Hurwitz B, Goodman C, Yudkin J
Department of Medicine, University College School of Medicine, Whittington Hospital, London.
BMJ. 1993 Mar 6;306(6878):624-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6878.624.
To evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of centrally organised prompting for coordinating community care of non-insulin dependent diabetic patients.
Randomised single centre trial. Patients allocated to prompted care in the community or to continued attendance at hospital diabetic clinic (controls). Median follow up two years.
Two hospital outpatient clinics, 38 general practices, and 11 optometrists in the catchment area of a district general hospital in Islington.
181 patients attending hospital outpatient clinics.
There is no difference in process of medical care measures and medical outcome between prompted community care and hospital clinic care.
14 hospital patients failed to receive a single review in the clinic as compared with three patients in the prompted group (chi 2 = 6.1, df = 1; p = 0.013). Follow up for retinal screening was better in prompted patients than in controls; two prompted patients defaulted as against 12 controls (chi 2 = 6.9, df = 1; p = 0.008). Three measures per patient yearly were more frequent in prompted patients: tests for albuminuria (median 3.0 v 2.3; p = 0.03), plasma glucose estimations (3.1 v 2.5; p = 0.003), and glycated haemoglobin estimations (2.4 v 0.9; p < 0.001). Continuity of care was better in the prompted group (3.2 v 2.2 reviews by each doctor seen; p < 0.001). The study ended with no significant differences between the groups in last recorded random plasma glucose concentration, glycated haemoglobin value, numbers admitted to hospital for a diabetes related reason, and number of deaths. Questionnaires revealed a high level of patient, general practitioner, and optometrist satisfaction.
Six monthly prompting of non-insulin treated diabetic patients for care by inner city general practitioners and by optometrists is effective and acceptable.
评估集中组织的提示措施在协调非胰岛素依赖型糖尿病患者社区护理方面的有效性和可接受性。
随机单中心试验。将患者分为社区提示护理组或继续在医院糖尿病门诊就诊(对照组)。中位随访时间为两年。
伊斯灵顿区综合医院服务区域内的两家医院门诊、38家全科诊所和11位验光师。
181名到医院门诊就诊的患者。
提示社区护理和医院门诊护理在医疗护理措施过程和医疗结果方面无差异。
14名医院患者在门诊未接受任何一次复查,而提示组有3名患者(χ² = 6.1,自由度 = 1;p = 0.013)。提示组患者的视网膜筛查随访情况优于对照组;提示组有2名患者未参加,而对照组有12名(χ² = 6.9,自由度 = 1;p = 0.008)。提示组患者每年每人接受三项检查的频率更高:蛋白尿检测(中位数3.0对2.3;p = 0.03)、血糖测定(3.1对2.5;p = 0.003)和糖化血红蛋白测定(2.4对0.9;p < 0.001)。提示组的护理连续性更好(每位看过的医生进行的复查次数为3.2次对2.2次;p < 0.001)。研究结束时,两组在最后记录的随机血糖浓度、糖化血红蛋白值、因糖尿病相关原因住院的人数以及死亡人数方面无显著差异。问卷调查显示患者、全科医生和验光师的满意度较高。
由市中心的全科医生和验光师每六个月对非胰岛素治疗的糖尿病患者进行护理提示是有效且可接受的。