Introduction and Objective: Due to changes in MediCal reimbursement for technology, people with diabetes treated at a multi-site FQHC in a large urban area gained access to AID systems. Three NP certified diabetes care and education specialists, 3 health educators and one remote volunteer endocrinologist began using AID systems in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who chose to use them. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all people started on an AID system in the prior 2 years with ≥3 months of follow-up was performed. Data was analyzed using paired dependent t-tests. Results shown as mean (+/-SD). Visits occurred either in-clinic or remotely as needed by the person with diabetes. Results: Ninety-one adults with diabetes (58% type 1) were started on an AID system (59% Omnipod5, 27% iLet, 12% Tandem, 2% Medtronic). Mean age was 47.1 years (range 21-75), 56% were Hispanic, 31% were nonHispanic white. Sixty-three individuals had full follow up data available. The table shows the glucose data. TBR was low at baseline (1.6+/-2.2%) and was unchanged. Three emergency department visits occurred due to infusion site/pump issues. Conclusion: Automated insulin delivery systems can be safely and effectively used in a multi-site FQHC with a minimal amount of physician time and close follow-up by well trained NPs and health educators. Disclosure L.D. Scarlett: Advisory Panel; Ended; Novo Nordisk. S.P. Thiruvalluvan: None. C.E. Saba: None. R. Gonzalez: None. K.W. Jenne: None. P. Shinn: None. M.B. Davidson: None. A. Peters: Advisory Panel; Current; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Medscape. Research Support; Ended; Abbott Diabetes. Research Support; Current; Insulet Corporation, Zucara Therapeutics. Stock/Shareholder; Current; Omada Health, Inc.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scarlett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: