A J Howitt1, N A Cheales. 1. Tunbridge Wells Audit Group, Kent Medical Audit Advisory Group, Kent and Sussex Hospital, Tunbridge Wells.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compile a register of diabetic patients within the catchment area of a district general hospital and evaluate the characteristics of the population using aggregated data from a general practice audit. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. Practices identified all known diabetics and completed a questionnaire from information in each patient's medical record. SETTING: Practices affiliated to a district audit group in south east England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of participating practices; prevalence of diabetes and its complications; and sex distribution of patients, age at diagnosis and review, treatment, and metabolic control. Comparisons with similar data from other studies. RESULTS: 41 out of 43 practices participated, and 2574 diabetic patients were identified (prevalence 1.18%). 52.4% of patients were male. The mean age was 61.6 years. 32% of patients were treated with insulin, 51.5% with oral hypoglycaemic agents, 16.5% with diet alone. The mean random blood glucose concentration was 10.4 mmol/l and glycosylated haemoglobin 10.1%. 8% had proteinuria, 7% a history of myocardial infarction, 5% a history of stroke, and 2% a diabetes related amputation. These proportions were not significantly different from those found in studies performed by different methods in Poole, Islington, Powys, Trowbridge, and Southall. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to compile a register of diabetic patients in a district and evaluate their characteristics by using only general practice sources.
OBJECTIVES: To compile a register of diabeticpatients within the catchment area of a district general hospital and evaluate the characteristics of the population using aggregated data from a general practice audit. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. Practices identified all known diabetics and completed a questionnaire from information in each patient's medical record. SETTING: Practices affiliated to a district audit group in south east England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of participating practices; prevalence of diabetes and its complications; and sex distribution of patients, age at diagnosis and review, treatment, and metabolic control. Comparisons with similar data from other studies. RESULTS: 41 out of 43 practices participated, and 2574 diabeticpatients were identified (prevalence 1.18%). 52.4% of patients were male. The mean age was 61.6 years. 32% of patients were treated with insulin, 51.5% with oral hypoglycaemic agents, 16.5% with diet alone. The mean random blood glucose concentration was 10.4 mmol/l and glycosylated haemoglobin 10.1%. 8% had proteinuria, 7% a history of myocardial infarction, 5% a history of stroke, and 2% a diabetes related amputation. These proportions were not significantly different from those found in studies performed by different methods in Poole, Islington, Powys, Trowbridge, and Southall. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to compile a register of diabeticpatients in a district and evaluate their characteristics by using only general practice sources.
Authors: Murray Lough; Diane Kelly; Mike Taylor; David Snadden; Bill Patterson; Iain McNamara; Stuart Murray Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: D Dannenbaum; M Verronneau; J Torrie; H Smeja; E Robinson; C Dumont; I Kovitch; T Webster Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 3.275