Background: Nationally, 34.2 million people of all ages have diabetes: a total of 1.5 million new cases a year. A lack of diabetic knowledge among the clinical staff can cause a disadvantage in treating and assessing Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Clinics that are not performing regular inservice diabetes education with the Medical Assistants (MAs) can significantly impact preventative care measurement and maintenance care. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Framework: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) guided this project in practice. The PDSA model for EBP helped promote quality care and reinforced the framework and theories of this project. This model focused on processes and outcomes. The clinic utilized evidence-based findings on diabetic care and management to improve and sustain a continuous diabetic inservice training model. The PDSA multi-step model was the best model for this project because it identified the issues, research solutions and implemented a change in the process. Elements of the PDSA Model are to “identify a problem, determine a plan, form a team, and gather evidence. The Kurt Lewin Change Theory provided this project’s framework for this project to determine that change was needed for best clinical practice for inservice T2DM teaching. Methods: This was an evidence-based quality improvement project. By utilizing post-test surveys, the project manager effectively assessed learning and rated the effectiveness of diabetic education. The project intended to increase diabetic knowledge and confidence among the clinical staff through the utilization of the Diabetes Initiative Tool (DIT) surveys. The project aimed at concluding a pre-test survey, training with a DIT training presentation, post-test survey, and a final examination. Three medical assistants (MAs) received health coaching/education. The primary outcome was a change in confidence and diabetic knowledge, measured by the pre- and post-test surveys from the DIT. Findings/Results: Educational awareness and the need for continued inservice increased by 75%. The confidence level increased from 73.10% to 94.95%. This was done through documentation after the intervention in the post-survey. The number of staff knowledge and education of diabetes increased by a mean difference of 21 percent points. The MAs confidence level was measured by comparing the DIT survey results before and after the training session. Conclusion/Recommendations: To assess and educate patients with diabetes, providers must incorporate the entire clinical team, including MAs, with the information needed to treat and evaluate patients with diabetes mellitus. The two themes that supported this scholarly project were diabetic education and clinical staff confidence. The final recommendation is for the clinical staff to understand the potential risk associated with diabetes and provide the MAs with primary diabetic education to promote diabetic care and treatment.
