Gorter Kees, van Bruggen Rykel, Stolk Ronald, Zuithoff Peter, Verhoeven Rob, Rutten Guy
Department of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Br J Gen Pract. 2008 May;58(550):339-45. doi: 10.3399/bjgp08X280209.
In diabetes care, knowledge about what is achievable in primary and secondary care is important. There is a need for an objective method to assess the quality of care in different settings. A quality-of-care summary score has been developed based on process and outcome measures. An adapted version of this score was used to evaluate diabetes management in different settings.
To evaluate the quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care in a defined geographic region in the Netherlands, using a quality score.
Cross-sectional study.
Thirty general practices in the Netherlands.
A study of 2042 patients with type 2 diabetes (1640 primary care and 402 secondary care) was conducted. Quality of diabetes management was assessed by a score of process and outcome indicators (range 0-40). Clustering at practice level and differences in patient characteristics (case mix) were taken into account.
At the outpatient clinic, patients were younger (mean age 64.1 years, standard deviation (SD)=12.5 years, versus mean age 67.1 years, SD=11.7, P<0.001), had more diabetes-related complications (macrovascular: 39.7% versus 24.3%, P<0.001; and microvascular: 25.9% versus 7.3%, P<0.001), and lower quality-of-life scores (EuroQol-5D: mean=0.60, SD=0.29, versus mean=0.80, SD=0.21, P<0.001). After adjusting for case mix and clustering, there was a weak association between the setting of treatment and haemoglobin A1c (primary care: mean 7.1%, SD=1.1, versus secondary care: mean 7.6%, SD=1.2, P<0.016), and between setting and systolic blood pressure (primary: mean 145.7 mmHg, SD=19.2, versus secondary care: 147.77 mmHg, SD 21.0, P<0.035). Quality-of-care summary scores in primary and secondary care differed significantly, with a higher score in primary care (mean 19.6, SD=8.5 versus, mean 18.1, SD=8.7, P<0.01). However, after adjusting for case mix and clustering, this difference lost significance.
GPs and internists are treating different categories of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, overall quality of diabetes management in primary and secondary care is equal. There is much room for improvement. Future guidelines may differentiate between different categories of patients.
在糖尿病护理中,了解初级和二级护理中可实现的目标非常重要。需要一种客观的方法来评估不同环境下的护理质量。基于过程和结果指标开发了一种护理质量汇总评分。该评分的一个改编版本用于评估不同环境下的糖尿病管理。
使用质量评分评估荷兰一个特定地理区域内初级和二级护理中糖尿病管理的质量。
横断面研究。
荷兰的30家普通诊所。
对2042例2型糖尿病患者(1640例初级护理患者和402例二级护理患者)进行了研究。通过过程和结果指标评分(范围为0 - 40)评估糖尿病管理质量。考虑了诊所层面的聚类以及患者特征(病例组合)的差异。
在门诊,患者更年轻(平均年龄64.1岁,标准差(SD)=12.5岁,而平均年龄67.1岁,SD =11.7,P<0.001),有更多与糖尿病相关的并发症(大血管并发症:39.7%对24.3%,P<0.001;微血管并发症:25.9%对7.3%,P<0.001),且生活质量评分更低(欧洲五维健康量表:平均值=0.60,SD =0.29,而平均值=0.80,SD =0.21,P<0.001)。在调整病例组合和聚类后,治疗环境与糖化血红蛋白之间存在微弱关联(初级护理:平均值7.1%,SD =1.1,而二级护理:平均值7.6%,SD =1.2,P<0.016),治疗环境与收缩压之间也存在微弱关联(初级护理:平均值145.7 mmHg,SD =19.2,而二级护理:147.77 mmHg,SD 21.0,P<0.035)。初级和二级护理中的护理质量汇总评分存在显著差异,初级护理中的评分更高(平均值19.6,SD =8.5,而平均值18.1,SD =8.7,P<0.01)。然而,在调整病例组合和聚类后,这种差异失去了显著性。
全科医生和内科医生治疗的2型糖尿病患者类别不同。然而,初级和二级护理中糖尿病管理的总体质量是相同的。仍有很大的改进空间。未来的指南可能会对不同类别的患者进行区分。