Despite immense strides in therapeutic advances, clinical outcomes continue to be less than ideal for people with type 1 diabetes. This discrepancy has prompted an outpouring of quality improvement (QI) initiatives to address the medical, psychosocial, and health equity challenges that complicate ideal type 1 diabetes care and outcomes. This article reviews a framework for QI in diabetes care that guided the development of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative to improve care delivery and health outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Evaluation of the methodology, outcomes, and knowledge gained from these initiatives will highlight the importance of continued QI initiatives in diabetes care.

Background: We describe the utilization of telemedicine visits (video or telephone) across the type 1 diabetes (T1D) Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Metrics, site-level survey results, and examples of interventions conducted to support telemedicine in T1D are shown. Materials and Methods: Thirteen clinics (11 pediatric, 2 adult) provided monthly telemedicine metrics between December 2019 and August 2020 and 21 clinics completed a survey about their telemedicine practices. Results: The proportion of telemedicine visits in T1DX-QI before the pandemic was <1%, rising to an average of 95.2% in April 2020 (range 52.3%-99.5%). Three sites initially used mostly telephone visits before converting to video visits. By August 2020, the proportion of telemedicine visits decreased to an average of 45% across T1DX-QI (range 10%-86.6%). The majority of clinics (62%) performed both video and telephone visits; Zoom was the most popular video platform used. Over 95% of clinics reported using CareLink™, Clarity®, Glooko™, and/or t:connect® to view device data, with only one center reporting automated data upload into the electronic medical record. The majority of centers had multidisciplinary teams participating in the video visits. All sites reported reimbursement for video visits, and 95% of sites reported coverage for telephone visits early on in the pandemic. Conclusions: There was rapid adoption of telemedicine in T1DX-QI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future insurance reimbursement for telemedicine visits and the ideal ratio of telemedicine to in-person visits in T1D care remain to be determined.

Objective

We examined whether diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a serious complication of type 1 diabetes (T1D) was more prevalent among Non-Hispanic (NH) Black and Hispanic patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with NH Whites.

Method

This is a cross-sectional study of patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 52 clinical sites in the United States, data were collected from April to August 2020. We examined the distribution of patient factors and DKA events across NH White, NH Black, and Hispanic race/ethnicity groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the odds of DKA among NH Black and Hispanic patients with T1D as compared with NH White patients, adjusting for potential confounders, such as age, sex, insurance, and last glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level.

Results

We included 180 patients with T1D and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the analysis. Forty-four percent (n = 79) were NH White, 31% (n = 55) NH Black, 26% (n = 46) Hispanic. NH Blacks and Hispanics had higher median HbA1c than Whites (%-points [IQR]: 11.7 [4.7], P < 0.001, and 9.7 [3.1] vs 8.3 [2.4], P = 0.01, respectively). We found that more NH Black and Hispanic presented with DKA compared to Whites (55% and 33% vs 13%, P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). After adjusting for potential confounders, NH Black patients continued to have greater odds of presenting with DKA compared with NH Whites (OR [95% CI]: 3.7 [1.4, 10.6]).

Conclusion

We found that among T1D patients with COVID-19 infection, NH Black patients were more likely to present in DKA compared with NH White patients. Our findings demonstrate additional risk among NH Black patients with T1D and COVID-19.

Objective

This study evaluated the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) combined with family behavioral intervention (CGM+FBI) and CGM alone (Standard-CGM) on glycemic outcomes and parental quality of life compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in children ages 2 to <8 years with type 1 diabetes.

Research design and methods

This was a multicenter (N = 14), 6-month, randomized controlled trial including 143 youth 2 to <8 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Primary analysis included treatment group comparisons of percent time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) across follow-up visits.

Results

Approximately 90% of participants in the CGM groups used CGM ≥6 days/week at 6 months. Between-group TIR comparisons showed no significant changes: CGM+FBI vs. BGM 3.2% (95% CI -0.5, 7.0), Standard-CGM vs. BGM 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6), CGM+FBI vs. Standard-CGM 2.7% (-0.6, 6.1). Mean time with glucose level <70 mg/dL was reduced from baseline to follow-up in the CGM+FBI (from 5.2% to 2.6%) and Standard-CGM (5.8% to 2.5%) groups, compared with 5.4% to 5.8% with BGM (CGM+FBI vs. BGM, P < 0.001, and Standard-CGM vs. BGM, P < 0.001). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM+FBI group, one occurred in the Standard-CGM group, and five occurred in the BGM group. CGM+FBI parents reported greater reductions in diabetes burden and fear of hypoglycemia compared with Standard-CGM (P = 0.008 and 0.04) and BGM (P = 0.02 and 0.002).

Conclusions

CGM used consistently over a 6-month period in young children with type 1 diabetes did not improve TIR but did significantly reduce time in hypoglycemia. The FBI benefited parental well-being.