JCEHP JCEHP JCEHP JCEHP JCEHP  
     title   icon icon icon  
  icon icon icon  
HOME  |  SITE MAP  |  CONTACT US
Your Location: Home > Volume 25, Issue 2 

CURRENT ISSUE

BACK ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

ADVERTISE

ABOUT JCEHP

FOR AUTHORS

JCEHP AWARD

SEARCH

(Members only) FULL-TEXT
 
Volume 25 (2)

Volume 25, Issue 2, Spring 2005line
J Contin Educ Health Prof 2005; 25(2):87-97
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Teleconferenced Educational Detailing: Diabetes Education for Primary Care Physicians
Stewart B. Harris, MD, MPH, FCFP, FACPM
Lawrence A. Leiter, MD, FRCPC, FACP
Susan Webster-Bogaert, MA
Daphne M. Van, BScN, RN
Colleen O'Neill, BSc

A b s t r a c t

Introduction: Formal didactic continuing medical education (CME) is relatively ineffective for changing physician behaviur. Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent disease, and interventions to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed.
Methods: A stratified, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design was used to evaluate the effects of a teleconferenced educational detailing (TED) CME on glycemic control (hemoglobin [Hb] A1c) and family physician adherence to national diabetes guidelines. TED employed sequential, small-group, case-based education using CPGs delivered by a diabetes specialist. Medical record audit data from baseline through the end of a 12-month postintervention period were compared for the control and intervention groups. Satisfaction with the intervention was evaluated.
Results: Sixty-one physicians provided 660 medical records. The intervention did not affect mean Hb A1c levels but did significantly (p = .04) alter the distribution of patients by category of glycemic control, with fewer in the intervention group in inadequate control (15.8% versus 23.9%). More patients took insulin (alone or with oral agents) in the intervention group (21.2% versus 12.0%, p = .03), and more took oral agents only in the control group (89.0% versus 82.9%, p = .005). More patients in the intervention group had documentation of body mass index (7.8% versus 1.9%, p < .02), eye exam (12.1% versus 5.1%, p = .02), and treatment plan (43.5% versus 23.6%, p = .01) and used a flow sheet (14.6% versus 7.7%, p < .03). Although there was general satisfaction with the teleconferencing format, specialist educators found the format more challenging than the family physicians.
Discussion: CME delivered by teleconference was feasible, well attended, well received by participants, and improved some key diabetes management practices and outcomes.

Lessons for Practice
  • CME delivered by teleconference was feasible, well attended, and well received by physicians
  • Because the TED intervention positively affected some areas of diabetes management but not others, further research is needed to determine why some practice behaviors remain resistant to change
  • Because diabetes is a serious and prevalent disease, it is incumbent on the medical profession to research and design CME that optimizes physicians' adherence to diabetes clinical practice guidelines
Key Words: Diabetes Mellitus, Continuing Medical Education, Primary Care, Teleconference, Clinical Practice Guidelines

MeSH Terms: Diabetes Mellitus; Education, Medical, Continuing; Physician's Practice Patterns; Physicians, Family; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Telecommunications
line


Copyright © 1996-2012
JCEHP.com & The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
All rights reserved
Disclaimer ·  About This Site ·  Web Editor  · Make JCEHP Your Homepage

Information on this site was last updated: 31 January 2012