Abstract Background Little is known about the relationship between patients' cultural and linguistic backgrounds and patient activation, especially in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We examined the association between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background and patient activation and evaluated the impact of a codesigned integrated kidney and diabetes model of care on patient activation by CALD status in people with diabetes and CKD. Methods This longitudinal study recruited adults with diabetes and CKD (Stage 3a or worse) who attended a new diabetes and kidney disease service at a tertiary hospital. All completed the patient activation measure at baseline and after 12 months and had demographic and clinical data collected. Patients from CALD backgrounds included individuals who spoke a language other than English at home, while those from non‐CALD backgrounds spoke English only as their primary language. Paired t‐tests compared baseline and 12‐month patient activation scores by CALD status. Results Patients from CALD backgrounds had lower activation scores (52.1 ± 17.6) compared to those from non‐CALD backgrounds (58.5 ± 14.6) at baseline. Within‐group comparisons showed that patient activation scores for patients from CALD backgrounds significantly improved by 7 points from baseline to 12 months follow‐up (52.1 ± 17.6–59.4 ± 14.7), and no significant change was observed for those from non‐CALD backgrounds (58.5 ± 14.6–58.8 ± 13.6). Conclusions Among patients with diabetes and CKD, those from CALD backgrounds report worse activation scores. Interventions that support people from CALD backgrounds with comorbid diabetes and CKD, such as the integrated kidney and diabetes model of care, may address racial and ethnic disparities that exist in patient activation and thus improve clinical outcomes. Patient or Public Contribution Patients, caregivers and national consumer advocacy organisations (Diabetes Australia and Kidney Health Australia) codesigned a new model of care in partnership with healthcare professionals and researchers. The development of the model of care was informed by focus groups of patients and healthcare professionals and semi‐structured interviews of caregivers and healthcare professionals. Patients and caregivers also provided a rigorous evaluation of the new model of care, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses.

ABSTRACT Background Current healthcare models are ill-equipped for managing people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the impact of a new diabetes and kidney disease service (DKS) on hospitalization, mortality, clinical and patient-relevant outcomes. Methods Longitudinal analyses of adult patients with diabetes and CKD (Stages 3a–5) were performed using outpatient and hospitalization data from January 2015 to October 2018. Data were handled according to whether patients received the DKS intervention (n = 196) or standard care (n = 7511). The DKS provided patient-centred, coordinated multidisciplinary assessment and management of patients. Primary analyses examined hospitalization and mortality rates between the two groups. Secondary analyses evaluated the impact of the DKS on clinical target attainment, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), self-care and patient activation at 12 months. Results Patients who received the intervention had a higher hospitalization rate {incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.30]; P < 0.0001}, shorter median length of stay {2 days [interquartile range (IQR) 1–6] versus 4 days [IQR 1–9]; P < 0.0001} and lower all-cause mortality rate [IRR 0.4 (95% CI 0.29–0.64); P < 0.0001] than those who received standard care. Improvements in overall self-care [mean difference 2.26 (95% CI 0.83–3.69); P < 0.001] and in statin use and eye and feet examinations were observed. The mean eGFR did not change significantly after 12 months [mean difference 1.30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI −4.17–1.67); P = 0.40]. HbA1c levels significantly decreased by 0.40, 0.35, 0.34 and 0.23% at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of follow-up, respectively. Conclusions A co-designed, person-centred integrated model of care improved all-cause mortality, kidney function, glycaemic control and self-care for patients with diabetes and CKD.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the economy and health system of most countries in the world and this is also true of Australia. Australia has not seen the huge surge of COVID-19 positive cases and subsequent hospitalisations and deaths experienced in other parts of the world. However there have been important social and health strategies to "flatten" the curve, to reduce infections and to manage those infected. These have included closure of international and interstate borders, local lockdown measures, physical distancing, shift to work from home, closure of non-essential businesses and full or partial closure of all schools and tertiary education facilities. From the diabetes care perspective, there was a significant and concerted diversion of hospital resources and staff to COVID-19 specific activities. Reduced access to primary care, diagnostic and hospital services for diabetes, combined with fear of exposure to the virus in these settings, led to a significant drop in access to usual diabetes care. Provision of outpatient and private sector diabetes services via telehealth was encouraged and supported by expanded and new government subsidies. Importantly, for the first time, there was government funded subsidy for care delivered via the telephone and inclusion of credentialled diabetes educators in funded telephone/telehealth support. The Australian health professional and consumer organisations worked cooperatively producing guidelines, position statements and other educational resources specific for the COVID-19 setting. Once the COVID-19 pandemic is over, review of all the changes will be important, determining which should be permanently implemented. The learnings from COVID-19 should help prepare Australia for future pandemics or other major health crises.

While multi-disciplinary diabetes and renal clinics have been shown to improve surrogate clinical outcomes such as HbA1c and renal function decline, their impact on patient self-care is uncertain. We evaluated the impact of an integrated, person-centred diabetes and kidney disease clinic and model of care on diabetes self-care for patients with co-morbid diabetes and CKD.

The impact of multi-disciplinary diabetes and renal clinics on patient activation, which describes the knowledge, skills, and confidence a person has in managing their own health and health care is uncertain. We evaluated the degree to which an integrated, person-centred diabetes and kidney disease clinic and model of care influenced patient activation among patients with co-morbid diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

BACKGROUND:To address guideline-practice gaps and improve management of patients with both diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), we involved patients, health professionals and patient advocacy groups in the co-design and implementation of an integrated diabetes-kidney service.OBJECTIVE:In this study, we explored the experiences of patients and health-care providers, within this integrated diabetes and kidney service.METHODS:5 focus groups and 2 semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst attending patients, referring primary health professionals, and attending specialist health professionals. Maximal variation sampling was used for both patients and referring primary health professionals to ensure an equal representation of males and females, and patients of different CKD stages. All discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, before being thematically analysed independently by 2 researchers.RESULTS:The mean age (SD) for specialist health professionals, primary care professionals and patients who participated was 45 (11), 44 (15) and 68 (5) years with men being 50%, 80% and 76% of the participants respectively. Key strengths of the diabetes and kidney service were noted to be better integration of care and a perception of improved health and management of health. Whilst some aspects of access such as time between referral and initial appointment and having fewer appointments improved, other aspects such as in-clinic waiting times and parking remained problematic. Specialist health professionals noted that health professional education could be improved. Patient self-management was also noted by to be an issue with some patients requesting more information and some health professionals expressing difficulty in empowering some patients.CONCLUSIONS:Health professionals and patients reported that a co-designed integrated diabetes kidney service improved integration of care and improved health and management of health. However, some aspects of the process of care, health professional education and patient self-management remained challenging.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of an integrated diabetes and kidney disease model of care on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with comorbid diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD).Research design and methodsA longitudinal study of adult patients (over 18 years) with comorbid diabetes and CKD (stage 3a or worse) who attended a new diabetes kidney disease service was conducted at a tertiary hospital. A questionnaire consisting of demographics, clinical data, and the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) was administered at baseline and after 12 months. Paired t-tests were used to compare baseline and 12-month scores. A subgroup analysis examined the effects by patient gender. Multiple regression analysis examined the factors associated with changes in scores.Results179 patients, 36% of whom were female, with baseline mean±SD age of 65.9±11.3 years, were studied. Across all subscales, HRQOL did not significantly change over time (p value for all mean differences >0.05). However, on subgroup analysis, symptom problem list and physical composite summary scores increased among women (MD=9.0, 95% CI 1.25 to 16.67; p=0.02 and MD=4.5, 95% CI 0.57 to 8.42; p=0.03 respectively) and physical composite scores decreased among men (MD=−3.35, 95% CI −6.26 to −0.44; p=0.03).ConclusionThe HRQOL of patients with comorbid diabetes and CKD attending a new codesigned, integrated diabetes and kidney disease model of care was maintained over 12 months. Given that HRQOL is known to deteriorate over time in this high-risk population, the impact of these findings on clinical outcomes warrants further investigation.

Aims: Gestational diabetes (GDM) and Type 2 diabetes pose tremendous health and economic burdens as worldwide incidence increases. Primary care-based systematic diabetes screening and prevention programs could be effective in women with previous GDM. GooD4Mum aimed to determine whether a Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) would improve postpartum diabetes screening and prevention planning in women with previous GDM in general practice. Methods: Fifteen general practices within victoria (Australia) participated in a 12-month QIC, consisting of baseline and four quarterly audits, guideline-led workshops and Plan-Do-Study-Act feedback cycles after each audit. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of women on local GDM registers completing a diabetes screening test and a diabetes prevention planning consultation within the previous 15 months. Results: Diabetes screening increased with rates more than doubled from 26% to 61% and postpartum screening increased from 43%-60%. Diabetes prevention planning consultations did not show the same level of increase (0%-10%). The recording of body mass index improved overall (51%-69%) but the number of women with normal body mass index did not. Conclusions: GooD4Mum supported increased diabetes screening and the monitoring of high risk women with previous GDM in general practice. (C) 2018 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are two of the most prevalent co-morbid chronic diseases in Australia. The increasing complexity of multi-morbidity, and current gaps in health-care delivery for people with co-morbid diabetes and CKD, emphasize the need for better models of care for this population. Previously, proposed published models of care for co-morbid diabetes and CKD have not been co-designed with stake-holders or formally evaluated. Particular components of health-care shown to be effective in this population are interventions that: are structured, intensive and multifaceted (treating diabetes and multiple cardiovascular risk factors); involve multiple medical disciplines; improve self-management by the patient; and upskill primary health-care. Here we present an integrated patient-centred model of health-care delivery incorporating these components and co-designed with key stake-holders including specialist health professionals, general practitioners and Diabetes and Kidney Health Australia. The development of the model of care was informed by focus groups of patients and health-professionals; and semi-structured interviews of care-givers and health professionals. Other distinctives of this model of care are routine screening for psychological morbidity; patient-support through a phone advice line; and focused primary health-care support in the management of diabetes and CKD. Additionally, the model of care integrates with the patient-centred health-care home currently being rolled out by the Australian Department of Health. This model of care will be evaluated after implementation across two tertiary health services and their primary care catchment areas.Summary at a Glance The review outlines the development of a model of care for patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, involving the multiple stake holders. Other distinctive features of this model of care are routine screening for psychological morbidity; patient-support through a phone advice line; and focused primary health-care support in the management of diabetes and CKD.

About 2 million Australians have prediabetes and are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a fast-growing epidemic and the economic costs are estimated to be $14.6 billion per year in Australia. Strong evidence from randomised controlled trials shows type 2 diabetes can be prevented in up to 58% of people at high risk, through structured lifestyle intervention. Good evidence and experience obtained from translational studies in Australia shows we can deliver effective community-based prevention programs. To be effective, a national strategy for prevention of type 2 diabetes should involve two concurrent approaches - a targeted approach aimed at those most at risk (ie, with prediabetes) combined with an environments, systems and behaviour approach for the entire population. Australia's current efforts in both these areas are not nationwide, not large scale and often not sustained.

OBJECTIVE The Australian lifestyle intervention program Life! is only the second reported, large-scale diabetes prevention program. This article describes the genesis and the successful establishment of Life! and its key outcomes for participants and implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Life!, a behavior-change intervention, comprises six group sessions over 8 months. The Victorian Department of Health funded Diabetes Australia–Victoria to implement the program. Experience of the Greater Green Triangle diabetes prevention implementation trial was used for intervention design, workforce development, training, and infrastructure. Clinical and anthropometric data from participants, used for program evaluation, were recorded on a central database. RESULTS Life! has a statewide workforce of 302 trained facilitators within 137 organizations. Over 29,000 Victorians showed interest in Life!, and 15,000 individuals have been referred to the program. In total, 8,412 participants commenced a Life! program between October 2007 and June 2011, and 37% of the original participants completed the 8-month program. Participants completing sessions 1 to 5 lost an average of 1.4 kg weight (P < 0.001) and waist circumference of 2.5 cm (P < 0.001). Those completing six sessions lost an average of 2.4 kg weight (P < 0.001) and waist circumference of 3.8 cm (P < 0.001). The weight loss of 2.4 kg represents 2.7% of participants’ starting body weight. CONCLUSIONS The impact of Life! is attributable to applying available evidence for the system’s design of the intervention and collaboration between policy makers, implementers, and evaluators using the principles of continuous quality improvement to support successful, large-scale recruitment and implementation.

Lifestyle interventions are effective in preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk participants. Policy makers need efficient and cost-effective strategies to screen and recruit high-risk participants into appropriate programs. Moreover, since there is a clear dose–response relationship between lifestyle modification program components and outcomes it is important to understand what factors increase adherence. Various strategies in a range of settings have been attempted, to capture high-risk people. Two Australian diabetes prevention programs were compared to identify the critical factors in recruitment and retention. A population health approach with a comprehensive social marketing strategy, telephone support, in a range of settings, particularly with program provider led strategies, holds great promise. Most programs continue be under represented with males, medically underserved and those who are socially disadvantaged. Program retention remains a challenge. Sustained multi-setting, community-wide, population health approaches targeting high-risk participants who are less likely to engage with and complete programs should be explored further.

BACKGROUND:Many public health interventions based on apparently sound evidence from randomised controlled trials encounter difficulties when being scaled up within health systems. Even under the best of circumstances, implementation is exceedingly difficult. In this paper we will describe the implementation salvage experiences from the Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study, which is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness nested in the state-wide Life! Taking Action on Diabetes program in Victoria, Australia.DISCUSSION:The Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study sits within an evolving larger scale implementation project, the Life! program. Changes that occurred during the roll-out of that program had a direct impact on the process of conducting this trial. The issues and methods of recovery the study team encountered were conceptualised using an implementation salvage strategies framework. The specific issues the study team came across included continuity of the state funding for Life! program and structural changes to the Life! program which consisted of adjustments to eligibility criteria, referral processes, structure and content, as well as alternative program delivery for different population groups. Staff turnover, recruitment problems, setting and venue concerns, availability of potential participants and participant characteristics were also identified as evaluation roadblocks. Each issue and corresponding salvage strategy is presented.SUMMARY:The experiences of conducting such a novel trial as the preliminary Melbourne Diabetes Prevention Study have been invaluable. The lessons learnt and knowledge gained will inform the future execution of this trial in the coming years. We anticipate that these results will also be beneficial to other researchers conducting similar trials in the public health field. We recommend that researchers openly share their experiences, barriers and challenges when conducting randomised controlled trials and implementation research. We encourage them to describe the factors that may have inhibited or enhanced the desired outcomes so that the academic community can learn and expand the research foundation of implementation salvage.