Primary care usual and supplemental provider type: Are there differences in patient's intermediate diabetes outcomes?
Problem
The Veterans Affairs (VA) health system utilizes Patient-Aligned Care Teams with a primary care provider (PCP) that may be a doctor, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician associate (PA). Each PCP is responsible for a patient panel. However, PCPs may provide supplemental visits to patients assigned to other PCPs within the same clinic. This study examined whether there are differences in diabetes outcomes among patients with different types of primary and supplemental providers.
Approach
The study included adult diabetes patients receiving primary care within the VA system in 2012 and 2013. A patient’s PCP was defined as the provider most often visited in 2012. We examined the relationship between the PCP’s and supplemental providers’ professions (MD only; MD PCP+ NP supplement; MD PCP+PA supplement; NP PCP+ MD supplement; NP PCP, no MD; PA PCP+ MD supplement; PA PCP, no MD) for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), in 2013. Hierarchical linear mixed models with random intercepts to account for clustering by VA facility and PCP were used to analyze continuous outcomes. Logistic regression models fit with generalized estimating equations and an exchangeable correlation structure and empirical standard errors were fit to dichotomous outcomes. Control variables included gender, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, homelessness, co-pay status, mental health diagnoses, health status (diagnostic cost group), travel distance to clinic, availability of specialized diabetes services at the clinic, rurality of the clinic, and region of the U.S. A priori thresholds for clinical importance/significance for differences in outcome were set for interpretation.
Findings
The sample included 611,790 patients. Patient outcomes for primary and supplemental provider are compared to doctor-only care (see table). HbA1c SBP LDL-C Clinical Importance Clinical Importance Clinical Importance Threshold 0.3% Threshold: 3.0 mmHg Threshold: 5.0mg/dL Difference Difference Difference % (95% CI) mmHg (95% CI) mg/dL (95% CI) MD only (reference) (N=409,703) - - - - - -MD PCP + NP supplement (N=40,078) 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03) 0.04 (-0.13, 0.21) 0.61 (0.22, 0.99)MD PCP + PA supplement (N=24,814) 0.04 (0.02, 0.07) -0.08 (-0.30, 0.14) 0.16 (-0.35, 0.66)NP PCP + MD supplement (N=32,320) 0.01 (-0.004, 0.03) 0.17 (-0.004, 0.34) 1.90 (1.51, 2.29)PA PCP + MD supplement (N=14,431) 0.03 (0.004, 0.06) -0.17 (-0.42, 0.09) 1.40 (0.82, 1.99)NP PCP no MD (N=66,395) -0.06 (-0.07, -0.04) -0.39 (-0.52, -0.26) 0.81 (0.51, 1.12)PA PCP no MD (N=24,049) -0.03 (-0.06, -0.01) -0.17 (-0.37, 0.03) 0.53 (0.06, 0.99)No clinically important variation in outcomes based on the profession of the patient’s PCP or supplemental provider were found.
Consequences
These findings suggests that NPs and PAs may safely deliver primary care to patients with diabetes in a range of roles.