BACKGROUND: The new diabetes protocol, formulated in Belgium as a consensus between the National Institution of Health Insurance and diabetologists, implicitly assumes the care of type 1 diabetic patients to be more efficient at the specialist level (SP) in hospital, although GPs frequently are involved in diabetes care. OBJECTIVES: A study was carried out in order to highlight differences in diabetes care between three different treatment settings (SP alone, combined SP-GP and GP alone) METHODS: Out of a group of known diabetics, 325 patients were selected according to a stratified cluster sampling technique, in such a way that the three types of diabetes (formerly called type 1, type 2a and type 2b) occurred sufficiently in the three above-defined treatment settings. Outcome data on co-morbidity and diabetes health profile as well as output data on laboratory results were collected for each patient and compared between the different subgroups. RESULTS: On the basis of a response rate of 47.9%, equally distributed over the different levels, we demonstrated that GPs and SPs score equally low on the different measures and that a better follow-up is indicated in all settings. CONCLUSION: Diabetes care in Flanders can be upgraded significantly. There is no evidence that specialists are performing better. Therefore, one could argue for better follow-up of diabetes care in a primary health care setting.
BACKGROUND: The new diabetes protocol, formulated in Belgium as a consensus between the National Institution of Health Insurance and diabetologists, implicitly assumes the care of type 1 diabeticpatients to be more efficient at the specialist level (SP) in hospital, although GPs frequently are involved in diabetes care. OBJECTIVES: A study was carried out in order to highlight differences in diabetes care between three different treatment settings (SP alone, combined SP-GP and GP alone) METHODS: Out of a group of known diabetics, 325 patients were selected according to a stratified cluster sampling technique, in such a way that the three types of diabetes (formerly called type 1, type 2a and type 2b) occurred sufficiently in the three above-defined treatment settings. Outcome data on co-morbidity and diabetes health profile as well as output data on laboratory results were collected for each patient and compared between the different subgroups. RESULTS: On the basis of a response rate of 47.9%, equally distributed over the different levels, we demonstrated that GPs and SPs score equally low on the different measures and that a better follow-up is indicated in all settings. CONCLUSION:Diabetes care in Flanders can be upgraded significantly. There is no evidence that specialists are performing better. Therefore, one could argue for better follow-up of diabetes care in a primary health care setting.