Christy Macdonald1, Helen Lunt2,3, Michelle Downie4, Deborah Kendall3. 1. 1 Department of General Medicine, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand. 3. 3 Diabetes Centre, Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand. 4. 4 Department of Endocrinology, Southland Hospital, Invercargill, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many governments and insurers are driving down the cost of medical devices, including glucose meters, by the central management of purchasing decisions. We report patients' responses to an "enforced" change in brand of glucose meter, one year after the introduction of a national sole supplier arrangement for funded glucose meters and strips. METHOD: Specialist diabetes clinic attendees from two geographical locations completed a questionnaire one year after the final meter changeover date. In the first location, consecutive patients were asked to complete a glucose meter satisfaction questionnaire during their clinic visit. In the second location, this questionnaire was mailed to clinic attendees. Responses to open questions were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Response rates were 85% and 31% from the first and second locations, respectively and 378 questionnaires were suitable for analysis, 309 from the first and 69 from the second location. Insulin users composed 90% of participants. Results from the two locations were broadly similar. Most participants adapted well to the changeover, however 36% reported ongoing dissatisfaction with their "new" meter. The commonest concern, expressed by 23% of participants, related to meter accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS: One year after glucose meter changeover, a third of participants expressed dissatisfaction with their meter, with many participants describing a failure to adapt to the sole supplier arrangement. Providing a choice of meters and strips, ideally from two or more brands that have demonstrable differences in technical and ergonomic features, is likely to produce higher overall patient satisfaction than is a sole supplier arrangement.
BACKGROUND: Many governments and insurers are driving down the cost of medical devices, including glucose meters, by the central management of purchasing decisions. We report patients' responses to an "enforced" change in brand of glucose meter, one year after the introduction of a national sole supplier arrangement for funded glucose meters and strips. METHOD: Specialist diabetes clinic attendees from two geographical locations completed a questionnaire one year after the final meter changeover date. In the first location, consecutive patients were asked to complete a glucose meter satisfaction questionnaire during their clinic visit. In the second location, this questionnaire was mailed to clinic attendees. Responses to open questions were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Response rates were 85% and 31% from the first and second locations, respectively and 378 questionnaires were suitable for analysis, 309 from the first and 69 from the second location. Insulin users composed 90% of participants. Results from the two locations were broadly similar. Most participants adapted well to the changeover, however 36% reported ongoing dissatisfaction with their "new" meter. The commonest concern, expressed by 23% of participants, related to meter accuracy and precision. CONCLUSIONS: One year after glucose meter changeover, a third of participants expressed dissatisfaction with their meter, with many participants describing a failure to adapt to the sole supplier arrangement. Providing a choice of meters and strips, ideally from two or more brands that have demonstrable differences in technical and ergonomic features, is likely to produce higher overall patient satisfaction than is a sole supplier arrangement.
Entities:
Keywords:
blood glucose self-monitoring; diabetes mellitus; health care economics and organizations; human factors and ergonomics; medical devices; patient satisfaction
Authors: Harmony Thompson; Huan Chan; Florence J Logan; Helen F Heenan; Lynne Taylor; Chris Murray; Christopher M Florkowski; Christopher M A Frampton; Helen Lunt Journal: N Z Med J Date: 2013-11-22
Authors: Grace Wing Shan Kong; Wing Hung Tam; Michael Ho Ming Chan; Wing Yee So; Christopher Wai Kei Lam; Ivy Po Chu Yiu; Kit Man Loo; Chi Yin Li Journal: Gynecol Obstet Invest Date: 2010-01-21 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Leonor Varela-Lema; Alberto Ruano-Ravina; Teresa Cerdá Mota; Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta; Inaki Imaz; Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea; Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro; Enrique Soto-Pedre; Laura Sampietro-Colom Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Gary A Puckrein; Gail Nunlee-Bland; Farhad Zangeneh; Jaime A Davidson; Robert A Vigersky; Liou Xu; Christopher G Parkin; David G Marrero Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 19.112