© American Diabetes Association ®, Inc., 2006 Diabetes Self-Management Education for Older Adults: General Principles and Practical Application
In Brief Diabetes self-management education (DSME) for older adults is complicated by the high prevalence of medical comorbidities and declining functional status among this patient population. To adequately meet the DSME needs of older adults, DSME should be individualized, involve multiple disciplines, involve care partners when patients cannot assume full responsibility for their own self-care, and carefully weigh the potential effects of diabetes treatments on quality of life. This article presents pointers for effective DSME for older adults and a case study illustrating some of the particular challenges involved.
Diabetes self-management education (DSME) is an integral part of diabetes care "for all individuals with diabetes who want to achieve successful health-related outcomes," regardless of age.1 The goal of DSME is to enable patients to better manage their diabetes. Medical care in the absence of adequate self-care is rarely effective for chronic illnesses.2 Studies of self-management interventions show that health behaviors, health status, and health care utilization improve with increased patient involvement in daily care.3,4 The value of DSME is evident from research. For example, in one study, patients who never received DSME had a fourfold increased risk for major diabetes complications compared with patients who received some form of DSME.5 More than one-fifth of all patients with diabetes are > 60 years of age.6 As educators, it is important to be aware of current DSME guidelines for older adults and how these guidelines can be incorporated in a clinical setting. However, older adults are under-represented in DSME research studies, so evidence-based guidelines specifically targeted toward older people are difficult to formulate. The American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE) and the American Geriatric Society (AGS) have formulated guidelines for DSME in the elderly largely based on expert consensus.7,8 Both the AGS and AADE guidelines appreciate that the care of older adults with diabetes is complicated by their clinical and functional heterogeneity (Table 1).8,9 Older adults have more medical comorbidities, are functionally more heterogeneous, and have a more variable life expectancy than their younger counterparts. This article reviews the principles that emerge from the AGS and AADE guidelines and presents practical applications for clinical practice. A case study illustrates the particular challenges faced by older adults with diabetes.
Several general principles emerge to guide DSME for older adults based on published literature (Table 2).
Individualize DSME
Clinical variables Treatment goals and management skills may need to be assessed more frequently in this patient population to keep pace with functional and cognitive changes that may occur relatively quickly. Referring these patients to disciplines outside of the diabetes clinic for additional assessment, DSME, or medical management may be necessary.
Nutritional assessment Weight loss and malnutrition must also be assessed in the elderly because unintentional weight loss is known to increase morbidity and mortality in elderly patients with diabetes.13 The risk for weight loss and catabolic state increases for this patient population after acute illness and hospitalization. Moderation in diet and increased physical activity, rather than strict calorie restriction, should be encouraged in older adults who wish to lose weight. The goals of nutrition assessment for elders are summarized in Table 3. The intent of the individual nutrition plan is to minimize barriers in nutrition management and facilitate changes in eating behavior that will result in improved clinical outcomes, improved function, and enhanced quality of life.
Physical activity assessment
Comorbidities and polypharmacy Defining polypharmacywhether it is the use of 5, 10, or 20 medicationsis not easy.16 However, regardless of the definition, most of us recognize polypharmacy when we see it. The diabetes education assessment should include accurate identification of the medications the patient is taking. Asking patients to bring their medications with them can facilitate this. When educators see redundancy in the medication regimen, such as someone being on a sulfonylurea and a short-acting insulin, the educator should bring it to the provider's attention. For insulin regimens, the simpler the better. Insulin pens can eliminate errors associated with drawing up insulin. In some cases, recommending that patients with type 2 diabetes discontinue insulin use may be the best option. The need to prevent hypoglycemia, particularly in the frail elderly, will often outweigh the need for tight control. Combination oral agents may help these patients simplify their regimen. Functional variables. In addition to a clinical assessment, patients must be evaluated with respect to cognitive status and existence of depression and physical disabilities in order to formulate an effective diabetes education plan.
Cognitive dysfunction Cognitive impairment in this population often goes undetected and, if severe enough, can dramatically affect patients' ability to learn about and manage their diabetes. It is important to assess and address cognitive dys-function early in treatment. The extent to which milder cognitive deficits affect diabetes self-management is not really known. One small study (n = 51) indicated that minor cognitive impairment did not significantly affect patients' ability to perform diabetes self-management tasks.21 However, one of the shortcomings of this study was that it did not focus on patients' ability to acquire new knowledge or skills. Diabetes self-management often requires patients to learn new and sometimes complex skills, so assessing their ability to do this effectively before education is important. The Mini Mental Status Exam and Clock in the Box are well-studied tests for screening patients' cognitive functioning before implementing education.22 If these exams are found to be abnormal, then a referral for further neuropsychiatric testing may be warranted along with changes in strategy for diabetes education and management plans. DSME for these individuals should be done on a one-to-one basis and modified as outlined in Table 3.
Depression
Physical disability Based on the discussion above, practical pointers for DSME in older adults found to have functional limitations are as follows:
Personal preferences. Eliciting patients' individual preferences with respect to care is especially important in elderly patients with diabetes. Treatment plans that include patients' preferences enhance adherence, increase patient satisfaction, and increase the likelihood of improved patient outcomes.2 As discussed earlier, the older adult population is heterogeneous. Some patients will need no adjustment to their treatment plan, whereas others who are having physical or cognitive challenges may need significant changes to their regimen (Table 4).
Weigh Potential Benefits Versus Potential Risks Quality of life. Comorbidities, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, or cerebrovascular disease, often dominate the overall health of older patients. In addition, the functional status of older adults is often declining, shifting the focus of care from optimizing treatment goals for individual chronic diseases to optimizing function and quality of life. It is important when prioritizing treatment goals to take patients' quality of life into consideration. The overall goal of care for older adults with diabetes is to achieve the best possible glycemic control while maintaining independence and optimizing quality of life. Life expectancy. In some elderly with diabetes, life expectancy may be shorter than the time needed to benefit from an intervention. Before recommending complicated, costly, or uncomfortable treatment regimens that may result in harmful side effects, reduced adherence to recommended therapies, and reduced general well-being, the timeframe needed to realize benefits should be carefully considered relative to life expectancy.
Involve Multiple Disciplines
Involve Care Partners
The following case study illustrates the application of the general principles for DSME in the elderly.
Mr. Z. is a 78-year-old Russian immigrant who has had type 2 diabetes for
20 years. His blood glucose was initially controlled by oral diabetes
medications (sulfonylureas) until
Mr. Z. has weighed Since his wife died, he lives alone. About 1 year ago, a neighbor found Mr. Z. wandering aimlessly in the street. The neighbor called 911, and Mr. Z. was taken to the local hospital emergency department. His blood glucose on arrival was 27 mg/dl. Mr. Z's primary care physician referred him to the Joslin Geriatric Diabetes Clinic. Initial medical evaluation was remarkable for bilateral cataracts, blood pressure 160/100 mmHg, LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl, serum creatinine 2.1 mg/dl, and hemoglobin A1c (A1C) 9.2%. Screening by a geriatric nurse educator identified mild depression and cognitive impairment. A skills review with the nurse educator revealed that Mr. Z. had reduced his insulin dose after being taken to the emergency department for hypoglycemia a year earlier. He stated that he was unwilling to endure another hypoglycemic episode and so had decided to cut his insulin dose. His poor vision did not interfere with him taking his insulin, he stated, because he used insulin pens and could count pen clicks when dialing up his dose. Nevertheless, when asked by the nurse educator to dial up a dose of regular insulin, he was unable to distinguish the regular insulin from the NPH insulin pen. Screening by a geriatric nutrition educator revealed erratic meal times. Mr. Z. claimed that he had little appetite and sometimes even skipped meals rather than eat alone. The geriatric nutrition educator also identified that Mr. Z. tended to overtreat perceived hypoglycemia. The geriatric nurse practitioner identified that Mr. Z. was quite isolated socially. His only regular social contact was with his son, who visited him on weekends. Based on Mr. Z's assessment, 10 treatment issues were identified:
The first seven of these issues are not elderly specific and are commonly diagnosed among younger adults with diabetes. The latter three are only common among the elderly and are often not diagnosed as treatment issues unless geriatric-specific screening is performed. Cognitive impairment (issue 8) is a geriatric syndrome that interferes with the ability of patients to manage their diabetes. Social isolation contributes to depression and poor dietary intake and in these ways also interferes with diabetes management. Weight loss, which would be welcomed and indeed encouraged in younger over-weight adults with diabetes, is a negative prognostic indicator in the elderly; unintentional weight loss in the elderly has been found to be associated with increased morbidity and mortality.13 Great caution must be exercised, therefore, when prescribing weight loss for the elderly. After consulting with Mr. Z. regarding his treatment goals and preferences, a treatment plan was formulated that included the following components:
When Mr. Z. returned to the clinic several months later, his quality of life and mood had improved. He had had almost no hypoglycemic episodes, and he no longer worried about low blood glucose levels. He had more social contact, reporting that he ate his mid-day meal at a local senior center 3 or 4 days during the week. His diabetes medication regimen was significantly simpler to follow. His diabetes self-management also improved. He was able to perform home blood glucose monitoring independently. His meal times were more consistent, and he rarely skipped meals. His A1C measured 7.8%, 1.4 percentage points lower than at his initial clinic visit. For a younger person, the recommended A1C goal is < 7%. For older adults, the A1C goal depends on age, life expectancy, presence of diabetes complications, and presence of comorbidities. Although Mr. Z. is a relatively healthy older adult with diabetes, some factors (e.g., living alone, impaired vision, history of severe hypoglycemia, and history of irregular meals) put him at risk for injurious falls. For this reason, the geriatric diabetes team decided not to make changes in his diabetes medication regimen. A 3-month follow-up visit was scheduled to reassess his A1C and functional status.
Summary and Conclusion The most important first step in providing appropriate care for these patients is to ensure that an adequate initial assessment is provided for them. This assessment should take into account the special needs of this population and evaluate cognitive and physical issues as well as general diabetes concerns. Then, and only then, will this patient population be well served.
Emmy Suhl, MS, RD, LD, CDE, is a dietitian and diabetes educator, and Patricia Bonsignore, MS, RN, CDE, is manager for Clinical and Education Programs at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, Mass.
2 Von Korff M,
Gruman J, Schaefer J, Curry SJ, Wagner EH: Collaborative management of chronic
illness. Ann Intern Med 127: 1097
1102, 1997 3 Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart AL: Chronic disease self management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care 39 : 12171223, 2001[Medline] 4 Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL: Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization. Med Care 37: 5 14, 1999[Medline] 5 Niccoluci A, Cavaliere D, Scorpiglione N, Carinici F, Capani F, Tognoni G, Benedetti MM: A comprehensive assessment of the avoidability of long-term complications of diabetes: a case-control study. Diabetes Care 19 : 927933, 1996[Abstract] 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National diabetes fact sheet (article online). Available from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2005.pdf 7 American Association of Diabetes Educators: Special considerations for the education and
management of older adults with diabetes. Diabetes
Educ 26: 37
39, 2000 8 Brown AF, Mangione CM, Saliba D, Sarkisian CA: Guidelines for improving the care of the older person with diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc 51 : S265S280, 2003[Medline] 9 Gill TM: Geriatric medicine: it's more than caring for old people. Am J Med 113: 85 90, 2002[Medline] 10 Miller CK, Edwards L, Kissling G, Sanville L: Evaluation of a theory-based nutrition intervention for older adults with diabetes mellitus. J Am Diet Assoc 102: 1069 1074, 10791081, 2002[Medline] 11 Miller CK, Edwards L, Kissling G, Sanville L: Nutrition education improves metabolic outcomes among older adults with diabetes mellitus: results from a randomized control trial. Prevent Med 34: 252 259, 2002[Medline] 12 Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ: Mini nutritional assessment: a practical assessment tool for grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Facts Res Gerontol 4 (Suppl. 2): 15 59, 1994 13 Newman AB, Yanez D, Harris T, Duxbury A, Enright PL, Fried LP: Weight change in old age and its association with mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc 49 : 13091318, 2001[Medline] 14 Veehof LJG,
Stewart RE, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Meyboom-de Jong B: The development of
polypharmacy: a longitudinal study. Fam Pract 17
: 261267, 2000 15 Chelliah A, Burge MR: Hypoglycemia in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus: causes and strategies for prevention. Drugs Aging 21 : 511530, 2004[Medline] 16 Good CB:
Polypharmacy in elderly patients with diabetes. Diabetes
Spectrum 15: 240
248, 2002 17 Gregg EW, Yaffe K,
Cauley JA, Rolka DB, Blackwell TL, Narayan KMV, Cummings SR: Is diabetes
associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive decline among older women?
Arch Intern Med 160: 174
180, 2000 18 Kanaya AM, Barrett-Connor E, Gildengorin G, Yaffe K: Change in cognitive function by glucose tolerance status in older adults: a 4-year prospective study of the Rancho Bernardo Study Cohort. Arch Intern Med 28 : 13271333, 2004 19 Arvanitakis Z,
Smith Wilson R, Li Y, Aggarwal, NT, Bennett DA: Diabetes and function in
different cognitive systems in older individuals without dementia.
Diabetes Care 29: 560
565, 2006 20 Munshi M, Grande
L, Hayes M, Ayres D, Suhl E, Capelson R, Lin S, Milberg W, Weinger K:
Cognitive dysfunction is associated with poor diabetes control in older
adults. Diabetes Care 29: 1794
1799, 2006 21 Asimakopoulou K,
Hampson SE: Cognitive functioning and self-management in older people with
diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum 15: 116
121, 2002 22 Thibault JM, Steiner RW: Efficient identification of adults with depression and dementia. Am Fam Phys 70: 1101 1110, 2004[Medline] 23 Anderson RJ,
Kneeland KE, Clouse RE, Lustman PJ: The prevalence of comorbid depression in
adults with diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 24
: 10691078, 2001 24 Finkelstein EA,
Bray JW, Chen H, Larson MJ, Miller K, Tompkins C, Keme A, Manderscheid R:
Prevalence and costs of major depression among elderly claimants with
diabetes. Diabetes Care 26: 415
420, 2003 25 Egede L: Diabetes,
major depression, and functional disability among U.S. adults.
Diabetes Care 27: 421
428, 2004 26 McKellar JD,
Humphreys K, Piette JD: Depression increases diabetes symptoms by complicating
patients' self-care adherence. Diabetes Educ 30
: 485492, 2004 27 Gregg EW, Beckles
GLA, Williamson DF, Leveille SG, Langlois JA, Engelgau MM, Narayan KMV:
Diabetes and physical disability among older U.S. adults. Diabetes
Care 23: 1272
1277, 2000 28 Chau DC, Edelman
SV: Clinical management of diabetes in the elderly. Clin
Diabetes 19: 172
175, 2001 29 Zamitt NN, Frier
BM: Hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes: pathophysiology, frequency, and effects
of different treatment modalities. Diabetes Care 28
: 29482961, 2005 30 De Castro JM: How can eating behavior be regulated in the complex environments of free-living humans? Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20 : 119131, 1996[Medline] 31 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 33. Lancet 352 : 837853, 1998[Medline] 32 U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of
macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38.
BMJ 317: 703
713, 1998
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||