Kemple T J, Hayter S R
Horfield Health Centre, Bristol.
BMJ. 1991 Feb 23;302(6774):451-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6774.451.
To complete a first audit cycle of diabetes care in a general practice and to develop a simple method for continuing the audit cycle.
Retrospective examination of the medical records of all diabetic patients in a general practice in 1990.
A group general practice in a Bristol health centre with roughly 13,200 patients, which since 1983 had had a protocol for care of its diabetic patients.
223 known diabetic patients in the practice. MAIN AUDITED MEASURES: Comparison against previously agreed standards of process and outcome of diabetes care in the practice, including number of patients whose care had been reviewed in accordance with the practice protocol, serum fructosamine and blood glucose concentrations in patients aged under 70, and number of newly diagnosed patients given explicit education and referred for diatetic advice.
Defined standards were not met for several criteria--for example, percentages of patients aged below 70 (n = 149) with serum fructosamine concentrations less than 3.5 mmol/l (62% v 90% defined value) and less than 2.8 mmol/l (35% v 70%) and last recorded blood glucose concentrations less than 10 mmol/l in insulin dependent patients (n = 48) (23% v 90%) and less than 8 mmol/l in non-insulin dependent patients (n = 101) (17% v 90%). Of newly identified diabetic patients (n = 32), 59% and 28% respectively were referred to dietitians and given educational material compared with the 100% standard.
The practice has a high prevalence of diabetes (1.7%) but has the resources for their care. The format and implementation of the agreed systematic process of care for diabetic patients needs improvement.
A simple audit suitable for most general practices might record two measures of the process of care--a disease register of all diabetic patients in a practice and an attendance register to determine whether they have regular check ups--and one measure of the outcome of care, such as serum fructosamine concentration (or local equivalent). A practice could establish its own standards for these measures and monitor its performance against them.
在一家普通诊所完成糖尿病护理的首个审核周期,并开发一种延续审核周期的简单方法。
对1990年一家普通诊所所有糖尿病患者的病历进行回顾性检查。
布里斯托尔健康中心的一家团体普通诊所,约有13200名患者,自1983年起就有糖尿病患者护理方案。
该诊所223名已知糖尿病患者。主要审核指标:与该诊所先前商定的糖尿病护理过程和结果标准进行比较,包括根据诊所方案接受护理评估的患者数量、70岁以下患者的血清果糖胺和血糖浓度,以及接受明确教育并被转介接受饮食建议的新诊断患者数量。
几个标准未达既定要求,例如,70岁以下患者(n = 149)血清果糖胺浓度低于3.5 mmol/l(实际为62%,既定值为90%)和低于2.8 mmol/l(实际为35%,既定值为70%)的百分比,以及胰岛素依赖型患者(n = 48)最后记录的血糖浓度低于10 mmol/l(实际为23%,既定值为90%)和非胰岛素依赖型患者(n = 101)低于8 mmol/l(实际为17%,既定值为90%)的百分比。在新确诊的糖尿病患者(n = 32)中,分别有59%和28%被转介给营养师并获得教育材料,而标准为100%。
该诊所糖尿病患病率很高(1.7%),但具备护理资源。糖尿病患者商定的系统护理过程的形式和实施需要改进。
一种适用于大多数普通诊所的简单审核可能记录两项护理过程指标——诊所所有糖尿病患者的疾病登记册和用于确定他们是否定期体检的出勤登记册,以及一项护理结果指标,如血清果糖胺浓度(或当地等效指标)。诊所可以为这些指标制定自己的标准,并对照这些标准监测其表现。