Diabetes and the quality and outcomes framework.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kenny C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1283263 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Diabetes and the quality and outcomes framework.
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20051101 7525
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSocial risks (e.g., food/transportation insecurity) can hamper type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-management, leading to poor outcomes. To determine the extent to which high-quality care can overcome social risks' health impacts, this study assessed the associations between reported social risks, receipt of guideline-based T2DM care, and T2DM outcomes when care is up to date among community health center patients.MethodsA cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥18 years (N=73,484) seen at 186 community health centers, with T2DM and ≥1 year of observation between July 2016 and February 2020. Measures of T2DM care included up-to-date HbA1c, microalbuminuria, low-density lipoprotein screening, and foot examination, and active statin prescription when indicated. Measures of T2DM outcomes among patients with up-to-date care included blood pressure, HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein control on or within 6‒12 months of an index encounter. Analyses were conducted in 2021.ResultsIndividuals reporting transportation or housing insecurity were less likely to have up-to-date low-density lipoprotein screening; no other associations were seen between social risks and clinical care quality. Among individuals with up-to-date care, food insecurity was associated with lower adjusted rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 75%, p<0.001), and transportation insecurity was associated with lower rates of controlled HbA1c (79% vs 74%, p=0.005), blood pressure (74% vs 72%, p=0.025), and low-density lipoprotein (61% vs 57%, p=0.009) than among those with no reported need.ConclusionsCommunity health center patients received similar care regardless of the presence of social risks. However, even among those up to date on care, social risks were associated with worse T2DM control. Future research should identify strategies for improving HbA1c control for individuals with social risks.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov NCT03607617.
| S-EPMC10286629 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10233616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLandmark clinical trials have led to optimal treatment recommendations for patients with diabetes. Whether optimal treatment is actually delivered in practice is even more important than the efficacy of the drugs tested in trials. To this end, treatment quality indicators have been developed and tested against intermediate outcomes. No studies have tested whether these treatment quality indicators also predict hard patient outcomes.MethodsA cohort study was conducted using data collected from >10.000 diabetes patients in the Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Treatment (GIANTT) database and Dutch Hospital Data register. Included quality indicators measured glucose-, lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status and treatment intensification. Hard patient outcome was the composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death. Associations were tested using Cox regression adjusting for confounding, reporting hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsLipid and albuminuria treatment status, but not blood pressure lowering treatment status, were associated with the composite outcome (HR?=?0.77, 0.67-0.88; HR?=?0.75, 0.59-0.94). Glucose lowering treatment status was associated with the composite outcome only in patients with an elevated HbA1c level (HR?=?0.72, 0.56-0.93). Treatment intensification with glucose-lowering but not with lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering drugs was associated with the outcome (HR?=?0.73, 0.60-0.89).ConclusionTreatment quality indicators measuring lipid- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status are valid quality measures, since they predict a lower risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes. The quality indicators for glucose-lowering treatment should only be used for restricted populations with elevated HbA1c levels. Intriguingly, the tested indicators for blood pressure-lowering treatment did not predict patient outcomes. These results question whether all treatment indicators are valid measures to judge quality of health care and its economics.
| S-EPMC3813585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the effect of withdrawing incentives on recorded quality of care, in the context of the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay for performance scheme.DesignRetrospective longitudinal study.SettingData for 644 general practices, from 2004/05 to 2011/12, extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.ParticipantsAll patients registered with any of the practices over the study period-13,772,992 in total.InterventionRemoval of financial incentives for aspects of care for patients with asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and psychosis.Main outcome measuresPerformance on eight clinical quality indicators withdrawn from a national incentive scheme: influenza immunisation (asthma) and lithium treatment monitoring (psychosis), removed in April 2006; blood pressure monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke), cholesterol concentration monitoring (coronary heart disease, diabetes), and blood glucose monitoring (diabetes), removed in April 2011. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to quantify the effect of incentive withdrawal.ResultsMean levels of performance were generally stable after the removal of the incentives, in both the short and long term. For the two indicators removed in April 2006, levels in 2011/12 were very close to 2005/06 levels, although a small but statistically significant drop was estimated for influenza immunisation. For five of the six indicators withdrawn from April 2011, no significant effect on performance was seen following removal and differences between predicted and observed scores were small. Performance on related outcome indicators retained in the scheme (such as blood pressure control) was generally unaffected.ConclusionsFollowing the removal of incentives, levels of performance across a range of clinical activities generally remained stable. This indicates that health benefits from incentive schemes can potentially be increased by periodically replacing existing indicators with new indicators relating to alternative aspects of care. However, all aspects of care investigated remained indirectly or partly incentivised in other indicators, and further work is needed to assess the generalisability of the findings when incentives are fully withdrawn.
| S-EPMC3903315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine to what extent underlying data published as part of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) can be used to estimate smoking prevalence within practice populations and local areas and to explore the usefulness of these estimates.DesignCross-sectional, observational study of QOF smoking data. Smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions was estimated by simple manipulation of QOF indicator data. Agreement between estimates from the integrated household survey (IHS) and aggregated QOF-based estimates was calculated. The impact of including smoking estimates in negative binomial regression models of counts of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths was assessed.SettingPrimary care in the East Midlands.ParticipantsAll general practices in the area of study were eligible for inclusion (230). 14 practices were excluded due to incomplete QOF data for the period of study (2006/2007-2012/2013). One practice was excluded as it served a restricted practice list.MeasurementsEstimates of smoking prevalence in general practice populations and among patients with chronic conditions.ResultsMedian smoking prevalence in the practice populations for 2012/2013 was 19.2% (range 5.8-43.0%). There was good agreement (mean difference: 0.39%; 95% limits of agreement (-3.77, 4.55)) between IHS estimates for local authority districts and aggregated QOF register estimates. Smoking prevalence estimates in those with chronic conditions were lower than for the general population (mean difference -3.05%), but strongly correlated (Rp=0.74, p<0.0001). An important positive association between premature CHD mortality and smoking prevalence was shown when smoking prevalence was added to other population and service characteristics.ConclusionsPublished QOF data allow useful estimation of smoking prevalence within practice populations and in those with chronic conditions; the latter estimates may sometimes be useful in place of the former. It may also provide useful estimates of smoking prevalence in local areas by aggregating practice based data.
| S-EPMC4120299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the 2004 UK General Medical Services (GMS) contract links up to 20% of practice income to performance measured against 146 quality indicators.AimTo examine the distribution of workload and payment in the clinical domains of the QOF, and to compare payment based on true prevalence to the implemented system applying an adjusted prevalence factor. We aimed also to assess the performance of the implemented payment system against its three stated objectives: to reduce variation in payment compared to a system based on true prevalence, to fairly link reward to workload, and finally, to help tackle health inequalities.Design of studyRetrospective analysis of publicly available QOF data.SettingNine hundred and three GMS general practices in Scotland.MethodComparison of payment under the implemented Adjusted Disease Prevalence Factor, and under an alternative True Disease Prevalence Factor.ResultsVariation in total clinical QOF payment per 1000 patients registered is significantly reduced compared to a payment system based on true prevalence. Payment is poorly related to workload in terms of the number of patients on the disease register, with up to 44 fold variation in payment per patient on the disease register for practices delivering the same quality of care. Practices serving deprived populations are systematically penalized under the implemented payment system, compared to one based on true prevalence.ConclusionsThe implemented adjustment for prevalence succeeds in its aim of reducing variation in practice income, but at the cost of making the relationship between workload and reward highly inequitable and perpetuating the inverse care law.
| S-EPMC1927091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although national measures of the quality of diabetes care delivery demonstrate improvement, progress has been slow. In 2008, the Minnesota legislature endorsed the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) as the preferred model for primary care redesign. In this work, we investigate the effect of PCMH-related clinic redesign and resources on diabetes outcomes from 2008 to 2012 among Minnesota clinics certified as PCMHs by 2011 by using a Bayesian framework for a continuous difference-in-differences model. Data from the Physician Practice Connections-Research Survey were used to assess a clinic's maturity in primary care transformation, and diabetes outcomes were obtained from the MN Community Measurement (MNCM) program. These data have several characteristics that must be carefully considered from a modeling perspective, including the inability to match patients over time, the potential for dynamic confounding, and the hierarchical structure of clinics. An ad-hoc analysis suggests a significant correlation between PCMH-related clinic redesign and resources on diabetes outcomes; however, this effect is not detected after properly accounting for different sources of variability and confounding. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
| S-EPMC6703166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the U.S., where the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions, many patients with this disease are treated by primary care physicians in community-based systems, including accountable care organisations (ACOs). To address gaps in the quality of diabetes care, national quality measures have been established, including patient-centered measures adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for its Shared Savings Program for ACOs. From a patient-centered perspective, high-quality diabetes care depends on effective communication between clinicians and patients, along with patient education and counseling about medications and lifestyle. We designed and implemented a quality improvement (QI) program for 30 primary care physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes in three structurally similar but geographically diverse ACOs. Retrospective chart audits were conducted before (n = 300) and after (n = 300) each physician participated in accredited continuing medical education (CME) courses that focused on QI strategies. Randomly selected charts were audited to measurably assess essential interventions for improved outcomes in type 2 diabetes including the physicians' documentation of patient counseling and assessment of side effects, and patients' medication adherence status and changes in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and body mass index (BMI). Paced educational interventions included a private performance improvement Internet live course conducted for each physician, small-group Internet live courses involving peer discussion, and a set of enduring materials, which were also multi-accredited for all clinicians in the physician's practice. Continual improvement cycles were guided by analysis of the baseline chart audits, quantitative survey data, and qualitative feedback offered by participants. To extend the benefit of the education, the enduring materials were offered to the interprofessional team of clinicians throughout the U.S. who did not participate in the QI program. For brevity, this article presents outcomes of the 30 primary care physicians. Baseline to post-education improvements were observed for percentages of charts with documented assessment of medication side effects (+11%) and counseling about medication risks/benefits (+28%), medication adherence (+13%), and lifestyle modifications (+8%). Improvements were also observed for documented adherence to diabetes medications (+24%) and first-to-last visit changes in A1C (-0.16%) and BMI (-2.1). The findings indicate a positive influence of QI education on primary care physicians' performance of patient-centered quality measures and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC4693094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the relationship between performance on the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance scheme and choice of clinical computer system.DesignRetrospective longitudinal study.SettingData for 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, extracted from the clinical computer systems of general practices in England.ParticipantsAll English practices participating in the pay-for-performance scheme: average 8257 each year, covering over 99% of the English population registered with a general practice.Main outcome measuresLevels of achievement on 62 quality-of-care indicators, measured as: reported achievement (levels of care after excluding inappropriate patients); population achievement (levels of care for all patients with the relevant condition) and percentage of available quality points attained. Multilevel mixed effects multiple linear regression models were used to identify population, practice and clinical computing system predictors of achievement.ResultsSeven clinical computer systems were consistently active in the study period, collectively holding approximately 99% of the market share. Of all population and practice characteristics assessed, choice of clinical computing system was the strongest predictor of performance across all three outcome measures. Differences between systems were greatest for intermediate outcomes indicators (eg, control of cholesterol levels).ConclusionsUnder the UK's pay-for-performance scheme, differences in practice performance were associated with the choice of clinical computing system. This raises the question of whether particular system characteristics facilitate higher quality of care, better data recording or both. Inconsistencies across systems need to be understood and addressed, and researchers need to be cautious when generalising findings from samples of providers using a single computing system.
| S-EPMC3733310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEating disorders (EDs) are complex psychiatric illnesses requiring multidisciplinary care across both mental and medical healthcare settings. Currently, no nationally comprehensive, consistent, agreed on or mandated data set or data collection strategy exists for EDs in Australia: thus, little is known about the outcomes of care nor treatment pathways taken by individuals with EDs. InsideOut Institute was contracted by the Australian Government Department of Health to develop a minimum dataset (MDS) for the illness group with consideration given to data capture mechanisms and the scoping of a national registry.DesignA four-step modified Delphi methodology was used, including national consultations followed by three rounds of quantitative feedback by an expert panel.SettingDue to social distancing protocols throughout the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the study was conducted online using video conferencing (Zoom and Microsoft Teams) (Step 1), email communication and the REDCap secure web-based survey platform (Steps 2-4).Participants14 data management organisations, 5 state and territory government departments of health, 2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advising organisations and 28 stakeholders representing public and private health sectors across Australia participated in consultations. 123 ED experts (including lived experience) participated in the first quantitative round of the Delphi survey. Retention was high, with 80% of experts continuing to the second round and 73% to the third.Main outcome measuresItems and categories endorsed by the expert panel (defined a priori as >85% rating an item or category 'very important' or 'imperative').ResultsHigh consensus across dataset items and categories led to the stratification of an identified MDS. Medical status and quality of life were rated the most important outcomes to collect in an MDS. Other items meeting high levels of consensus included anxiety disorders, depression and suicidality; type of treatment being received; body mass index and recent weight change.ConclusionsUnderstanding presentation to and outcomes from ED treatment is vital to drive improvements in healthcare delivery. A nationally agreed MDS has been defined to facilitate this understanding and support improvements.
| S-EPMC10124290 | biostudies-literature