Suppr超能文献

糖尿病中级护理诊所(ICCD)的临床及成本效益评估:一项多中心整群随机对照试验

Evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Wilson Andrew, O'Hare Joseph Paul, Hardy Ainsley, Raymond Neil, Szczepura Ala, Crossman Ric, Baines Darrin, Khunti Kamlesh, Kumar Sudhesh, Saravanan Ponnusamy

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.

Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; WISDEM centre, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2014 Apr 15;9(4):e93964. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093964. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Configuring high quality care for the rapidly increasing number of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major challenge worldwide for both providers and commissioners. In the UK, about two thirds of people with T2D are managed entirely in primary care, with wide variation in management strategies and achievement of targets. Pay for performance, introduced in 2004, initially resulted in improvements but disparities exist in ethnic minorities and the improvements are levelling off. Community based, intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCDs) were considered one solution and are functioning across the UK. However, there is no randomised trial evidence for the effectiveness of such clinics.

TRIAL DESIGN, METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a cluster-randomised trial, involving 3 primary care trusts, with 49 general practices randomised to usual care (n=25) or intervention (ICCDs; n=24). All eligible adult patients with T2D were invited; 1997 were recruited and 1280 followed-up after 18-months intervention.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

achievement of all three of the NICE targets [(HbA1c ≤ 7.0%/53 mmol/mol; Blood Pressure <140/80 mmHg; cholesterol <154 mg/dl (4 mmol/l)]. PRIMARY OUTCOME was achieved in 14.3% in the intervention arm vs. 9.3% in the control arm (p=0.059 after adjustment for covariates). The odds ratio (95% CI) for achieving primary outcome in the intervention group was 1.56 (0.98, 2.49). Primary care and community clinic costs were significantly higher in the intervention group, but there were no significant differences in hospital costs or overall healthcare costs. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of +£7,778 per QALY gained, indicated ICCD was marginally more expensive at producing health gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate care clinics can contribute to improving target achievement in patients with diabetes. Further work is needed to investigate the optimal scale and organisational structure of ICCD services and whether, over time, their role may change as skill levels in primary care increase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00945204; National Research Register (NRR) M0014178167.

摘要

背景

为数量迅速增长的2型糖尿病(T2D)患者提供高质量护理,对全球范围内的医疗服务提供者和医保机构来说都是一项重大挑战。在英国,约三分之二的T2D患者完全由初级医疗保健机构管理,管理策略和目标达成情况差异很大。2004年引入的按绩效付费制度,最初带来了改善,但少数族裔仍存在差异,且改善趋势趋于平稳。基于社区的糖尿病中间护理诊所(ICCD)被视为一种解决方案,目前在英国各地都在运作。然而,尚无随机试验证据证明此类诊所的有效性。

试验设计、方法与结果:这是一项整群随机试验,涉及3个初级医疗保健信托机构,49家普通诊所被随机分为常规护理组(n = 25)或干预组(ICCD组;n = 24)。所有符合条件的成年T2D患者均被邀请参与;共招募了1997名患者,在18个月的干预后,1280名患者接受了随访。

主要结局

实现英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)的所有三个目标[糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)≤7.0%/53 mmol/mol;血压<140/80 mmHg;胆固醇<154 mg/dl(4 mmol/l)]。干预组中有14.3%的患者实现了主要结局,而对照组为9.3%(在对协变量进行调整后,p = 0.059)。干预组实现主要结局的比值比(95%置信区间)为1.56(0.98,2.49)。干预组的初级医疗保健和社区诊所成本显著更高,但住院成本或总体医疗保健成本没有显著差异。每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比(ICER)为+7778英镑,表明ICCD在产生健康效益方面略为昂贵。

结论

中间护理诊所有助于提高糖尿病患者的目标达成率。需要进一步开展工作,以研究ICCD服务的最佳规模和组织结构,以及随着时间推移,其作用是否会随着初级医疗保健技能水平的提高而发生变化。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00945204;国家研究注册库(NRR)M0014178167。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/227c/3988031/a630f761aaf3/pone.0093964.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验