OBJECTIVE: To study relationship between institutional process indicators (measured using electronic records) and intermediate outcomes of patients with diabetes. METHOD: Cross-sectional epidemiological study. Setting Primary care health district 1. Madrid. 2010. PATIENTS: all patients with diabetes; n = 16.652. Main measures variables. Independent. Institutional process indicators. Dependent. Intermediate outcomes: GHb, BP, LDL, tobacco and weight within target limits and detected complications. Confounding. Age, gender, type and years for DM, co-morbidity, drugs and professional variables. RESULTS: GHb of 55.9% (SE 0,4) of patients was within target limits. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression showed that the recording of some process indicators was associated with an increase in the probability to achieve targets in intermediate outcomes: reviewing personal and family history, lifestyle and drug therapy, creatinine, GHb, BP and weight measurement, smoking advice, EKG, ankle-arm index, and eye examination. OR were from 1,15 (CI 95%: 1.01-1.32) to 2.05 (CI 95%: 1.76-2.39). Relationship among other indicators and higher probability to achieve targets was not found: classification, reviewing care plan, glucose, BMI, LDL and microalbuminury measurement. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetes, a lot of institutional process indicators measured on electronic records was associated with increase of probability to achieve targets in intermediate outcomes. It suggests to maintain process and outcome measurement, to include other outcomes, to include other interventions, to prioritize improvements in process indicators that show low performance and high impact and to keep out or to change process indicators that relationship was not found.
OBJECTIVE: To study relationship between institutional process indicators (measured using electronic records) and intermediate outcomes of patients with diabetes. METHOD: Cross-sectional epidemiological study. Setting Primary care health district 1. Madrid. 2010. PATIENTS: all patients with diabetes; n = 16.652. Main measures variables. Independent. Institutional process indicators. Dependent. Intermediate outcomes: GHb, BP, LDL, tobacco and weight within target limits and detected complications. Confounding. Age, gender, type and years for DM, co-morbidity, drugs and professional variables. RESULTS:GHb of 55.9% (SE 0,4) of patients was within target limits. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression showed that the recording of some process indicators was associated with an increase in the probability to achieve targets in intermediate outcomes: reviewing personal and family history, lifestyle and drug therapy, creatinine, GHb, BP and weight measurement, smoking advice, EKG, ankle-arm index, and eye examination. OR were from 1,15 (CI 95%: 1.01-1.32) to 2.05 (CI 95%: 1.76-2.39). Relationship among other indicators and higher probability to achieve targets was not found: classification, reviewing care plan, glucose, BMI, LDL and microalbuminury measurement. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetes, a lot of institutional process indicators measured on electronic records was associated with increase of probability to achieve targets in intermediate outcomes. It suggests to maintain process and outcome measurement, to include other outcomes, to include other interventions, to prioritize improvements in process indicators that show low performance and high impact and to keep out or to change process indicators that relationship was not found.