We assessed baseline knowledge of PCPs and diabetologists/endocrinologists (D/Es) and determine if an online continuing medical education (CME) could improve individualized treatment of patients with T2D. A 3-question knowledge and 1-question confidence linked pre-/post assessment study designed with McNemar’s chi-squared test (5% significance level P <.05) and Cramer’s V (<0.05 no effect; 0.06-0.15 small effect; 0.16-0.30 medium effect; >0.30 large effect) assessed educational effect. The activity launched December 19, 2017 and data collected through January 19, 2018. PCPs (N=585) demonstrated a lower baseline knowledge level compared to D/Es (N=118): • 29% of PCPs compared to 81% of D/Es correctly identified which basal insulin had a lower risk for hypoglycemia • 52% of PCPs compared to 75% of D/Es correctly identified the regimen needed to decrease the risk for hypoglycemia and maintain glucose control • 42% of PCPs compared to 62% of D/Es accurately distinguished between basal insulin and longer-acting basal insulin. Overall improvements were seen after participation in the CME activity for both PCPs (N=585, P<.0001, large effect V=0.343) and D/Es (N =118, P<.0001, medium effect V=0.290). • 48% of PCPS (P <.0001) and 15% of D/Es (P=.0008) improved related to risk of hypoglycemia with longer-acting basal insulin • 25% of PCPs (P<.0001) and 20% of D/Es (P=.0011) improved on selecting a regimen to minimize hypoglycemia risk • 40% of PCPs (P<.0001) and 35% of D/Es (P<.0001) improved related to differences in basal versus longer-acting basal insulin • 27% of PCPs and 15% of D/Es reported increased confidence in prescribing basal insulins for patients with T2D. This study demonstrates the success of CME online activity on improving clinical knowledge and confidence of PCPs and D/Es related to evidence-based use of basal insulin for T2D. PCPs especially would benefit from further education on differences between traditional and newer, longer-acting basal insulins.
A. Larkin: None. C.S. Healy: None. A. Le: None.