic | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Asian | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Other | 8 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 2 |
| Age (M±SD) | 51.2±9.8 | 52.5±9.6 | 50.0±9.8 | |||
| Education | ||||||
| Less than high school | 48 | 31 | 18 | 25 | 30 | 36 |
| High school graduate | 65 | 42 | 36 | 51 | 29 | 35 |
| Some college | 30 | 19 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 23 |
| College graduate | 12 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 |
| Diagnosis | ||||||
| Schizoaffective disorder | 43 | 24 | 16 | 18 | 27 | 30 |
| Schizophrenia | 68 | 38 | 37 | 42 | 31 | 34 |
| Bipolar disorder | 34 | 19 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 20 |
| Depressive disorder | 34 | 19 | 19 | 22 | 15 | 17 |
| Medical measures (M±SD) | ||||||
| Glycosylated hemoglobin | 7.36±2.20 | 7.24±1.90 | 7.47±2.46 | |||
| Low-density lipoprotein | 96.15±34.06 | 99.98±33.15 | 93.70±36.12 | |||
| Triglycerides | 134.74±81.25* | 154.46±91.81 | 120.83±72.33 | |||
| Blood pressure | ||||||
| Systolic | 123.96±14.84 | 125.94±16.30 | 120.64±13.36 | |||
| Diastolic | 81.35±8.53 | 80.59±9.12 | 82.64±8.47 | |||
*
p<.05, chi-square or independent t tests.
Table 1 also presents patient medical outcomes. The mean A1c level for the sample was 7.4, which exceeds the recommended level of <7 in the 2010 ADA standards in effect at baseline (49, 55). The mean LDL level was 96.2, which is below the recommended level of <100 in the standards. The mean triglycerides level was 134.7, which is below the recommended level of <150. The average systolic blood pressure was 124.0, and the average diastolic was 81.4, which exceed the recommended level at baseline of <130/80 for the diastolic value but not the systolic value. The only significant difference by clinic concerned triglycerides, which were higher at the north clinic (154.5), exceeding the recommended level.
Table 2 presents paired t tests of the change in medical outcomes between pre- and postimplementation periods. Compared with their final preimplementation value, individuals’ nadir measurements after intervention implementation were significantly lower for A1c (average decline=−0.68, p<0.001), for LDL (−9.31, p<0.001), for triglycerides (–16.79, p<0.001), and for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (systolic, −12.65, p<0.001; diastolic, −9.20, p<0.001).
| Medical outcome | Change from pre- to postimplementation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | ta | df | |
| Glycosylated hemoglobin | −.68 | 1.16 | 7.55 | 168 |
| Low-density lipoprotein | –9.31 | 24.73 | 4.89 | 168 |
| Triglycerides | –16.79 | 56.35 | 3.73 | 156 |
| Blood pressure | ||||
| Systolic | –12.65 | 10.54 | 15.59 | 168 |
| Diastolic | –9.20 | 7.14 | 16.75 | 168 |
a
Paired t tests compared the final value from the preimplementation period with the nadir value from the postintervention period (p<.001 for all comparisons).
Table 3 presents the results of multivariable interrupted time-series random-effects regression analyses. Significant postimplementation level decline was found in A1c (−0.75, p=0.032), LDL (−19.75, p=0.015), triglycerides (−47.88, p=0.037), and blood pressure ≥130/80 (−2.07, p=0.004). No significant secular trends occurring in outcomes prior to the intervention were noted, with the exception of blood pressure, which showed a small preintervention decline (−0.12, p=0.001). Also, no significant differences were found in outcomes associated with study site, except for mean±SD blood pressure, which was lower at the north than at the south clinic (−0.74±0.24, p=0.002).
| Medical outcome | Estimate | SE | p | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glycosylated hemoglobin | ||||
| Intercept | 7.01 | .16 | <.001 | 6.70, 7.31 |
| Siteb | −.20 | .18 | .267 | −.55, .15 |
| Preimplementation secular trend | −.03 | .02 | .117 | −.07, .01 |
| Postimplementation level change | −.75 | .35 | .032 | –1.43, –.06 |
| N of observations | .07 | .04 | .092 | −.12, .16 |
| Low-density lipoprotein | ||||
| Intercept | 97.61 | 3.71 | <.001 | 90.32, 104.91 |
| Siteb | –1.09 | 4.09 | .791 | –9.17, 7.00 |
| Preimplementation secular trend | −.51 | .49 | .306 | –1.48, .47 |
| Postimplementation level change | –19.75 | 8.07 | .015 | –35.62, –3.89 |
| N of observations | 1.03 | 1.32 | .433 | –1.55, 3.62 |
| Triglycerides | ||||
| Intercept | 130.34 | 9.82 | <.001 | 110.98, 149.69 |
| Siteb | 14.30 | 9.62 | .140 | –4.77, 33.37 |
| Preimplementation secular trend | −.97 | 1.55 | .534 | –4.05, 2.11 |
| Postimplementation level change | –47.88 | 22.75 | .037 | –92.83, –2.93 |
| N of observations | 3.60 | 4.49 | .422 | –5.23, 12.44 |
| Blood pressurec | ||||
| Intercept | −.87 | .24 | <.001 | –1.34, –.41 |
| Siteb | −.74 | .24 | .002 | –1.22, –.27 |
| Preimplementation secular trend | −.12 | .04 | .001 | −.19, –.05 |
| Postimplementation level change | –2.07 | .71 | .004 | –3.46, –.68 |
| N of observations | .02 | .08 | .822 | −.13, .17 |
a
The analysis controlled for preimplementation trends, clinic site, and number of observations among patients.
b
1=north clinic; 0=south clinic.
c
≥130/80=1; <130/80=0.
Finally, we examined changes in the proportions of patients who completed specialty care appointments for monofilament foot and dilated eye examinations. Results (not shown) revealed significant increases in the proportion completing eye exams, from 23% preimplementation (N=40 of 173) to 34% postimplementation (N=58 of 173) (χ2=4.46, N=173, df=1, p=0.023), as well as increases in the proportion completing foot examinations, from 17% (N=30 of 174) to 28% (N=48 of 174) (χ2=5.35, N=174, df=1, p=0.014).
Discussion
Following introduction of a multicomponent intervention designed to improve patient outcomes and adherence to diabetes care standards, significant improvement was noted in glucose, lipid, and blood pressure indicators. In addition, patient completion of optometry referrals increased by 44% and completion of podiatry referrals increased by 60%. Ours is the first study to show that this combination of evidence-based intervention components, previously found effective for other populations, was associated with improvement in a population of individuals with co-occurring diabetes and serious mental illnesses.
More limited success was achieved with specialty care outcomes, despite extensive planning with the directors of university eye and podiatry clinics. Accommodations included setting aside special dates and times for appointments, provision of transportation, telephone reminders, and support from the project’s care coordinator who “hung out” with patients in clinic waiting areas providing magazines and healthy snacks. This speaks to persistent barriers to receiving care outside the health home when patients are required to travel to unfamiliar treatment locations. The patient appointment no-show rate for the on-site clinics was a noteworthy 24%, and thus keeping off-site appointments at university outpatient clinics remained particularly challenging.
The care coordinator devoted considerable effort to engaging behavioral health staff in an understanding of each patient’s diabetes management goals. In particular, sharing patients’ report cards and individualized education materials with mental health staff, along with reminders to discuss them at the next meeting, helped provide a consistent message to patients about self-managing their diabetes. The report card motivated patients by visually illustrating how their medical test results were improving, remaining stable, or worsening over time. Dedicating the time of the care manager to maintaining the registry and generating specialized reports helped fill a gap in information that clinics’ nursing staff and management had identified as problematic.
The diabetes education toolkit was used in several ways. Although primary care providers were well educated about diabetes, they expressed appreciation for being able to access a variety of handouts written at a level their patients could understand. Because behavioral health staff were not well educated about diabetes or diabetes self-management strategies, they used the toolkit to increase their own and their clients’ awareness of diabetes basics, available treatments, common comorbidities, and self-management strategies. As such, the toolkit helped both sets of staff to deliver easily understandable and consistent messages to patients about how to better manage their diabetes. (This toolkit is updated annually and can be accessed along with a simple diabetes tracking spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel at https://www.center4healthandsdc.org/diabetes-education-toolkit.html).
Approximately 55% of clinic patients reported being current smokers, which may have interfered with their achievement of targeted health outcomes. Although nurses reported that they encouraged smoking cessation at every visit, coordinated efforts to engage patients in accessible, evidence-based smoking cessation classes might have helped improve their diabetes and overall health outcomes (56, 57). Similarly, 49% of patients were obese, and another 14% were overweight. Although nurses encouraged weight loss, patients did not have access to evidence-based weight management classes that were welcoming to people in mental health recovery (58).
Several caveats apply to our findings. First, our study population came from a single behavioral health home and was not a nationally representative sample, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, our data came from EHRs and the reports of podiatrists and optometrists regarding specialty visit completion. Data gathered directly from patients would have shed light on their reactions to the educational materials and their satisfaction with primary care services. Third, in the absence of a randomized controlled trial, we cannot attribute the positive changes we observed to the intervention itself. Finally, use of a sole care coordinator may also limit the generalizability of findings regarding this role’s impact.
Conclusions
Comorbid mental illness and diabetes are associated with poor quality of life, low treatment adherence, inferior glycemic control, frequent use of emergency department and inpatient care, and high medical costs (6, 59). Costs for patients with co-occurring psychiatric and endocrinal disorders are twofold or even higher (depending on treatment setting), compared with costs incurred by patents with endocrinal disorders alone (1). To address these formidable obstacles, our findings and those of others can be used to create interventions that incorporate additional evidence-based practices. These include proven weight reduction strategies (60), smoking cessation models (61), and substance use treatment (62) that address the needs of lower-income populations with limited health literacy and additional general medical and behavioral health comorbidities. Finally, research using rigorous designs will be required to further develop these types of interventions and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness.
Footnotes
This research was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research of the Administration for Community Living, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and by the Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, under cooperative agreements 90RT5012 and 90RT5038. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, and Thresholds of Chicago.
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any federal agency.
References
1.
Balhara YPS: Diabetes and psychiatric disorders. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2011; 15:274–283
2.
Holt RI, Mitchell AJ: Diabetes mellitus and severe mental illness: mechanisms and clinical implications. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2015; 11:79–89
3.
Dixon LB, Wohlheiter K: Diabetes and mental illness: factors to keep in mind. Consultant 2003; 43:337–343
4.
Frayne SM, Halanych JH, Miller DR, et al: Disparities in diabetes care: impact of mental illness. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:2631–2638
5.
Goldberg RW, Kreyenbuhl JA, Medoff DR, et al: Quality of diabetes care among adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2007; 58:536–543
6.
Kilbourne AM, Pirraglia PA, Lai Z, et al: Quality of general medical care among patients with serious mental illness: does colocation of services matter? Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:922–928
7.
Pirraglia PA, Rowland E, Wu WC, et al: Benefits of a primary care clinic co-located and integrated in a mental health setting for veterans with serious mental illness. Prev Chronic Dis 2012; 9:E51
8.
Hamm JA, Buck KD, Gonzalvo JD: Clinical application of patient-centered diabetes care for people with serious mental illness. Clin Diabetes 2017; 35:313–320
9.
Rawlins WS, Toscano-Garand MA, Graham G: Diabetes management with a care coordinator improves glucose control in African Americans and Hispanics. J Educ Health Promot 2017; 6:22
10.
Han W, Sharman R, Heider A, et al: Impact of electronic diabetes registry “Meaningful Use” on quality of care and hospital utilization. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23:242–247
11.
Ceriello A, Barkai L, Christiansen JS, et al: Diabetes as a case study of chronic disease management with a personalized approach: the role of a structured feedback loop. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012; 98:5–10
12.
McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al: Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies: conceptual frameworks and their application to evaluating care coordination interventions. Health Aff 2011; 30:746–754
13.
Ehrlich C, Kendall E, Muenchberger H: Spanning boundaries and creating strong patient relationships to coordinate care are strategies used by experienced chronic condition care coordinators. Contemp Nurse 2012; 42:67–75
14.
Griswold KS, Homish GG, Pastore PA, et al: A randomized trial: are care navigators effective in connecting patients to primary care after psychiatric crisis? Community Ment Health J 2010; 46:398–402
15.
Druss BG, von Esenwein SA, Compton MT, et al: A randomized trial of medical care management for community mental health settings: the Primary Care Access, Referral, and Evaluation (PCARE) study. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167:151–159
16.
Kupersmith J, Francis J, Kerr E, et al: Advancing evidence-based care for diabetes: lessons from the Veterans Health Administration. Health Aff 2007; 26:w156–w168
17.
Ortiz DD: Using a simple patient registry to improve your chronic disease care. Fam Pract Manag 2006; 13:47–48, 51–52
18.
Hummel J: Building a computerized disease registry for chronic illness management of diabetes. Clin Diabetes 2000; 18:107–115
19.
Welch G, Zagarins SE, Santiago-Kelly P, et al: An internet-based diabetes management platform improves team care and outcomes in an urban Latino population. Diabetes Care 2015; 38:561–567
20.
Toh MP, Leong HSS, Lim BK: Development of a diabetes registry to improve quality of care in the National Healthcare Group in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap 2009; 38:546–6
21.
Morrow RW, Fletcher J, Kelly KF, et al: Improving diabetes outcomes using a web-based registry and interactive education: a multisite collaborative approach. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2013; 33:136–144
22.
Powers MA, Bardsley J, Cypress M, et al: Diabetes self-management education and support in type 2 diabetes: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Diabetes Educ 2017; 43:40–53
23.
Clark M, Hampson SE, Avery L, et al: Effects of a tailored lifestyle self-management intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Health Psychol 2004; 9:365–379
24.
Scott D, Platania-Phung C, Happell B: Quality of care for cardiovascular disease and diabetes amongst individuals with serious mental illness and those using antipsychotic medications. J Healthc Qual 2012; 34:15–21
25.
Dixon LB, Kreyenbuhl JA, Dickerson FB, et al: A comparison of type 2 diabetes outcomes among persons with and without severe mental illnesses. Psychiatr Serv 2004; 55:892–900
26.
McKibbin CL, Patterson TL, Norman G, et al: A lifestyle intervention for older schizophrenia patients with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Schizophr Res 2006; 86:36–44
27.
Cimo A, Stergiopoulos E, Cheng C, et al: Effective lifestyle interventions to improve type II diabetes self-management for those with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 2012; 12:24
28.
Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, et al: Transforming physician practices to patient-centered medical homes: lessons from the national demonstration project. Health Aff 2011; 30:439–445
29.
Daumit GL, Stone EM, Kennedy-Hendricks A, et al: Care coordination and population health management strategies and challenges in a behavioral health home model. Med Care 2019; 57:79–84
30.
Alexander L, Druss B: Behavioral Health Homes for People With Mental Health and Substance Use Conditions: The Core Clinical Features. Washington, DC, SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions, 2012
31.
Marion LN, Braun S, Anderson D, et al: Center for Integrated Health Care: primary and mental health care for people with severe and persistent mental illnesses. J Nurs Educ 2004; 43:71–74
32.
Richman EL, Lombardi BM, Zerden LD: Mapping colocation: using national provider identified data to assess primary care and behavioral health colocation. Fam Syst Health 2020; 38:16–23
33.
Nardi D: Integrated physical and mental health care at a nurse-managed clinic: report from the trenches. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 2011; 49:28–34
34.
Sefton M, Brigell E, Yingling C, et al: A journey to become a federally qualified health center. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2011; 23:346–350
35.
Mesidor M, Gidugu V, Rogers ES, et al: A qualitative study: barriers and facilitators to health care access for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2011; 34:285–294
36.
Wells R, Breckenridge ED, Ajaz S, et al: Integrating primary care into community mental health centres in Texas, USA: results of a case study investigation. Int J Integr Care 2019; 19:1
37.
Errichetti KS, Flynn A, Gaitan E, et al: Randomized trial of reverse colocated integrated care on persons with severe, persistent mental illness in southern Texas. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35:2035–2042
38.
Scharf DM, Eberhart NK, Hackbarth NS, et al: Evaluation of the SAMHSA Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration (PBHCI) Grant Program: Final Report (Task 13). RR-546-DHHS. Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corp, 2014
39.
Davis KE, Brigell E, Christiansen K, et al: Integrated primary and mental health care services: an evolving partnership model. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2011; 34:317–320
40.
McDevitt J, Braun S, Noyes M, et al: Integrated primary and mental health care: evaluating a nurse-managed center for clients with serious and persistent mental illness. Nurs Clin 2005; 40:779–790
41.
McDevitt J, Rose DN, Marion L: Integrating primary and mental health care in an innovative educational model. Nurs Health Care Perspect 2001; 22:62
42.
Clausen W, Watanabe-Galloway S, Bill Baerentzen M, et al: Health literacy among people with serious mental illness. Community Ment Health J 2016; 52:399–405
43.
Krishan S, von Esenwein SA, Druss BG: The health literacy of adults with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2012; 63:397
44.
Lincoln A, Espejo D, Johnson P, et al: Limited literacy and psychiatric disorders among users of an urban safety-net hospital’s mental health outpatient clinic. J Nerv Ment Dis 2008; 196:687–693
45.
Hudson J, Fielding S, Ramsay CR: Methodology and reporting characteristics of studies using interrupted time series design in healthcare. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19:137–144
46.
Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, et al: Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27:299–309
47.
Ansari F, Gray K, Nathwani D, et al: Outcomes of an intervention to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing: interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 52:842–848
48.
Penfold RB, Zhang F: Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements. Acad Pediatr 2013; 13(suppl):S38–S44
49.
American Diabetes Association: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care 2010; 33(suppl 1):S11–S61
50.
Fesseha BK, Abularrage CJ, Hines KF, et al: Association of hemoglobin A1c and wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 2018; 41:1478–1485
51.
Simpson RW, Carter RD, Moore RA, et al: Diurnal changes in plasma lipoproteins in normal subjects and diabetics. Diabetologia 1980; 18:35–40
52.
D’Erasmo L, Di Costanzo A, Cassandra F, et al: Spectrum of mutations and long-term clinical outcomes in genetic chylomicronemia syndromes. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2019; 39:2531–2541
53.
Fernstrom JD, Courcoulas AP, Houck PR, et al: Long-term changes in blood pressure in extremely obese patients who have undergone bariatric surgery. Arch Surg 2006; 141:276–283
54.
Sakamoto M, Matsutani D, Minato S, et al: Seasonal variations in the achievement of guideline targets for hba1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol among patients with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide population-based study (ABC Study: JDDM49). Diabetes Care 2019; 42:816–823
55.
Yu GC, Beresford R: Implementation of a chronic illness model for diabetes care in a family medicine residency program. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25:615–619
56.
Myers MG, Strong DR, Chen TC, et al: Enhancing engagement in evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment for smokers with mental illness: a pilot randomized trial. J Subst Abuse Treat 2020; 111:29–36
57.
Ferron JC, Devitt T, McHugo GJ, et al: Abstinence and use of community-based cessation treatment after a motivational intervention among smokers with severe mental illness. Community Ment Health J 2016; 52:446–456
58.
Brown C, Goetz J, Hamera E: Weight loss intervention for people with serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial of the RENEW program. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:800–802
59.
Hutter N, Schnurr A, Baumeister H: Healthcare costs in patients with diabetes mellitus and comorbid mental disorders—a systematic review. Diabetologia 2010; 53:2470–2479
60.
Daumit GL, Dickerson FB, Wang NY, et al: A behavioral weight-loss intervention in persons with serious mental illness. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1594–1602
61.
Brunette MF, Ferron JC, McHugo GJ, et al: An electronic decision support system to motivate people with severe mental illnesses to quit smoking. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:360–366
62.
Banerjea R, Sambamoorthi U, Smelson D, et al: Chronic illness with complexities: mental illness and substance use among Veteran clinic users with diabetes. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2007; 33:807–821
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 13 February 2020
Revision received: 19 October 2020
Accepted: 19 October 2020
Published online: 23 April 2021
Published in print: August 01, 2021
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).