Improved care of type 2 diabetes patients as a result of the introduction of a practice nurse: 2003-2007.
ABSTRACT The main objective is to examine the effect of the introduction of a practice nurse (PN) on the quality of type 2 diabetes care.
Retrospective cohort study in 397 type 2 diabetes patients recruited from five general practices in the Netherlands. Measurements were performed in 2003, 2005 and 2007, to estimate the effects before (2003) and after the introduction of the PN (2005) as well as the changed diabetes guidelines (2007). Process measures indicated whether measurements of HbA(1c), systolic blood pressure, lipid profile, funduscopy, foot examination and annual check-ups were carried out. Outcome measures comprised actual levels of HbA(1c), systolic blood pressure, lipid levels and BMI.
All process measures - except performance of funduscopy - improved significantly. Mean HbA(1c) decreased from 6.8% to 6.5% (2003-2007: ns, 2005-2007: p<0.01), mean LDL-cholesterol from 3.2 to 2.7 mmol/L (p<0.0001) and mean total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio from 4.5 to 3.7 (p<0.0001). For systolic blood pressure, the number of patients reaching targets increased considerably in 2007. Analyses for both study populations at different time points as well as for patients present at all time points showed comparable results.
Delegating diabetes care to a PN leads to significant improvements in diabetes care. General practitioners should seriously consider close collaboration with PNs to delegate diabetes care tasks.
- SourceAvailable from: ncvhs.hhs.gov[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess both standard and novel diabetes quality measures in a national sample of U.S. academic medical centers. This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2002. It involved 30 U.S. academic medical centers, which contributed data from 44 clinics (27 primary care clinics and 17 diabetes/endocrinology clinics). For 1,765 eligible adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with at least two clinic visits in the 24 months before 10 January 2002, including one visit in the 6 months before 10 January 2002, we assessed measurement and control of HbA(1c), blood pressure, and cholesterol and corresponding medical regimen changes at the most recent clinic visit. In this ethnically and economically diverse cohort, annual testing rates were very high (97.4% for HbA(1c), 96.6% for blood pressure, and 87.6% for total cholesterol). Fewer patients were at HbA(1c) goal (34.0% <7.0%) or blood pressure goal (33.0% <130/80 mmHg) than lipid goals (65.1% total cholesterol <200 mg/dl, 46.1% with LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl). Only 10.0% of the cohort met recommended goals for all three risk factors. At the most recent clinic visit, 40.4% of patients with HbA(1c) concentrations above goal underwent adjustment of their corresponding regimens. Among untreated patients, few with elevated blood pressure (10.1% with blood pressure >130/80 mmHg) or elevated LDL cholesterol (5.6% with LDL >100 mg/dl) were started on corresponding therapy. Patients with type 2 diabetes were no less likely to be intensified than patients with type 1 diabetes. High rates of risk factor testing do not necessarily translate to effective metabolic control. Low rates of medication adjustment among patients with levels above goal suggest a specific and novel target for quality improvement measurement.Diabetes Care 03/2005; 28(2):337-442. · 7.74 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes is an important, chronic condition notorious for its costly and disabling complications. Nowadays, enhanced cooperation is expected to improve the quality of diabetes care and reduce risks for chronically ill patients. It is, however, questionable whether this assumption is evidence based. Using a structured literature search, we selected systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and other effect evaluations regarding the sharing and allocation of diabetes care. We selected 22 studies to include in this review. The process of care improved in all studies investigating this quality aspect. HbA1c improved in seven reviews and in five other studies. All included reviews and four RCTs were unable to demonstrate a positive effect on blood pressure. Total cholesterol improved in two reviews and five other studies. The sharing and allocation of diabetes care leads to significant reduction in HbA1c and improves the process of care. However, this improvement has not as yet led to better cardiovascular risk management. For a number of reasons, a truly accurate estimation of the results of shared and allocated diabetes care within the Dutch diabetes care system is not possible.Primary Care Diabetes 06/2007; 1(2):59-68. · 1.61 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diabetes and the number of people of all ages with diabetes for years 2000 and 2030. Data on diabetes prevalence by age and sex from a limited number of countries were extrapolated to all 191 World Health Organization member states and applied to United Nations' population estimates for 2000 and 2030. Urban and rural populations were considered separately for developing countries. The prevalence of diabetes for all age-groups worldwide was estimated to be 2.8% in 2000 and 4.4% in 2030. The total number of people with diabetes is projected to rise from 171 million in 2000 to 366 million in 2030. The prevalence of diabetes is higher in men than women, but there are more women with diabetes than men. The urban population in developing countries is projected to double between 2000 and 2030. The most important demographic change to diabetes prevalence across the world appears to be the increase in the proportion of people >65 years of age. These findings indicate that the "diabetes epidemic" will continue even if levels of obesity remain constant. Given the increasing prevalence of obesity, it is likely that these figures provide an underestimate of future diabetes prevalence.Diabetes Care 05/2004; 27(5):1047-53. · 7.74 Impact Factor