Giovanni Corrao1,2, Federico Rea1,2, Mirko Di Martino3, Adele Lallo3, Marina Davoli3, Rossana DlE PlALMA4, Laura Belotti4, Luca Merlino5, Paola Pisanti6, Lucia Lispi6, Edlira Skrami1,7, Flavia Carle1,7. 1. National Centre for Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Roma, Italy. 4. Authority for Healthcare and Welfare, Emilia Romagna Regional Health Service, Bologna, Italy. 5. Epidemiologic Observatory, Lombardy Regional Health Service, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Health Planning, Italian Health Ministry, Rome, Italy. 7. Center of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a set of indicators for quality of diabetes care through their relationship with measurable clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was carried out from 2010 to 2015. SETTING: Population-based study. Data were retrieved from healthcare utilization databases of three Italian regions (Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Lazio) on the whole covering 20 million citizens. PARTICIPANTS: The 77 285 individuals who were newly taken in care for diabetes during 2010 entered into the cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Exposure to selected clinical recommendations (i.e. periodic controls for glycated hemoglobin, lipid profile, urine albumin excretion, serum creatinine and dilated eye exams) was recorded. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: A composite outcome was employed taking into account hospitalizations for brief-term diabetes complications, uncontrolled diabetes, long-term vascular outcomes and no traumatic lower limb amputation. A multivariable proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratio, and 95% confidence intervals (CI), for the exposure-outcome association. RESULTS: Among the newly taken in care patients with diabetes, those who adhered to almost none (0 or 1), just some (2 or 3) or almost all (4 or 5) recommendations during the first year after diagnosis were 44%, 36% and 20%, respectively. Compared patients who adhered to almost none recommendation, significant risk reductions of 16% (95% CI, 6-24%) and 20% (7-28%) were observed for those who adhered to just some and almost all recommendations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tight control of patients with diabetes through regular clinical examinations must to be considered the cornerstone of national guidance, national audits and quality improvement incentives schemes.
OBJECTIVE: To validate a set of indicators for quality of diabetes care through their relationship with measurable clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was carried out from 2010 to 2015. SETTING: Population-based study. Data were retrieved from healthcare utilization databases of three Italian regions (Lombardy, Emilia Romagna and Lazio) on the whole covering 20 million citizens. PARTICIPANTS: The 77 285 individuals who were newly taken in care for diabetes during 2010 entered into the cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Exposure to selected clinical recommendations (i.e. periodic controls for glycated hemoglobin, lipid profile, urine albumin excretion, serum creatinine and dilated eye exams) was recorded. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: A composite outcome was employed taking into account hospitalizations for brief-term diabetes complications, uncontrolled diabetes, long-term vascular outcomes and no traumatic lower limb amputation. A multivariable proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratio, and 95% confidence intervals (CI), for the exposure-outcome association. RESULTS: Among the newly taken in care patients with diabetes, those who adhered to almost none (0 or 1), just some (2 or 3) or almost all (4 or 5) recommendations during the first year after diagnosis were 44%, 36% and 20%, respectively. Compared patients who adhered to almost none recommendation, significant risk reductions of 16% (95% CI, 6-24%) and 20% (7-28%) were observed for those who adhered to just some and almost all recommendations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tight control of patients with diabetes through regular clinical examinations must to be considered the cornerstone of national guidance, national audits and quality improvement incentives schemes.
Authors: Johannes Pöhlmann; Roberta Montagnoli; Giusi Lastoria; Witesh Parekh; Marie Markert; Barnaby Hunt Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: Davide Golinelli; Erik Boetto; Gherardo Carullo; Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese; Maria Paola Landini; Maria Pia Fantini Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Giovanni Corrao; Anna Cantarutti; Anna Locatelli; Gloria Porcu; Luca Merlino; Simona Carbone; Flavia Carle; Rinaldo Zanini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Wenjia Wei; Oliver Gruebner; Viktor von Wyl; Holger Dressel; Agne Ulyte; Beat Brüngger; Eva Blozik; Caroline Bähler; Julia Braun; Matthias Schwenkglenks Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-02