Using Indirect Measures to Identify Geographic Hot Spots of Poor Glycemic Control: Cross-sectional Comparisons With an A1C Registry.

OBJECTIVEFocusing health interventions in places with suboptimal glycemic control can help direct resources to neighborhoods with poor diabetes-related outcomes, but finding these areas can be difficult. Our objective was to use indirect measures versus a gold standard, population-based A1C registry to identify areas of poor glycemic control.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSCensus tracts in New York City (NYC) were characterized by race, ethnicity, income, poverty, education, diabetes-related emergency visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and proportion of adults with diabetes having poor glycemic control, based on A1C >9.0% (75 mmol/mol). Hot spot analyses were then performed, using the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic for all measures. We then calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of using the indirect measures to identify hot spots of poor glycemic control found using the NYC A1C Registry data.RESULTSUsing A1C Registry data, we identified hot spots in 42.8% of 2,085 NYC census tracts analyzed. Hot spots of diabetes-specific inpatient hospitalizations, diabetes-specific emergency visits, and age-adjusted diabetes prevalence estimated from emergency department data, respectively, had 88.9%, 89.6%, and 89.5% accuracy for identifying the same hot spots of poor glycemic control found using A1C Registry data. No other indirect measure tested had accuracy >80% except for the proportion of minority residents, which had 86.2% accuracy.CONCLUSIONSCompared with demographic and socioeconomic factors, health care utilization measures more accurately identified hot spots of poor glycemic control. In places without a population-based A1C registry, mapping diabetes-specific health care utilization may provide actionable evidence for targeting health interventions in areas with the highest burden of uncontrolled diabetes.