• Keiko Asao, James Kaminski, Laura N McEwen, Xiejian Wu, Joyce M Lee, and William H Herman.
• The University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: kasao@uthsc.edu.
• J. Diabetes Complicat. 2014 Sep 1; 28 (5): 639-45.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of three alternative methods to identify diabetes in patients visiting Emergency Departments (EDs), and to describe the characteristics of patients with diabetes who are not identified when the alternative methods are used.Research Design And MethodsWe used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) 2009 and 2010. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of using providers' diagnoses and diabetes medications (both excluding and including biguanides) to identify diabetes compared to using the checkbox for diabetes as the gold standard. We examined the characteristics of patients whose diabetes was missed using multivariate Poisson regression models.ResultsThe checkbox identified 5,567 ED visits by adult patients with diabetes. Compared to the checkbox, the sensitivity was 12.5% for providers' diagnoses alone, 20.5% for providers' diagnoses and diabetes medications excluding biguanides, and 21.5% for providers' diagnoses and diabetes medications including biguanides. The specificity of all three of the alternative methods was >99%. Older patients were more likely to have diabetes not identified. Patients with self-payment, those who had glucose measured or received IV fluids in the ED, and those with more diagnosis codes and medications, were more likely to have diabetes identified.ConclusionsNHAMCS's providers' diagnosis codes and medication lists do not identify the majority of patients with diabetes visiting EDs. The newly introduced checkbox is helpful in measuring ED resource utilization by patients with diabetes.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…