BACKGROUND: Audit of diabetic care is becoming common in general practice. Most of this audit is concerned with structure and process; outcome audit is much more difficult to achieve. AIM: To determine whether the structure of general practice diabetic care influenced the process or outcome and whether efficiency of process predicted improved outcome. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey, by questionnaire and review of notes, among general practices in the East Dorset district, involving diabetic patients identified from general practitioner (GP) disease registers or from a hospital diabetic register. The main outcome measures were the proportion of process and outcome measurements, related to selected structure criteria and the proportion of outcome measurements, related to appropriate process measurements. All associations were tested using the practice as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: Practices with a detailed diabetic register showed a positive association with a higher proportion of some process, but no outcome, measurements compared to those practices without such a registrar. A high proportion of process measurements did not correlate with improved outcome. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the follow-up of diabetic patients in general practice by measurement of the structure or process of care does not allow the prediction of an improved outcome for those patients when summarized on a practice basis. There is no shortcut to the collection of data on outcome as a measure of the benefit of follow-up for diabetic patients.
BACKGROUND: Audit of diabetic care is becoming common in general practice. Most of this audit is concerned with structure and process; outcome audit is much more difficult to achieve. AIM: To determine whether the structure of general practice diabetic care influenced the process or outcome and whether efficiency of process predicted improved outcome. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey, by questionnaire and review of notes, among general practices in the East Dorset district, involving diabeticpatients identified from general practitioner (GP) disease registers or from a hospital diabetic register. The main outcome measures were the proportion of process and outcome measurements, related to selected structure criteria and the proportion of outcome measurements, related to appropriate process measurements. All associations were tested using the practice as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: Practices with a detailed diabetic register showed a positive association with a higher proportion of some process, but no outcome, measurements compared to those practices without such a registrar. A high proportion of process measurements did not correlate with improved outcome. CONCLUSION: Assessment of the follow-up of diabeticpatients in general practice by measurement of the structure or process of care does not allow the prediction of an improved outcome for those patients when summarized on a practice basis. There is no shortcut to the collection of data on outcome as a measure of the benefit of follow-up for diabeticpatients.