Literature DB >> 15230924

Quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands and the United States: a comparison of two quality improvement programs.

Gerlof D Valk1, Carry M Renders, Didi M W Kriegsman, Katherine M Newton, Jos W R Twisk, Jacques Th M van Eijk, Gerrit van der Wal, Edward H Wagner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in diabetes care and patient outcomes by comparing two multifaceted quality improvement programs in two different countries, and to increase knowledge of effective elements of such programs. STUDY
SETTING: Primary care in the ExtraMural Clinic (EMC) of the Department of General Practice of the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and the Group Health Cooperative (GHC), a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) in western Washington State in the United States. Data were collected from 1992 to 1997. STUDY
DESIGN: In this observational study two diabetes cohorts in which a quality improvement program was implemented were compared. Both programs included a medical record system, clinical practice guidelines, physician educational meetings, audit, and feedback. Only the Dutch program (EMC) included guidelines on the structure of diabetes care and a recall system. Only the GHC program included educational outreach visits, formation of multidisciplinary teams, and patient self-management support. DATA COLLECTION: Included were 379 EMC patients, and 2,119 GHC patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Main process outcomes were: annual number of diabetes visits, and number of HbA1c and blood lipid measurements. Main patient outcomes were HbA1c and blood lipid levels. Multilevel analysis was used to adjust for dependency between repeated observations within one patient and for clustering of patients within general practices. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: In the EMC process outcomes and glycemic control improved more than at GHC, however, GHC had better baseline measures. There were no differences between programs on blood lipid control. During follow-up, intensification of pharmacotherapy was noted at both sites. Differences noted between programs were in line with differences in diabetes guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of guidelines and organizational improvement efforts, change occurred primarily in the process outcomes, rather than in the patient outcomes. Although much effort was put into improving process and patient outcomes, both complex programs still showed only moderate effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15230924      PMCID: PMC1361034          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00254.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  10 in total

1.  Metabolic control and morbidity of type 2 diabetic patients in a general practice network.

Authors:  M Bouma; J H Dekker; J T van Eijk; F G Schellevis; D M Kriegsman; R J Heine
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 2.  Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings.

Authors:  C M Renders; G D Valk; S Griffin; E H Wagner; J T Eijk; W J Assendelft
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2001

3.  National standard setting for quality of care in general practice: attitudes of general practitioners and response to a set of standards.

Authors:  R Grol
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Long-term effectiveness of a quality improvement program for patients with type 2 diabetes in general practice.

Authors:  C M Renders; G D Valk; L V Franse; F G Schellevis; J T van Eijk; G van der Wal
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Management of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in Europe: a concensus view.

Authors:  K G Alberti; F A Gries
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 4.359

6.  Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.

Authors:  R C Turner; C A Cull; V Frighi; R R Holman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  A population-based approach to diabetes management in a primary care setting: early results and lessons learned.

Authors:  D K McCulloch; M J Price; M Hindmarsh; E H Wagner
Journal:  Eff Clin Pract       Date:  1998 Aug-Sep

Review 8.  A review of diabetes care initiatives in primary care settings.

Authors:  J Wood
Journal:  Health Trends       Date:  1990

9.  Population-based assessment of the level of care among adults with diabetes in the U.S.

Authors:  G L Beckles; M M Engelgau; K M Narayan; W H Herman; R E Aubert; D F Williamson
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Variation in office-based quality. A claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with diabetes.

Authors:  J P Weiner; S T Parente; D W Garnick; J Fowles; A G Lawthers; R H Palmer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-05-17       Impact factor: 56.272

  10 in total
  9 in total

1.  Impact of a provincial quality-improvement program on primary health care in Ontario: a population-based controlled before-and-after study.

Authors:  Michael E Green; Stewart B Harris; Susan Webster-Bogaert; Han Han; Jyoti Kotecha; Alexander Kopp; Minnie M Ho; Richard V Birtwhistle; Richard H Glazier
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2017-04-06

Review 2.  The effect of feedback to general practitioners on quality of care for people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Trine Lignell Guldberg; Torsten Lauritzen; Jette Kolding Kristensen; Peter Vedsted
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Do characteristics of practices and general practitioners influence the yield of diabetes screening in primary care? The ADDITION Netherlands study.

Authors:  Paul G H Janssen; Kees J Gorter; Ronald P Stolk; Guy E H M Rutten
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

4.  Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control.

Authors:  N Hassan Sadek; A-R Sadek; A Tahir; K Khunti; T Desombre; S de Lusignan
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Quality of diabetes care at Armed Forces Hospital, Southern Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2006.

Authors:  Ibrahim S Al-Arfaj
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  2010-09

6.  Study rationale and design of OPTIMISE, a randomised controlled trial on the effect of benchmarking on quality of care in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Frank Nobels; Noëmi Debacker; Carlos Brotons; Moses Elisaf; Michel P Hermans; Georges Michel; Erik Muls
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 9.951

Review 7.  Can health promotion model constructs predict nutritional behavior among diabetic patients?

Authors:  Siamak Mohebi; Ghlamreza Sharifirad; Avat Feizi; Saeedeh Botlani; Mohammad Hozori; Leila Azadbakht
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  The dynamics of the general practitioner-nephrologist collaboration for the management of patients with chronic kidney disease before and after dialysis initiation: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Maxime Raffray; Cécile Vigneau; Cécile Couchoud; Laetitia Laude; Arnaud Campéon; François-Xavier Schweyer; Sahar Bayat
Journal:  Ther Adv Chronic Dis       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.970

9.  Care for patients with type 2 diabetes in a random sample of community family practices in ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Gina Agarwal; Janusz Kaczorowski; Steve Hanna
Journal:  Int J Family Med       Date:  2012-07-18
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.