BACKGROUND: In diabetes care, knowledge about what is achievable in primary and secondary care is important. There is a need for an objective method to assess the quality of care in different settings. A quality-of-care summary score has been developed based on process and outcome measures. An adapted version of this score was used to evaluate diabetes management in different settings. AIM: To evaluate the quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care in a defined geographic region in the Netherlands, using a quality score. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Thirty general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: A study of 2042 patients with type 2 diabetes (1640 primary care and 402 secondary care) was conducted. Quality of diabetes management was assessed by a score of process and outcome indicators (range 0-40). Clustering at practice level and differences in patient characteristics (case mix) were taken into account. RESULTS: At the outpatient clinic, patients were younger (mean age 64.1 years, standard deviation (SD)=12.5 years, versus mean age 67.1 years, SD=11.7, P<0.001), had more diabetes-related complications (macrovascular: 39.7% versus 24.3%, P<0.001; and microvascular: 25.9% versus 7.3%, P<0.001), and lower quality-of-life scores (EuroQol-5D: mean=0.60, SD=0.29, versus mean=0.80, SD=0.21, P<0.001). After adjusting for case mix and clustering, there was a weak association between the setting of treatment and haemoglobin A1c (primary care: mean 7.1%, SD=1.1, versus secondary care: mean 7.6%, SD=1.2, P<0.016), and between setting and systolic blood pressure (primary: mean 145.7 mmHg, SD=19.2, versus secondary care: 147.77 mmHg, SD 21.0, P<0.035). Quality-of-care summary scores in primary and secondary care differed significantly, with a higher score in primary care (mean 19.6, SD=8.5 versus, mean 18.1, SD=8.7, P<0.01). However, after adjusting for case mix and clustering, this difference lost significance. CONCLUSION: GPs and internists are treating different categories of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, overall quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care is equal. There is much room for improvement. Future guidelines may differentiate between different categories of patients.
BACKGROUND: In diabetes care, knowledge about what is achievable in primary and secondary care is important. There is a need for an objective method to assess the quality of care in different settings. A quality-of-care summary score has been developed based on process and outcome measures. An adapted version of this score was used to evaluate diabetes management in different settings. AIM: To evaluate the quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care in a defined geographic region in the Netherlands, using a quality score. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Thirty general practices in the Netherlands. METHOD: A study of 2042 patients with type 2 diabetes (1640 primary care and 402 secondary care) was conducted. Quality of diabetes management was assessed by a score of process and outcome indicators (range 0-40). Clustering at practice level and differences in patient characteristics (case mix) were taken into account. RESULTS: At the outpatient clinic, patients were younger (mean age 64.1 years, standard deviation (SD)=12.5 years, versus mean age 67.1 years, SD=11.7, P<0.001), had more diabetes-related complications (macrovascular: 39.7% versus 24.3%, P<0.001; and microvascular: 25.9% versus 7.3%, P<0.001), and lower quality-of-life scores (EuroQol-5D: mean=0.60, SD=0.29, versus mean=0.80, SD=0.21, P<0.001). After adjusting for case mix and clustering, there was a weak association between the setting of treatment and haemoglobin A1c (primary care: mean 7.1%, SD=1.1, versus secondary care: mean 7.6%, SD=1.2, P<0.016), and between setting and systolic blood pressure (primary: mean 145.7 mmHg, SD=19.2, versus secondary care: 147.77 mmHg, SD 21.0, P<0.035). Quality-of-care summary scores in primary and secondary care differed significantly, with a higher score in primary care (mean 19.6, SD=8.5 versus, mean 18.1, SD=8.7, P<0.01). However, after adjusting for case mix and clustering, this difference lost significance. CONCLUSION: GPs and internists are treating different categories of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, overall quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care is equal. There is much room for improvement. Future guidelines may differentiate between different categories of patients.
Authors: Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Richard Kahn; John Ninomiya; John L Griffith Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Giorgia De Berardis; Fabio Pellegrini; Monica Franciosi; Maurizio Belfiglio; Barbara Di Nardo; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Maria C E Rossi; Michele Sacco; Gianni Tognoni; Miriam Valentini; Antonio Nicolucci Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2006-07-24 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: W Ken Redekop; Marc A Koopmanschap; Ronald P Stolk; Guy E H M Rutten; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Louis W Niessen Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Giorgia De Berardis; Fabio Pellegrini; Monica Franciosi; Maurizio Belfiglio; Barbara Di Nardo; Sheldon Greenfield; Sherrie H Kaplan; Marie C E Rossi; Michele Sacco; Gianni Tognoni; Miriam Valentini; Antonio Nicolucci Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: R F Dijkstra; J C C Braspenning; Z Huijsmans; S Peters; E van Ballegooie; P ten Have; A F Casparie; R P T M Grol Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Carel F Schaars; Petra Denig; Willeke N Kasje; Roy E Stewart; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Tinh-Hai Collet; Sophie Salamin; Lukas Zimmerli; Eve A Kerr; Carole Clair; Michel Picard-Kossovsky; Eric Vittinghoff; Edouard Battegay; Jean-Michel Gaspoz; Jacques Cornuz; Nicolas Rodondi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christina M Gant; S Heleen Binnenmars; Else van den Berg; Stephan J L Bakker; Gerjan Navis; Gozewijn D Laverman Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 5.717