Module 6

Introduction

Diabetes self-management education (DSME) has been clinically proven to one of the important elements that can be used to foster recommended health care for individuals suffering from diabetes. The reason for that is because DSME is a continuous process meant to facilitate the skills, ability, and knowledge required for diabetes self-care and other associated activities that enable diabetic patients to implement and sustain behaviors required to manage their conditions (Fitzpatrick & Kazer, 2012). Therefore, the essence of this essay is to analyze basic DSME monitoring tools for compliance plans.

Section A: DSME monitoring tools

a) American Association for Diabetes Education (AADA) compliance standards checklist

The modern standard evidence for DSME assists in indentifying the importance of providing person-centered health care services that embraces the technological engagement systems and platforms. All these standards are intended to the quality of DSME as well as assist the care providers to implement or employ evidence-based health care services to patients successfully. This then implies that it is important to ensure that DSME has been systematically integrated into the modern models or health care, including population health care programs, value-based reimbursement structures, health care institutions, virtual visits, and so on (Fitzpatrick & Kazer, 2012).

As one of the DSME compliance tools, AADE is a multi-disciplinary professional membership organization that is devoted towards improving diabetes health care through management, innovative training, and support. Its main vision entails empowering diabetes professionals or educators to have the potential of expanding their care dimensions.  In the act of using this tool, diabetes health care personnel will be supplied with necessary resources that are needed to support DSME programs. Such a program includes online application that enables the care provider to upload his or her supporting documents. Moreover, the diabetics education accreditation program (DEAP) has the possibility of supporting sites in conventional settings through expanding program options for diabetes health care experts (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2009). This is made possible through improving community support using pharmacies, physicians, and so on.

On the other hand, in order to meet all these requirements for each compliance plans, the vision and mission of AADE is intended to position diabetes education and care professionals for success in the modern rapidly changing environment. In so doing, it becomes possible to elevate their duties as integrators of DSME. Other than seeking an ongoing input from other stakeholders, it becomes possible for the DSME providers to be in the position of determining who to serve, the strategies to use in delivering diabetic training, and the resources to use to offer care support to the diabetic individuals or population (Guthrie et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, to comply with the AADE requirements, the program outreach to the stakeholders of the community and their output should be documented before it is availed for reviewing, periodically or annually. In so doing, it becomes possible for the diabetic training and care personnel to partially or fully integrate the pillars of its vision into their daily practice. It is this process that ensures that all these individuals have been positioned to work within their realms. Thus, the opportunities provided will ultimately enable diabetes education and care professionals to absorb new skills as well as broaden their duties. Reexamining and redefining their level of practice in return improves their credentialing and competencies (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2009).

Furthermore, ideally, AADE provides diabetic education and care professionals with streamlined and simplified application process that enables them to meet highest health care standards. For the new applicants, they are given a one-year free membership. To make application easier, AADE provides three main application sections that assist the diabetes care providers establish their DSME services as well as prepare for accreditation application. As a way of championing their conversation through partnerships with legislative decision-makers, provider and payer groups, it becomes possible to provide patients with improved health care (Guthrie et al., 2002). Since evidence is the foundation of modern science and health care practices, it in return makes diabetic educators to be an important member of the group.

b) American diabetes association (ADA) compliance standards checklist

The aim of ADA entail educating the general public about the dangers of diabetes as well as assisting diabetic patients through financing research to prevent, manage, and cure it. It should be understood that the standards recommended for diabetes care are not projected to prohibit clinical judgments. Because of that, its application ought to be based on the context of exceptional medical care, with adjustments for comorbidities, personal preferences, as well as other associated patient factors. Nonetheless, using these standards, it updates and improves the clinical care as well as ensures that policy-makers, health plans, and clinicians continue to depend on them to obtain current and authoritative procedures for diabetes management (Kinney, 2002). The interactive applications and tools provided by ADA acts as a guide for improving patient care.

On the other hand, the information contained in the ADA’S standards checklist improves the results of the diabetic population when they are appropriately applied. Despite that, it is evident that the evidences gathered aid in fostering accurate medical decision-making process. Since health care professionals ultimately care for the needs of each patient, guidelines should be interpreted as much as possible. Conversely, personal circumstances, for instance, education, age, patient preferences, and values, coexisting diseases and so on, ought to be taken into consideration because they might result to different therapeutic strategies (Guthrie et al., 2002). It is evident that there might be valuable evidences to support medical trials, the significance of realizing various risk control factors will optimize the validity of the data collected.

Seemingly, expert consensus checklist can also be developed whenever policy-makers, regulators, and clinicians require guidelines meant to clarify some of the modern scientific or medical issues associated with diabetics. In return, it makes the diabetes health care professionals to be more committed in advocating themselves within their health care systems. Accordingly, in the process of using ADA’s compliance standards checklist, clear and detailed clinical evidence from well-structured and randomized trials can be obtained from other multicenter trials (Kinney, 2002).

The significance of these standards contained in each checklist, will aid in reflecting modern practice and evidence guidelines that can in return aid in evaluating outcomes. Such a process will act as the foundation for providing diabetic self-management education (DSME). Individual participation is also essential in this case because it assists in determining the best strategies to be used in managing diabetes. Ideally, the evaluation processes to be undertaken will have the potential of enabling the health care personnel to categorize the needs of each patient before selecting suitable self-management strategies, behavioral and educational interventions. Support and education plan that will be developed by the instructor and the participants using these standards will be ultimately based on evidence-based techniques. It is also important to take into account the expectations, capabilities, and barriers of the participants. Although the primary responsibilities for the management of diabetes and education goes to the provider of DSME, diabetic patients benefit through obtaining support for behavioral goals from the members of the health care team (Guthrie et al., 2002). Finally, using these standards, it is the duty of the provider or providers of DSME to ensure that they have designated timeless for collecting, analyzing, and presenting the information collected.

Section B: Procedure for compliance with AADE standards

a) Reviewing AADE policies – the applicant takes his or her time to review AADE policies, application instructions, as well as other standards meant for DSME and support on the AADE website. This checklist acts as an interpretive guideline for determining whether everything the applicant wants is contained in it. Once AADE personnel have ascertained that the applicant is qualified, they allow him or her to submit online application form. After that, his or her application is review for clarity after making payment.

b) Reviewing application details by the AADE staff – the staff members review the applicant’s application details for completeness and in case anything might be missing, they will send him or her notification details. At this point, programs can be selected randomly using on-site audit or using telephone interviews so as to complete that process. In case of telephone interview, the staff members of AADE will review the application details for compliance with the AADE standards. Moreover, in case compliance is questionable, AADE staff might decide to plan for extra review by the top management authority (American & Umpierrez, 2014).

c) Dissemination of application approval e-mails – once program accreditation has been accepted or guaranteed, approval e-mails are received by the program coordinator on a weekly basis. After verification of the program details, a certificate is issued to the applicant. The program will then be included in a list of accredited diabetes self-management education (DSME) that can be found on the AADE website.

d) Responding to pending accreditation requirements – in case some of the accreditation requirements are not fulfilled, the AADE staff will take their time to discuss with the applicant about such an issue through telephone interview. In return, they will also send a list of those elements to the program coordinator through e-mail (Zazworsky et al., 2005).

References

Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Kazer, M. W. (2012). Encyclopedia of nursing research. New York, NY:

Springer Pub.

Guthrie, D. W., & Guthrie, R. A. (2009). Management of Diabetes Mellitus: A Guide to the

Pattern Approach. New York: Springer Pub. Co.

Guthrie, D. W., Guthrie, R. A., & Guthrie, D. W. (2002). Nursing management of diabetes

mellitus: A guide to the pattern approach. New York: Springer.

Kinney, E. D. A. (2002). Protecting American Health Care Consumers. North Carolina: Duke

University Press.

Guthrie, D. W., Guthrie, R. A., & Guthrie, D. W. (2002). Nursing management of diabetes

mellitus: A guide to the pattern approach. New York: Springer.

American, D. A., & Umpierrez, G. E. (2014). Therapy for diabetes mellitus and related

disorders. American Diabetes Association

Zazworsky, D., Bolin, J., & Gaubeca, V. B. (2005). Handbook of diabetes management. New.

York: Springer