| Literature DB >> 33431598 |
Alastair Watt1, Andrea Beacham2, Lynne Palmer-Mann2, Amy Williams2, Jacqueline White1, Rebecca Brown1, Ellena Williams1, Gayle Richards1, Lyndon White1, Pauline Budge1, Katy Darvall1, Ed Bond3, Richard Paisey4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Design of an integrated diabetes service based on needs of service users (persons living with diabetes) and community clinicians in a semirural low-income health district of the UK. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five service users engaged through public meetings, questionnaires and focus groups. General practice staff contributed views through workshops and questionnaires. Analysis of feedback indicated service user needs for better access to education, dietary advice and foot care. General practice staff endorsed these views and requested regular access to secondary care in the community. Seven hundred persons registered with diabetes attended eight well-being events in the community. From 2017 virtual practice multidisciplinary patient reviews, virtual referral of foot cases and non-face-to-face helplines were developed. A National Health Service (NHS) approved 'App' and web-based personalized education support for those recently diagnosed with diabetes was introduced.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes mellitus; diabetic; diabetic foot; diet; education; type 2
Year: 2021 PMID: 33431598 PMCID: PMC7802684 DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2020-001657
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care ISSN: 2052-4897
Figure 1Flow chart outlining development of integrated diabetes care in North Devon.
Figure 2Summative analysis of 163 responses to questionnaire about diabetes services.
Problems encountered, interventions and outcomes of integrated diabetes care
| Problems identified | Interventions | Actions | Outcomes 2018/2019 |
| Specialists could intervene sooner. Lack of coherent care and advice delivered locally | A multidisciplinary team of specialists delivered 17 annual GP practice support visits. | Diabetes therapies discussion of selected patients. | 176 reviews in general practice (see |
| Patients said there was a variation in care between practices | Practice process mapping. | Care plan rationalized and delivered through Ardens.* | 122 patient care plans revised 50/53 GPs described a benefit of the visit. |
| No audit of whole practice diabetes cohorts | Tabulation of glycemic control and therapy. | 6 monthly audits of treatment targets inaugurated. | Treatment intensified in 15 cases and relaxed in 36 example cases. |
| Delay in recognition of foot problem and referral | Appointment of three more community podiatrists. | Link podiatrist for each practice. FRAME† training for GP staff. | Decrease in minor lower extremity amputations from 26/10 000 to 18/10 000 |
| Accessibility and frequency of MDFT | MDFT strengthened. Referral pathway rationalized. Virtual clinic initiated. | 176 diabetic foot ulcers reviewed in virtual MDFT. | Decrease in major lower extremity amputations from 13/10 000 to 3/10 000, 2014/2017 to 2017/2020.‡ |
| Most patients unaware of local exercise or weight loss groups | Well-being events open to all persons in practice with diabetes. | 700 patients attended eight events. Access to multidisciplinary team and psychotherapy. | 44 excepted patients attended and engaged. |
| Dietetic appointments not always helpful, long waiting times | Service user facing dietetic helpline for advice. | Regular dietitian help line, Facebook page and website. | 3334 Facebook contacts in 2018/2019, 67 regular users/month. |
| Housebound, residential home diabetic persons not accessing care | Core of community nurses trained as link nurses. | QOF examinations and diabetic control advice delivered to hard-to-reach patients. | HbA1c and foot examination in 97% and 87%, respectively. |
| 5% uptake of diabetes structured group education in entire district | Telephone and text-based education commissioned for recently diagnosed persons with type 2 diabetes§ | 71% of referrals enrolled, 91% attended, 83% completed, 33% face to face. | Weight 99.4±25 and 95.5±24.2 kg, HbA1c 59.3±16 and 54.8±12.9 mmol/mol baseline to 3 m p=0.00003 and 0.003. |
| No uptake of diabetes structured group education in remote area | Low carbohydrate diet offered for new and established persons with diabetes.¶ | 42 of 162 on diabetic register reduced HbA1c to <48 mmol/mol on low carbohydrate diet over the past 3 years. | Weight 110.3±19 to 101.5±20 kg, HbA1c 52.9±7 to 45.3±3 mmol/mol baseline to 12 m p=0.00003 and 0.004. |
*Ardens a Toolkit for SystmOne & EMIS Web Users https://www.ardens.org.uk.35
†Diabetes Foot Risk Awareness and Management Education (FRAME).36
‡https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/diabetes.
§https://www.nhs.uk/apps-library/oviva/ and website https://oviva.com/uk/en/.
¶https://www.diabetes.co.uk/in-depth/david-unwin-low-carb-not-just-diabetes.
HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; QOF, quality outcome framework.
Outcomes of general practice virtual clinics 2018/2019
| General practice ID number* | DM number on register† | % excluded diabetes review‡ | Patients reviewed in visit to practice | Treatment optimal no change needed | Type 2 remission diet requested | Intense lifestyle advice advised | Insulin initiation | SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 | Monogenic diabetes diagnosed | Libre issued | Intractable/ terminal care the priority | Psych referral advised | Other medical specialty referral |
| 1 | 850 | 16 | 30 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | – | 3 | 7 |
| 2 | 190 | 8.6 | 9 | 3 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 2 | – | – |
| 3 | 950 | 11.5 | 11 | 2 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| 4 | 510 | 21.7 | 12 | 3 | – | 4 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – |
| 5 | 432 | 13.7 | 5 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| 6 | 1075 | 20.6 | 5 | – | – | 3 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | ||
| 7 | 590 | 13.4 | 18 | 7 | – | 2 | 4 | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 |
| 8 | 145 | 10.6 | 6 | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | |
| 9 | 1057 | 16.4 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | |
| 10 | 840 | 16.1 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 1 | – |
| 11 | 280 | 8.1 | 14 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | |
| 12 | 685 | 17.3 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 |
| 13 | 568 | 20 | 3 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | |
| 14 | 795 | 17.8 | 13 | 4 | – | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 15 | 295 | 17.4 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | 1 |
| 16 | 345 | 12.8 | 3 | 1 | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 17 | 420 | 16 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | – |
| 10 616 |
*Each practice was given a sequential number 1–17.
†DM number means number of people with diabetes on each general practice QOF register.
‡In the NHS in England community physicians (general practitioners) report annual reviews of patients with long-term conditions including diabetes. Patients may be excluded from this QOF for a variety of reasons.
GLP1, glucagon-like peptide-1; GP, general practitioner; NHS, National Health Service; QOF, quality outcomes framework; SGLT2, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor.
Figure 3Reasons for accessing diet help line referral.