Medical Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 May 1;31(4):246-251. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy151.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if changes in overtreatment rates were associated with changes in undertreatment rates. DESIGN: Pre-test/post-test study used cross-sectional administrative data from calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2016. SETTING: The Veterans Health Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diabetes at risk for hypoglycemia (n = 171 875 and 166 703 in 2013 and 2016, respectively). INTERVENTION: Observational study of extant initiatives to reduce overtreatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overtreatment rate of diabetes defined at the proportion of patients in the group at high risk for hypoglycemia with A1c < 7.0%. Undertreatment defined as A1C > 9%. RESULTS: There was marked variation in overtreatment rates; for A1c < 7%, overtreatment rates ranged from 26.4% to 58.2% and 26.2% to 49.2% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±standard deviation (SD)) facility-level overtreatment rates fell from 40.3 (±5.3)% in 2013 to 37.75 (±4.70)% in 2016 (P < 0.001, paired t-test). Facility undertreatment rates ranged from 5.8% to 16.9% and 6.8% to 18.7% at the facility level in 2013 and 2016, respectively. The mean (±SD) undertreatment rate rose from 10.3 (±2.2)% in 2013 to 11.0 (±2.4)% in 2016 (P ≤ 0.001, paired t-test). However, change at individual facilities ranged from a decrease of 4.6% to an increase of 7.2%. Within year correlations were stronger than between year correlations. Overtreatment defined as A1c < 7 in this population inversely correlated strongly with undertreatment (r = -0.653, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Promotion of overtreatment reduction may be associated with an increase in undertreatment in patients with diabetes. Unintended consequence should be considered when implementing and evaluating quality measures and systems should include balancing measures to identify potential unintended harms.
目的:确定过度治疗率的变化是否与治疗不足率的变化相关。
设计:使用 2013 年和 2016 年的横断行政数据进行预测试/后测试研究。
地点:退伍军人健康管理局。
参与者:有低血糖风险的糖尿病患者(2013 年 n = 171875,2016 年 n = 166703)。
干预措施:观察性研究现有减少过度治疗的举措。
主要观察指标:糖尿病过度治疗率定义为高风险低血糖患者中糖化血红蛋白(A1c)<7.0%的患者比例。治疗不足定义为 A1C>9%。
结果:过度治疗率存在显著差异;2013 年和 2016 年,A1c<7%时,设施水平的过度治疗率分别为 26.4%至 58.2%和 26.2%至 49.2%。2013 年设施水平平均(±标准偏差(SD))过度治疗率为 40.3(±5.3)%,2016 年降至 37.75(±4.70)%(P<0.001,配对 t 检验)。2013 年和 2016 年,设施水平的治疗不足率分别为 5.8%至 16.9%和 6.8%至 18.7%。2013 年平均(±SD)治疗不足率从 10.3(±2.2)%升至 2016 年的 11.0(±2.4)%(P≤0.001,配对 t 检验)。然而,个别设施的变化范围从下降 4.6%到增加 7.2%。年内相关性强于年际相关性。在该人群中,A1c<7 的过度治疗与治疗不足呈强烈负相关(r=-0.653,P<0.001)。
结论:促进过度治疗的减少可能与糖尿病患者的治疗不足增加有关。在实施和评估质量措施时应考虑到意外后果,系统应包括平衡措施,以识别潜在的意外危害。
JAMA Intern Med. 2014-2-1
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020-4
Int J Clin Pract. 2021-11
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022-7
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022-5-23