F Riordan1, S M McHugh2, Clodagh O'Donovan3, Mavis N Mtshede2, P M Kearney2. 1. School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland. fiona.riordan@ucc.ie. 2. School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland. 3. School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence-based guidelines, high-quality diabetes care is not always achieved. Identifying factors associated with the quality of management in primary care may inform service improvements, facilitating the tailoring of quality improvement interventions to practice needs and resources. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 1990 to March 2019. Eligible studies were cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials (baseline data) conducted among adults with diabetes, which examined the relationship between any physician and/or practice factors and any objective measure(s) of quality. Studies which examined patient factors only were ineligible. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 82 studies were included. The range of individual quality measures and the construction of composite measures varied considerably. Female physicians compared with males ((odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10), 8 studies), physicians with higher diabetes volume compared with lower volume (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.47, 4 studies) and practices with Electronic Health Records (EHR) versus practices without (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.84, 4 studies) were associated with a higher quality of care. There was no association between physician experience, practice location and type of practice and quality. Based on the narrative synthesis, increasing physician age and higher practice socio-economic deprivation may be associated with lower quality of care. DISCUSSION: Identification of physician- and practice-level factors associated with the quality of care (female gender, younger age, physician-level diabetes volume, practice deprivation and EHR use) may explain differences across practices and physicians, provide potential targets for quality improvement interventions and indicate which practices need specific supports to deliver improvements in diabetes care.
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence-based guidelines, high-quality diabetes care is not always achieved. Identifying factors associated with the quality of management in primary care may inform service improvements, facilitating the tailoring of quality improvement interventions to practice needs and resources. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 1990 to March 2019. Eligible studies were cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials (baseline data) conducted among adults with diabetes, which examined the relationship between any physician and/or practice factors and any objective measure(s) of quality. Studies which examined patient factors only were ineligible. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 82 studies were included. The range of individual quality measures and the construction of composite measures varied considerably. Female physicians compared with males ((odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10), 8 studies), physicians with higher diabetes volume compared with lower volume (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.47, 4 studies) and practices with Electronic Health Records (EHR) versus practices without (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.84, 4 studies) were associated with a higher quality of care. There was no association between physician experience, practice location and type of practice and quality. Based on the narrative synthesis, increasing physician age and higher practice socio-economic deprivation may be associated with lower quality of care. DISCUSSION: Identification of physician- and practice-level factors associated with the quality of care (female gender, younger age, physician-level diabetes volume, practice deprivation and EHR use) may explain differences across practices and physicians, provide potential targets for quality improvement interventions and indicate which practices need specific supports to deliver improvements in diabetes care.
Authors: Heiner K Berthold; Kurt P Bestehorn; Christina Jannowitz; Wilhelm Krone; Ioanna Gouni-Berthold Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: James S Goodwin; Habeeb Salameh; Jie Zhou; Siddhartha Singh; Yong-Fang Kuo; Ann B Nattinger Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Carlos K H Wong; Colman S C Fung; Kenny Kung; Eric Y F Wan; Esther Y T Yu; Anca K C Chan; Cindy L K Lam Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Bruce E Landon; John Z Ayanian; Catherine Borbas; Robert Wolf; Edward Guadagnoli Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Mark W Friedberg; Kathryn L Coltin; Dana Gelb Safran; Marguerite Dresser; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric C Schneider Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tarek F Radwan; Yvette Agyako; Alireza Ettefaghian; Tahira Kamran; Omar Din; Mohammad Aumran Tahir; Peter Schofield; Veline L'Esperance Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-02
Authors: Claudia Boettcher; Sascha R Tittel; Thomas Meissner; Bettina Gohlke; Rainer Stachow; Axel Dost; Sybille Wunderlich; Iris Lowak; Stefanie Lanzinger Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2021-12
Authors: Ian R Cooper; Cameron Lindsay; Keaton Fraser; Tiffany T Hill; Andrew Siu; Sarah Fletcher; Jan Klimas; Michee-Ana Hamilton; Amanda D Frazer; Elka Humphrys; Kira Koepke; Lindsay Hedden; Morgan Price; Rita K McCracken Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-22
Authors: Juraj Jug; Ivančica Peček; Stela Bukvić; Marija Petrovčić; Filip Bosnić; Ana Rukavina; Stanislava Stojanović Špehar Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 2.567